Salmond case shows how SNP is running nation in a dangerous way
Scotland is governed by a centralised clique cloaked in secrecy and feeding off grievance, writes
What was devolution meant to achieve? Most would say that it was about making government more accountable. Or taking responsibility for our own decisions…?
It is occasionally worth taking stock of reality when set against such objectives. What we find is not so much the new Scottish Enlightenment as a centralised power clique, hiding behind secrecy and feeding off grievance.
There were a couple of striking examples this week, each the subject of debates at Holyrood in which, unusually, the SNP administration lost the votes. But what difference will that make?
At Westminster, there are always MPS with sufficient independence of mind to vote against their own government on specific issues. For example, this week, 34 Tory MPS did their career prospects no good by voting against the lockdown measures.
It never, ever happens at Holyrood. The SNP’S nodding donkeys might as well be replaced by programmed voting machines. Some praise it as “discipline” while others see only the uniformity of mediocrity. The net result is the same.
First up on Wednesday was a debate arising out of the MSPS’ committee considering how allegations against Alex Salmond were handled by the ruling cabal of politicians and civil servants. The key question was whether legal advice to ministers on whether they had a case to defend should be published.
Self- evidently it should be, if there is any interest in getting to the truth of this otherwise impenetrable matter. Most of this week’s evidence to the committee was taken up with questioning a Scottish Government lawyer around what and when ministers were told about the flawed nature of their case. Nobody was any the wiser as a result.
Releasing the legal advice would answer these questions in five minutes. It would also be consistent with the otherwise
meaningless promises by Ms Sturgeon to assist the work of the committee which – she said – “will be able to request whatever material they want… the government and I will co- operate fully with it”. The opposite has proven to be the case.
In defence of not publishing the advice, she pleaded legal privilege. But that, of course, is only half the story. The ministerial code goes on to say that advice can be released “if, in exceptional circumstances, ministers feel that the balance of public interest lies in disclosing ( it) on a particular matter”.
Everyone else in Holyrood agreed that the Salmond case met that description. Indeed, it is quite a confession by Ms Sturgeon if she regards continuing to go through the motions of defending a case you have been told is unwinnable, regardless of cost to public funds, as “unexcep
tional”.
It now remains to be seen if Ms Sturgeon will do as instructed by MSPS and release the legal advice. Or will it be another case of brassing it out on the assumption that most of Scotland is not much interested in the truth? That’s a dangerous basis on which to govern.
The next debate was about the care home scandal which has been accompanied by more than 2,000 deaths of elderly Scots – a hideously high rate of attrition. Unsurprisingly, all MSPS except Ms Sturgeon’s own troops thought there should be a full inquiry and the sooner the better. They voted accordingly.
So what is the Scottish Government response? To deflect, of course. The same people whose only real interest is in breaking up the United Kingdom want a “fournation” approach to investigating what
happened in care homes. The idea of accepting their own responsibilities is, as always, anathema.
There may well be common traits throughout the UK and beyond but the NHS in Scotland is fully devolved. All relevant decisions were taken by the devolved government of Scotland – and that is the only basis for the inquiry our Parliament required. How disrespectful to evade it.
Devolution of powers was meant to be matched by strengthened accountability through MSPS. The Scottish government – which effectively means Ms Sturgeon – has plenty powers and there is no shortage of MSPS. Only accountability seems to have been lost along the way.
out of habit only to find it too is empty”.
Biden and his vice- presidentelect, Kamala Harris, held up a highly polished mirror to the American people as if to say, “Is this what you really want?” They answered on 3 November – and long before – with a resounding “No!”
As the world has become more and more dystopian since 1984, it is striking to me that even today amidst the stormy seas of mass electronic media, a voice of integrity, honour, and, yes, truth can rise above the madding crowd.
Combining the folksiness of Ronald Reagan, the sincerity of Jimmy Carter and even the righteous anger of the United States’ founding fathers, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris were able to surmount all of the odds by finding their collective voice and asking a simple question.
Over and over again, they asked “Is this the America we want for ourselves, our children and our grandchildren?”
It is at once a question that is both simple and also profound. If you were to survey 300 million American citizens and ask them about their dreams for the future, you would find as many splinters as could be seen as a result of a giant tree being felled in the forest. These splinter groups have always been part of the American experiment.
However, due to recent poor national leadership, this noble experiment has been failing due to the sowing of seeds of division, rather than the building of coalitions of courage.
Now, the 1984 campaign slogan for President Ronald Reagan “It’s Morning in America” appears to be true once more with the dawn of new leadership, albeit from an opposing party.
The challenge now for the soonto- be President Biden and Vice President Harris is that they must first heal the wounds of the recent past.
And although these scars will be visible for many years to come, they shall always remind us of the American dream that is stronger and more enduring than any selfish despot, evil white supremacist group or salacious Qanon conspiracy troll.
When Governor Cuomo stood in the Moscone Convention Centre in San Francisco and addressed thousands of delegates, his voice did not thunder, rather, he softly and firmly reminded all Americans that their country was more of a “tale of two cities” than a “shining city on a hill".
He then shone a strong spotlight upon the dark side of that hill by using statistical evidence to demonstrate how unjust America had become. He concluded by stating these words that whether in 1984 or in 2020, shall carry a profound sense of treasure and upward trajectory: “To succeed we will have to surrender some small parts of our individual interests, to build a platform that we can all stand on, at once, and comfortably – proudly – singing out.”
I believe that the election of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris has brought forth a new opportunity to move, step by step, from our dystopian past and present into a new chapter for America and her friends and admirers all over the world to stand together once more and proudly sing out that these are our values and that our hopes for the future shall be realised with a new leadership which cherishes truth, respect, kindness and, yes, love.
Professor Joe Goldblatt is emeritus professor of planned events at Queen Margaret University. He holds both Scottish and US citizenship and he has also been described as an “honorary Orcadian” as a result of his many visits. He voted for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. To read more about Professor Goldblatt’s views visit www. joegoldblatt. scot