Work as if you live in the early days of a

Better Nation

Archive for category Governance

Power from the people

Jul 26

Posted by Malc in Energy, Governance | 18 Comments

In the wake of the Japanese earthquake and the danger it posed to the Fukushima nuclear plant, most of Europe has been reconsidering its use of nuclear energy.  In addition to the European states who have never used nuclear power (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain, amongst others) Germany recently has decided to phase out nuclear power.  Poland is due to hold a referendum on the issue at some point soon while Silvio Berlusconi’s intention to re-introduce nuclear as part of Italy’s power supply was thwarted as Italians turned out to defeat the measure in a referendum.

While the previous UK government committed the UK to building new nuclear plants in 2006 but the Scottish Parliament – with a coalition of the SNP, Liberal Democrats and Greens – voted in January 2008 to use planning powers to block the building of nuclear power stations in Scotland, confirming what had been long-held policy positions for each of the parties as the policy of the Scottish Parliament.  While the new Scottish Parliament, given its SNP majority, is likely to maintain its anti-nuclear stance, the UK Government – as recently as October last year – set out plans to build new nuclear plants in the UK, and re-affirmed commitment that in March 2011, post-Japanese earthquake.

However, during discussions on the Calman Commission and contained within its interim report, there was some mention that the Scottish Parliament’s effective veto over new nuclear might be on the table, that the UK Government may be looking for ways of removing this as a means of securing the UK’s nuclear energy future.  Naturally this provoked a heated response from the then-minority SNP government, and the issue was dropped from the final report.

I mention all of the above as the prelude to a fairly radical idea: the Scottish Government should perhaps hold a referendum on the issue of nuclear power in Scotland.

Here’s why:

1)  This is a serious political issue, and one on which the public have a vested interest in deciding.  There are still massive issues with nuclear waste disposal and getting it right is something which extends beyond the 129 MSPs who represent the Scottish public.  It can also be spun as a moral issue – on the same level as divorce or abortion, both of which Ireland has held referendums on in the past.

2)  The Scottish Parliament has signalled its intention to block the building of nuclear sites in Scotland but that block is based only on planning regulations.  Holyrood does not have powers over energy policy, and if the UK Parliament deemed it necessary or prudent to build new nuclear in Scotland, it could over-rule the Scottish Parliament’s decision.  A referendum which showed public support for the Scottish Parliament’s position would give further legitimacy to Holyrood’s decision, a clear mandate from the people on this particular issue.

3)  The fact that energy remains a reserved issue would provide for some conflict with Westminster if it was perceived that the Scottish Parliament were seen to be interfering in an issue which is not within their purview.  However, Holyrood – like Westminster – isn’t bound by any public vote in a referendum.  The referendum, constitutionally speaking, can only be advisory.  If Holyrood were to hold a referendum on this issue it would provide a blueprint for how an independence referendum might be conceived.

4) Finally, such a referendum would bring together elected representatives and activists of all parties and none to support an idea which crossed party lines.  The experience of such a campaign – cross-party, in support of an issue which is bigger than each of their individual goals – would aid preparation for a future referendum… say on independence, where a similar cross-party effort would be required.

Of course, the latter point could (would) be regarded as clear constitutional game-playing – especially as playing politics with a serious political issues such as energy and nuclear power would (rightly) play poorly in public.  But for the first two points above, a referendum may be a good idea – it would provide the public with a say on a key issue which will determine our energy future, and (if the public were opposed to new nuclear) it would strengthen the Scottish Parliament’s hand when dealing with Westminster on the issue.

Anyway, its just an idea.  But it seems like a logical one, since its what has happened in other places.  An idea – like so many of mine – which is unlikely to go anywhere though.

More scrutiny needed?

Jun 24

Posted by Malc in Governance, Holyrood | 25 Comments

Commentators across the political spectrum have been lined up to criticise the way in which the anti-sectarianism bill was being rushed through Holyrood.  Even the SNP’s new chair of Holyrood’s Justice Committee, Christine Grahame, expressed her reservations about the speed and lack of scrutiny with which the bill was likely to progress through the Scottish Parliament.  But it perhaps took until Celtic and Rangers themselves urged a delay that the Scottish Government took on board their concerns and decided to slow down the legislation.

While this bill is – perhaps – an exceptional case, and the speed with which it was to move forward aimed to allow it to be in place prior to the start of the Scottish football season, there is a wider point to make regarding the scrutiny of bills in the Scottish Parliament.  And that point is – do they get the scrutiny they need?  Let’s put this in context.

At Westminster, the route for a bill to become a law is quite lengthy.  Starting with the House of Commons, it has a first (introduction) and second (debate) reading, followed by a committee stage (line by line consideration), a report stage (debate, amendments) and then a third reading (and vote on approval).  Then, the same process is repeated in the House of Lords.  Then, if there are amendments at that stage, the bill is returned to the House of Commons for approval before being sent for Royal Assent.

At Holyrood, the bill is introduced at Stage one and assigned to a committee which will take evidence from experts.  The Committee will then report before the Stage one debate for agreement on general principles of the bill.  Stage two sees the bill undergo line by line scrutiny in committee, where amendments may be added.  It is then returned to the full chamber for the stage three debate (again, with potential for amendments) and vote, after which point, if it is accepted, the bill will be sent for Royal Assent.

Spot the difference?

Westminster spends twice as long legislating as Holyrood does, since the process has to be repeated in the House of Lords (or the House of Commons for bills that originate in the upper house).  That’s to be expected.  But its easy to see why – they have the ability to do that.  Holyrood is a unicameral parliament with the committees primed to take on the role of scrutiny that a second chamber does elsewhere.  At least that was the intention in the Scotland Act.

The problem is – and it is underlined by the issues arising from the Anti-Sectarianism bill – that they don’t have the time to fully scrutinise legislation prior to its acceptance.  Indeed, this isn’t a new problem – legislation has been passed by previous Scottish Executives which could use some review because of things missed or particular interpretations which hadn’t been recognised at the time they were passed.

But time is just one consideration.  Experience is another.  While I’m very happy that some (many) of our MSPs have no background in law (it means that they aren’t all lawyers) they have such disparate backgrounds that many wouldn’t know the parliamentary procedure a bill goes through in order to become a law.  Perhaps that is overstating my case somewhat, but I think you get the point – we’ve elected parliamentarians from multiple different backgrounds with different experiences (and that’s a GOOD THING) but what we gain in the richness of representation we perhaps lose in legal knowledge.  And when it comes to legislation – and specifically, scrutiny of legislation – this may well be a problem.

So if that’s really a problem, that what is the solution?  It was put to me that any politician who puts their head above the parapet and calls for fifty more politicians in Scotland might not be a politician for much longer… but it is certainly something that we should give some thought to.  Perhaps not as an elected second chamber (you’d end up with issues of who represents whom, how it was elected etc etc) but as individuals appointed according to their position.  For example, maybe the Scottish Government’s Law Officers, some of Scotland’s Law Lords (I assume someone like Jim Wallace would fall into this category?), the leader of say the six largest Scottish Councils and perhaps some of our senior judges might be the types of people we’d look for to do a job of scrutiny on legislation.

Its only an idea – and, I imagine, most of the democrats on here will rage about the idea of appointed officials making laws.  Except that they wouldn’t be making the laws, simply scrutinising and suggesting room for improvements – the actual law-making would still be done by politicians.

By all means dispute my outcome – but consider the problem as well.  Do you think we need more scrutiny of legislation?  Or are you happy that the legislation we get from Holyrood is as good as it could be?

By the way, I’m not writing this because we have an SNP majority – as I mentioned above, this system was wrong before the SNP entered majority government.  I’m just trying to think of ways we can make better laws in Scotland – and that’s surely something the SNP, and their activists, want too.

The New Scottish Government?

May 9

Posted by Malc in Governance, Holyrood | 45 Comments

As ever at Better Nation, we like to be ahead of the curve.  (What do you mean we never lead and always follow?!  What do you mean our predictions were ridiculously poor for the election?!!  Show us someone who had an SNP majority!)

Anyway, maybe we’re jumping the gun a little (especially since there’s no PO in place yet) but we’ve started casting our thoughts to the personnel who might make up Scotland’s first single-party majority Cabinet.  Malc up first here, and I think that consistency will be key.  I doubt that we’ll see many (if any) changes to the major players in the Cabinet, though we may see some changes at Ministerial level.  Indeed, we’ll definitely have one, since Jim Mather retired.  I think also that Alex Salmond might take the opportunity to slightly change his ministerial portfolios – just marginally.  That said, I hadn’t considered some of this until a post-election email from a councillor friend, so I’m kind of going along with his idea here.

So – here’s what I think the Cabinet will look like:

First Minister – Alex Salmond
Deputy FM & Health Secretary – Nicola Sturgeon
Finance Secretary – John Swinney
Education Secretary – Mike Russell
Justice Secretary - Kenny MacAskill
Rural Affairs & Environment Secretary – Richard Lochhead

Sub-Cabinet level:

Office of FM:
Minister for Parliamentary Business – Bruce Crawford
Minister for Europe & External Affairs – Aileen McLeod
Minister for Constitution & Culture –  Alex Neil

Health:
Minister for Public Health – Shona Robison
Minister for Housing, Communities & Sport – Michael Matheson

Finance:
Minister for Enterprise – Joe FitzPatrick
Minister for Transport – Keith Brown
Minister for Local Government –  Derek MacKay

Education:
Minister for Children & Early Years – Adam Ingram
Minister for Schools & Skills – Angela Constance
Minister for Universities, Colleges & Apprenticeships – Fiona Hyslop

Justice:
Minister for Community Safety – Fergus Ewing

Rural Affairs/ Environment:
Minister for the Environment & Climate Change – Linda Fabiani

I’ve gone for a few new job titles which may not happen.  I think the Constitution brief might stay separate from Europe etc, and I think the SNP will want a “big hitter” in the brief.  I’m not sure Salmond would trust Alex Neil not to be too… fundamentalist(!) with the job, but he’s the guy I’d expect in the role (assuming Mike Russell stays on in the Cabinet).  I’ve added Sport to Housing & Communities since there are issues with funding and reconstruction, particularly in football and rugby which will probably be political issues as well.  I’ve also added the role of Minister for Local Government because with a “permanent” Council Tax freeze (well, for five years), we’re looking at a relationship between councils and Holyrood which might need a proper go-between at ministerial level.  Finally, I’ve also added a Minister for “tertiary education”, including apprenticeships – which will help to show both commitment to job creation (a key Labour concern in the election) and university funding (likely to be a key issue in the next five years).

As to the personnel.  Couple of caveats.  I’m expecting Roseanna Cunningham to be in line for one of the PO jobs – whether it is PO or one of the DPO slots will depend on who other candidates are/ how much the SNP want the job I suspect – but if she isn’t elected there, I suspect she’ll be named back in her Environment brief from the previous session, with Linda Fabiani back on the back benches.  There are a couple of new faces in parliament straight into my ministerial team – but consider them more and they make a bit of sense.  Aileen McLeod has a PhD in Europe – she knows it inside out – and she’s worked in the European Parliament as well, and you want someone in the Europe brief who understands it.  Equally, Derek MacKay at Local Government.  He was the youngest council leader in Scotland for a time – and ran his council effectively.  He’ll have contacts at COSLA and relationships with councillors across Scotland – something required for the role.

I’ve also promoted a few names from the backbenches as well.  Michael Matheson is, for me, long overdue a position in the ministerial team, so he’d be my choice at Housing, Communities and Sport.  He has a background in being spokesperson for sport so I think that fits.  Joe FitzPatrick is another I was impressed with last term, and he spent a spell as Parliamentary Liaison for John Swinney, so I think a job in his department fits.  There are also a couple of other names I considered – and I think are also due promotion – Alasdair Allan, Jamie Hepburn and Aileen Campbell would be shouts here I think, but there are only so many jobs.  I suspect Brian Adam (former Chief Whip) and Tricia Marwick (formerly SNP presence on SPCB) will get Committee Convenorships, as perhaps will Stewart Maxwell and Dave Thompson.

So there we go – my “team for Scotland”.  What do we think?  Given how right my election predictions were, I can’t possibly be wrong… can I?!

Asking the People (Wales special)

Mar 3

Posted by Malc in Constitution, Governance | 10 Comments

Today is the day that Wales votes in their powers referendum.  To be clear, this isn’t a referendum to extend devolution or bestow more powers on the National Assembly for Wales.  They already have the opportunity to get the powers which will be delivered in the event of a Yes vote in today’s referendum – they were bestowed on the NAW by the Government of Wales Act (2006).

This is more about speed of delivery – rather than having to apply to Westminster for individual powers in each of 20 fields specified in the Act using a lengthy process known as Legislative Competence Orders (LCOs), a Yes vote would allow the NAW to take control of all 20 fields in one go, giving them the power to make more primary legislation than they are currently capable of.

Of course, this is kind of confusing.  How do you run a campaign asking people to vote for something you kind of already have but want a wee bit faster and more efficiently?  And how do you campaign against the powers by opposing the place becoming more efficient?

It has happened over the last 6 weeks,  but really since the announcement of the date of the referendum late last year.

Essentially, Yes for Wales has argued that the NAW could do its job better, and have more of an impact on individual people’s lives in Wales if there was a Yes vote.  It’d mean less hassle in trying to get the powers to pass legislation, more clarity in decision-making and, potentially, more distinctly Welsh policies, passed by the NAW for people in Wales.

True Wales, long opponents of devolution, argue that further powers for the NAW is not what is required, that the NAW itself is a waste of money and that devolution needs to be streamlined, with more focus on all-Wales and not some of Wales.  Essentially they think the NAW is a white elephant so they’ve been taking a large inflatable animal around the country to emphasise the point.  Except the animal is a giant pig… but it apparently makes the same point.

Anyway, most of this is part of what I’m studying, so I have a keen eye on what is going on in Wales today.

Just something I’d like to ask though, if I may.  Below is what will be appearing on ballot papers in Wales today.  The preamble is pretty long and, I’d argue, slightly confusing (but then, so is the LCO system, so I suppose that makes sense).

Welsh referendum Question 2011:

The National Assembly for Wales – what happens at the moment:

The Assembly has powers to make laws on 20 subject areas, such as agriculture, education, the environment, health, housing, local government.

In each subject area, the Assembly can make laws on some matters, but not others. To make laws on any of these other matters, the assembly must ask the UK Parliament for its agreement. The UK Parliament then decides each time whether or not the assembly can make these laws.

The Assembly cannot make laws on subject areas such as defence, tax or welfare benefits, whatever the result of this vote.

If most voters vote ‘yes’ – the Assembly will be able to make laws on all matters in the 20 subject areas it has powers for, without needing the UK Parliament’s agreement.

If most voters vote ‘no’ – what happens at the moment will continue.

Do you want the Assembly now to be able to make laws on all matters in the 20 subject areas it has powers for?

 

And I know that the Government of Wales Act (2006) made a referendum prior to the move to full law-making powers mandatory… but doesn’t it seem crazy to consult the public on the minutia and intricacies of law-making?  To be clear again – this isn’t really consulting them on constitutional change, since the powers have already been granted – its basically about asking whether they support efficient governance or not.

I hope the Welsh public – who in opinion polls, for what they are worth, have been backing a Yes vote by a margin of 2:1 – do go and vote Yes today.  A No vote would set back devolution in Wales a long way.

Change the record

Feb 17

Posted by Malc in Governance, Media, Westminster | 14 Comments

I get pretty fed up of listening to opposition to governments – of whatever hue – moanin’ about policy A, greetin’ about policy B and whinin’ about policy C, only for when the government decides to listen to the will of the public on each of the policies, for them then to claim “embarrassing climbdown” or “U-turn” at every opportunity.

For goodness sake, this is the outcome you wanted!

Look, I get there’s a political agenda, I really do.  And I get that people hate the government, and will take any opportunity to kick them.  But can’t we be a little bit more graceful in how we do it?  Have we forgotten entirely the manners taught to us when we were young?  I’m sure I remember something about being polite when asking for something, and then when it was given to me I was supposed to say “thank you”.  Yeah, that sounds familiar.  So why does politics exist outwith the boundaries of these well-mannered social conventions?

Well, first thought is the depth of feeling.  You really despise party A (the governing party) so asking them for anything is a challenge in itself.  They’ve been a rival for such a long time that you can’t really remember a time that you liked them or worked together to achieve something.  But this is really a repeat of your childhood.  “Mum – brother/sister won’t let me have X”… “Ask them nicely – make sure you say please”.  Sound familiar?  I remember fighting with my wee brother (a lot) and even when we were forced to be polite, we still didn’t like it.  So that could be part of it.  But doesn’t there come a point when you stop being so immature?  You stop despising each other and learn to work together.  At least, that’s how I remember it.

Secondly, what about the idea that politics itself is essentially a zero-sum game – if they are doing well, you are doing badly and you want them to do badly so you can do well.  So if you ask them for something and they say yes, you want to treat it as you doing well and them doing badly, not both of you working together to improve the situation for everyone.  That’s logical because (coalition situations excepted) only one of you can govern at any one time, and you want it to be you so you make your party look better than the party in government.

But what partisan politics oftentimes forgets is that governing is not actually a competition.  Its about setting and collecting taxes and spending that money in a variety of ways in order to best serve the public.  Now you may have ideas as to how better do this than the other party, and you may want the public to know how much better your ideas are than the government’s so that next time they have the opportunity to vote they will remember your ideas and vote for you instead of the government.  But sometimes, when you have an idea that you think the government should pursue, and they do in fact pursue it, changing their own position in the process, it should be celebrated as good for the country, not good for the party.

Of course this post is inspired by the debate over plans to sell off state-owned forestry land in England.  But it is more inspired by the media reaction which calls the government’s change of heart on the issue “an instant, screeching u-turn“.  Because, as with most things in politics, you can’t do something without the media.  Media shapes the debate and how particular issues are viewed depends very much how they are reported.  So for the opposition to the government plans, while in reality this was a victory for them, they – and the media – have to spin it as a defeat for the government in order for it to be worthy of top news-billing.

So once again my naive hope that politics can be conducted in a more positive and civilised manner is likely to be thwarted because we can’t handle a situation where government and opposition can work together without one party having to outscore the other. Yawn.  And we wonder why people are turned off politics.