SNP has power to aid women stung by pension changes but must choose to use them
The late Donald Dewar, on being described as “the midwife of devolution,” replied that devolution’s only midwife was Margaret Thatcher. It was she who persuaded enough Scottish voters to put up a defence against “the same thing happening again”.
Devolution, the argument went, would allow Scotland to do things differently, particularly when a Westminster government became objectionable to the Scottish consensus. Of course, Scotland had long done things differently on matters which were administratively, though not legislatively, devolved.
This argument did not appeal to Nationalists, who were less interested in doing things differently than in doing them separately. They boycotted the Scottish Constitutional Convention which provided the devolution blueprint and only entered the tent when there was nowhere else to go.
For them, the enigma remained. Demonstrating that devolution could make a positive difference to the life of the nation ran the inherent risk of undermining their overriding priority of creating a separate state. Their interest was in bemoaning the inadequacy of powers, rather than celebrating the possibilities – which helps explain the dearth of useful legislation now emanating from Holyrood.
Meanwhile, the range of powers has grown, particularly via the 2015 Act which devolved large areas of social security. Scottish ministers’ reluctance to use these powers, in order to do anything different from the Tories at Westminster, has become striking. For Nationalists, “we don’t have the powers” is an essential mantra, to which truth and changing circumstances are subordinate.
All this is background to the WASPI saga. UK Governments decided the state pensionable age must increase and equalise because we are living longer. The changes have had disproportionate implications for women born in the 1950s who must wait up to six years more than anticipated. These are the Women Against State Pension Inequality, of whom there are 2.3 million Uk-wide, with 235,000 in Scotland. WASPI seeks compensation for women penalised as a result of accelerated implementation. Unsurprisingly, it has gained widespread political support – apart from inherent injustice, 2.3m women voters are not to be ignored! The Tories have dug in, on grounds of affordability, though there is a long way to go. Only a few of their MPS need to exert pressure for concessions while legal actions are pending. Stakes are high both for the women worst affected and also the public finances.
A campaign has developed in Scotland calling on the SNP Government – which has been vociferous in support of WASPI – to actually do something which will help to ease the position, at least of those in most need. This seems like exactly the kind of Westminister policy which devolution was intended to offer a Scottish line of defence against, if the will existed.
That, of course, involves a political judgment. If money is spent on this, it won’t be there for something else. Or tax-raising powers might have to be deployed. It would be perfectly respectable for the Scottish Government to either accede to calls for a distinctively Scottish scheme or to reject them, on grounds of affordability. That would be the stuff of honest politics.
Instead, we have the stuff of dishonest politics – denial they have powers to do anything. If they “can’t” do something, then the question of whether they “will” does not arise. Thus, say their critics, the human possibilities of devolution are again frustrated because the Nationalists’ political interest lies not in pushing out the boundaries of what devolution can deliver but in laying grievance at Westminster’s door.
It is by no means clear this weary tactic will work for them this time. Through the diligence of a blogger, Neil Lovatt, and persistence of Labour’s Jackie Baillie, it has become clear that the Scottish Government does indeed have powers. That is the critical point. Whether they should use them is a secondary matter, but it is one they repeatedly seek to pre-empt.
Predictably, the Scottish Government has resisted Freedom of Information bids to release relevant correspondence. The UK Government has been less coy – because the exchanges suggest Scottish ministers both have the power to create a targeted benefit (as opposed to a pension) and have known this for many months, while saying otherwise publicly and to MSPS.
The main agent of that approach has been the SNP’S social security minister, Jeane Freeman, who really should be called to account. A former grande dame of the Scottish quango circuit, Ms Freeman’s timely conversion to Nationalism soon led her into a position where she could actually make a difference to people’s lives, but she prefers to play the politics of her new allegiance. Time and again she has used the “no powers” argument to justify doing nothing. What’s the point of being in politics? Correspondence shows the UK minister welcoming Freeman “acknowledging that there are powers available to the Scottish Government that could be used to support people before they reach state pension age, including those who may be affected by the equalization of the state pension age”. The very least to be concluded is that there would be no objection from the UK Government to Freeman using these powers. So who else might challenge her?
Denying the existence of powers is a cynical game with a political purpose. The proper place to challenge it is not in newspaper columns or blogs or through media interviews. This device has become so fundamental that the only place for it to be properly scrutinised is the Holyrood chamber. A Parliament incapable of interpreting its own powers and instructing ministers accordingly is not behaving like a Parliament.
In several ways then, WASPI is a test for Holyrood. Will Ms Freeman be called to account and if found to have misled Parliament, what will be the consequences? Will the Parliament itself be allowed to address the issue of its powers, rather than relying on the selfinterested assertions of ministers?
Then another question arises. Is Holyrood capable of addressing such issues within its format of six minute, set-piece speeches so everyone can get home in time for tea? Social security is complicated. Powers are complicated. The vastly expanded range of responsibilities which Holyrood holds demands that the Scottish Parliament raises its game in response and becomes a place of genuine debate.