The Bargain part IV: The Rules of the Game

In the fourth of a series of four articles on the Union and how to save it, I propose some new ‘rules of the game ‘to bring stability to Scotland. But in the end, the pro-UK side must beat the nationalists at their own game politically.

A version of the article was published on the ThinkScotland website in May 2022

So far in this series I have argued that breaking up the UK would damage Scotland and its neighbours economically, politically and culturally. And the SNP is waging a dishonest and somewhat sinister campaign to achieve its objectives. So how should we stop them?

Over the years many commentators have suggested constitutional change as a way to shoot the nationalist fox. Fiscal autonomy, federalism, devolution itself – all of these were supposed to satiate nationalism in Scotland by offering it a half-way house, or else to provide the correct constitutional incentives to good government that would satisfy frustration at the current settlement. None of this has worked so far and is unlikely to work in the future. Besides, devolution offers so much leeway for policy making that should satisfy parties that really wanted to make a difference in Scotland. But as a sop to nationalism it hasn’t worked.

The only way to defeat nationalism is to do so politically. I have tried to set out in these articles that the argument for the Union has to be couched in terms of its original genius, the bargain that wins significant gains for Scotland while giving little away in practice.

But of course politics is also a game of persuasion. You can have the best argument in the world, but if you can’t articulate it people won’t hear or believe your message. Unionists have to match the ruthless skill of the SNP with their own clear tactics (while retaining their sense of decency).

One striking feature of Scottish politics is how often the SNP’s opponents endorse them by mimicking their language and allying with them on particular causes. The poisonous accusation thrown at Westminster politicians, particularly but not only at the Tories, are echoed by mainstream politicians who should know better. They even join the SNP on various political campaigns. At one stage during the fraught Brexit crisis, Liberal Democrats were actually taking the British Government to court in a joint action with nationalists. Whatever the merits of the case, do not endorse people like this when you know they wish the country ill and their motivation is quite different from your own. The Lib Dems would never have made common cause with Nigel Farage, so why with the SNP, whose intentions are far more damaging?

Instead, nationalists should be called out – gently but firmly, for the dubious tactics they deploy. It’s no use letting superficially respectable SNP figures like Nicola Sturgeon off the hook on this. Unless she is prepared herself to denounce, consistently and meaningfully, the intimidation carried out by her partisans, without recourse to false analogies of moral relativism, she is complicit in it.

In this series of articles, I have argued that Scottish nationalists have skilfully exploited widespread dissatisfaction among voters in the West at the state of social democracy. They are the original populists. There’s nothing much that Scottish unionists can do to correct the inherent flaws and features of western democracy. But they can offer positive, radical policies, from left and right, that offer meaningful change to Scotland in contrast to the ‘do nothing and blame it on the English’ strategy of the SNP.

In the end, though, raw political talent is needed on the unionist side to expose the deceits of nationalism. But some institutional changes should be countenanced to bring stability to the political battlefield and consistency to those who cherish the Union.

Over the years, various commissions have been established to consider adjustments the devolved powers of the Scottish Parliament to fit new circumstances. These have usually been in response to some political crisis or another. Rather than being an ad hoc reaction to nationalist success, I’d suggest a permanent commission be established to uphold and explain the union and its key objectives: keeping key decision making local while maintaining the UK single market, fiscal pooling and the economies of scale of joint policy on trade and international affairs. The commission would have the time and expertise to consider carefully any changes to the settlement that would promote the original principles and purposes of the Union, perhaps measuring and publishing regular and authoritative analyses of the economic benefits of Scotland’s place in the UK and how changes to circumstances affect it. It could act as a permanent, non-party advocate of the Union, to go alongside the burgeoning array of campaign groups that are being set up – a sort of constitutional OBR (Office of Budget Responsibility).

Secondly, the rules of secession from the UK need to be set out. In Scotland at the moment, we are subjected to a relentless campaign for another referendum on independence. This sucks all political and much civic energy away from the important matters of policy reform. It is colossally destabilising and gives the nationalists an advantage because any referendum would fit their agenda and timing, to which the only counter is refusal to grant a vote by the UK government. This us unsustainable: in practice the political right to independence has been conceded by the UK by holding the original referendum. This is as it should be – a great and historic country like Scotland has the right to choose independence if it wants to. That right cannot be withheld by legal means alone. Instead, the legal right should be held not by ministerial whim as at present – prone as it is to feckless misuse and constant pressure, but a clear set of rules that gives proper expression to the will of the Scottish people.

A referendum on such a profound issue cannot be held every year. The promise made by the SNP that it should be a ‘once in a generation’ or even ‘once in a lifetime’ makes sense and should be enshrined in law. No new referendum should be held for a set period – five parliaments or so, allowing normal politics to resume in the interim, and a new generation of voters to come to the fore. Then, only if a party wins both a majority of seats and one of votes, on a clear mandate to hold a new plebiscite, should a vote go ahead. This would prevent the constant game playing where the SNP pretend that an election is not about independence and then claim a new mandate for it once they do well.

Finally, to ensure a decisive and clear outcome, a majority of the electorate should vote for this profound change. On a high turnout like last time, this would mean somewhere between 50% and 60% of votes cast. In that event, a clear mandate for independence would be in place.

If the nationalist side gained 50% of votes cast, but not of the whole electorate, there could be another confirmatory vote two years hence. This is a mechanism suggested by the nationalists themselves in the context of the Brexit vote, and it has some merit. The ensuing two years would reveal more of the reality of secession through the negotiation process. True, the UK side might have an incentive to make things as hard as possible for the nationalists in the hope of winning the second vote. But that in turn would provide a healthy incentive for nationalists to present as realistic a prospectus as possible in the first place. The confirmatory vote would be won for either side by a simple majority of votes cast – abstention by this stage could surely be taken as quiescence with either result!

Nationalism presents a profound challenge to Scotland. The SNP and their allies have convinced a large part of the population that breaking up the UK will solve many of the problems that Scotland faces. Worse, they have managed to stir up hostility among many Scots to our neighbours and a form of self-hatred of Scotland’s place and achievements as a partner in the UK. They have promulgated a false narrative of Scotland as some sort of oppressed colony of ‘Westminster’ that needs to break free.

Countering this threat will not be easy. There are policies and institutional changes that might help, and better political tactics. But in the end, we have to find a way to articulate what was once our source of pride and joy: how we created the Union to Scotland’s advantage. Our participation in it has brought not just friendship and shared achievements with our neighbours, but major, hard-headed practical advantages. If we weren’t in the Union now, we’d want to join it.

The Bargain is published by Birlinn this Spring https://birlinn.co.uk/product/the-bargain/

Follow Tom Miers and The Bargain on Twitter @TomMiers1

The Bargain: Economy and Dishonesty

In the third of a series of four articles on the Union and how to save it, Tom Miers explains how SNP dishonesty on the economy is part of a wider political strategy of division and intimidation that has all the unpleasant hallmarks of nationalism. Instead, the SNP should embrace a more honourable approach that would benefit Scotland whichever way the debate goes.

In this series of articles I have so far avoided detailed discussion of the economic arguments around Scottish nationalism. This is not because they are unimportant, but because they are mostly so familiar to readers that I would risk being unnecessarily repetitious.

Just two observations, then. The first is that it is puzzling that the various elements of the economic argument – the fiscal transfer, trade, the currency and so on, are rarely talked about in aggregate. Instead we go through a cycle, year on year, of discussion of these items in isolation. It is almost as if the magnitude of the economic implications of breaking up the UK is too great to contemplate as a whole. Unionists perhaps fear that if we tot them up the public will find the composite story incredible. So the net fiscal transfer from the rest of the UK to Scotland (calculated annually in the GERS exercise by Scottish Government statisticians) is worth about 8% of GDP. Meanwhile, on the SNP’s own methodology, the trade benefits from the UK single market to Scotland are worth about 6% of GDP.

You can see where I’m going with this. Add in the start-up costs (the SNP themselves asked for £200m just to set up a welfare agency), energy subsidies, currency transaction costs, currency depreciation, financial sector flight etc etc and you start to get some really startling numbers that make the coronavirus crisis or the financial crash look like picnics in the park. I think it’s time for some economist to do some serious aggregate modelling here – even if based just on the more concrete figures that we have.

For, as far as can be the case in economics, the main elements of the debate are pretty rock solid. And indeed, on the individual issues, when pressed, the SNP admit to the validity of GERS, the trade figures and so on, not least because they are collated at their own behest.

Yet you won’t know this from their public utterances. Instead, the SNP approach to the economics of independence is an extraordinary exercise in deception. Senior figures in the nationalist movement routinely deny the obvious economic problems with independence, even though they clearly know the detail to be true. After all, their own officials collect the data. The tactics are now familiar: Using the impartiality of media figures and academics who feel under obligation to give a balanced narrative, Sturgeon, Salmond and their teams pretend that the obvious problems don’t exist using a mixture of evasion, obfuscation, diversion and outright denial. It is quite different from anything in normal mainstream politics where philosophical differences exist on policy which are difficult to prove either way. Here the facts are as clear as they will ever be. The deception is deliberate and blatant to any objective observer.

A good recent example of this was when Ian Blackford, the SNP’s leader at Westminster, tried to pretend that Scots’ state pensions would be paid for by the remaining UK after independence. The implication was that Scotland would continue to receive a transfer of £8bn plus from our neighbours even though we were no longer contributing to that particular fund.

To mask the deceit, he drew a false analogy with British expats receiving the state pension, and then, when pressed, declared the partial truth that everything would be up for negotiation, knowing that such discussions would apply only at the margins. Blackford knows that and the idea he was peddling – that a foreign country would pay a large part of Scotland’s welfare bill – was absurd. Sturgeon and other senior nationalists supported him and refused to admit the deception. Some media and academics duly gave a ‘balanced’ account of the row, reinforcing the false notion that the SNP had a case, presumably muddying the issue for many voters who had little inclination to go into the detail of the matter.

Sturgeon and the SNP leadership know that pensions payments won’t be paid for by the rest of the UK. They know that Scotlandwould face a very large additional deficit (some £12bn) on independence that would have to be funded by a mixture of tax rises, big spending cuts and extra borrowing. They know that leaving the UK will put up much bigger barriers to trade than will be eliminated through EU membership, because they have commissioned studies to examine this very issue. They know that Scotland has no easy currency options, and that independence will cause either a depreciation, or inflation, or higher borrowing costs, or a default on liabilities, or a combination of all of these. And yet they refuse to admit any of this to the Scottish public.

This persistent campaign of misinformation is part of a broader picture of behaviour by the nationalists.  They also run, or endorse, or encourage (it is always hard to tell which) an unpleasant campaign of intimidation of their opponents through social media, ‘spontaneous’ public protests, implicit threats to businesses and public figures that their careers depend on quiescence towards the nationalist project. Meanwhile nationalist supporters conduct ostentatious displays of their loyalties – waving flags, and banners, using the pseudo uniforms of car and window stickers, badges, arranging noisy street demonstrations in a way quite at odds with the rather restrained British traditions of political symbology. Worst of all is the national trope of identifying an outside bogeyman, with whom internal opponents can be associated and accused of collusions. In the case of Scottish nationalists this bogeyman is the ‘Tory’ or ‘Westminster’, which is really code for the Englishman, bigged up beyond political caricature with all the bogus stereotypes of selfish individualism, arrogance and racism. Internal opponents are routinely denounced as being closet (or ‘red’ or ‘yellow’) Tories and offered a choice – you’re either pro Tory (ie English and foreign) or you’re with us.

It’s not difficult to recognise all the hallmark playbook elements of a typical nationalist, even revolutionary movement. The SNP is like Sinn Fein without the bullets. Its behaviour and tactics are typically Marxist, with all the norms of decent behaviour and policy nuance subordinated to the ultimate objective.

Their approach has created the poisonous atmosphere that blights public life and, to an extent, society in general in Scotland today.

This approach damages Scotland whichever way the contest eventually goes. Within or without the Union, Scotland’s society and politics have been embittered and divided. And should the SNP achieve their objective, the country will be woefully unprepared for the economic chaos that would follow.

This is so sad because an honest nationalist approach is possible. The SNP could and should prepare Scotland for independence properly by acknowledging the hurdles they face and addressing them. This preparation is best done within the union. For example, the core economic challenge posed by independence is the fiscal one, which interreacts with the currency issue. If Scotland left the UK with its colossal fiscal deficit in place, a new currency would be impossible without it falling in value, leaving Scotland with the unpalatable choice of partial default on liabilities such as pensions, or paying much more for them. Instead, the SNP could close the deficit within the UK over a period of, say, ten to fifteen years. Current public spending could be brought down to the UK average, with the Union Dividend delivered by GERS instead invested in assets or even given back to the people in the form of tax cuts.

Meanwhile, the policy of re-joining the EU is clearly an exercise in political tokenism that would in practice damage Scotland’s trade and thus its economy considerably. The SNP could and should abandon the EU idea and pledge to stick closely to the rest of the UK in terms of trade and commercial regulation. Doing so would necessitate an entirely different attitude towards the UK – one of positive friendship rather than vitriolic hatred, which would of course have beneficial repercussions in all sorts of other fields – social, diplomatic and military.

Such an approach would take years of preparation and would reduce without eliminating the economic costs of independence. But it would go some way to preparing Scotland positively for a future on its own as well as assuaging the divisions caused by this bitter campaign.

This article was published by ThinkScotland in April 2022

The Bargain, part II

In the second of a series of four articles on the Union and how to save it, Tom Miers argues that the political settlement Scotland enjoys gives it more say, not less, over the key domestic and international affairs that affect the country

A key element of the Anglo-Scottish Union agreed in 1707 was that Scotland would retain control of the key domestic matters that defined its national identity and governed society. A crucial moment in the negotiations was when the Church of Scotland (which had hitherto been suspicious of Union) secured its independence in the legislation. This may seem a marginal issue to us now, but in those days it was a central consideration. Education (schools and universities), the Law and the Kirk were closely intertwined and were among the main institutions that governed day-to-day life.

They didn’t need much legislative oversight because law was seen in early modern times as a framework for individuals and institutions to deal with each other, rather than an activist tool to promote social change as it is today. The fact that the Scottish Parliament no longer existed didn’t matter in this respect because there was room in the timetable of the united Parliament to make any necessary (and usually uncontroversial) adjustments to the legal framework in Scotland.

Today, of course, the situation is very different. In modern social democracies like Britain, the state is vast, accounting for nearly half of total expenditure. Activist governments have busy legislative programmes, forever reforming this or that institution and attempting to improve society through government action.

In the Twentieth Century, the question therefore arose: if politicians are now managing society and its institutions, which politicians should do that? The growth of state power undermined the Union in the sense that oversight of domestic matters moved from independent domestic institutions to activist politicians, and these politicians were based in London. Even Churchill made this point, though of course he used it as an argument against state power, rather than in favour of devolution.

Now that the big state is with us, in all its democratic glory, devolution makes sense in that it restores the original purpose of the Union settlement in retaining control over key domestic matters in Scotland. It can therefore be seen as a profoundly unionist measure in the context of our joint history from 1707.

Obviously, many unionists were (and are) suspicious of Holyrood because they saw it as a steppingstone to independence. Indeed, the SNP has used the devolved institutions very successfully to promote the nationalist cause. But, desirable or not, Holyrood is here to stay, so their opponents should instead use it to promote the Union by presenting an alternative prospectus to the nationalists. For such is the range of powers held at Holyrood that the Scottish Government is in practice sovereign in most important respects. The powers retained at the UK level – the detail of tax and welfare policy, trade, commercial regulation and so on – are either essential prerequisites for the operation of the UK single market (and would mostly be ceded to the UK or EU by and independent Scotland anyway) or else related foreign policy, over which Scotland has more practical sovereignty as part of the UK, as I explain below.

Aside from these, most of the levers of power are held in Scotland, including most of those that affect economic growth. In developed economies, prosperity is governed not by the details of the tax code, but by the quality of institutions – education, development planning, infrastructure, levels of crime, productivity in the public sector and so on. In Scotland these are largely devolved issues. Even on tax, the Scottish Government has sufficient leeway to swim to either side of the band of possibilities that exist in a social democracy. Scotland could follow a centre-right lowish tax model or a high-tax / high-spend model. The leeway to do either is actually made greater by the generous financial settlement that the Union bestows on Scotland via the Barnett Formula.

The nationalists, of course, have a powerful motive to do nothing with these powers. They wish to demonstrate by this neglect that progress can only be made through independence. This approach has stagnated Scotland in a quagmire of failure – declining educational standards, low growth, poor health and even the collapse of cultural icons such as the Gaelic language.

In foreign policy, defence and international affairs generally, the Scottish Parliament is not sovereign. But the key insight of those who negotiated the Union is that it never really was anyway. Before the Union, Scotland was at the mercy of international affairs and had no influence over the currents that affected it. Trying to join the burgeoning international trading system, Scotland fell victim to unscrupulous international rivals. By creating the Union, Scotland gained security, access to markets and at least some influence over the foreign policy that affected it. The same calculation is true today. An independent Scotland, just like equivalent sized countries across the developed world, would have no real say over the trading system, the policies of the western alliance (a factor brought into sharp relief with the Ukraine crisis) or environmental policy. As part of the UK, it does.

This canny arrangement was once, and should still be, a source of immense pride to Scots. Nationalists should be put to shame for hankering after a romanticised past when the Bargain we have in hand is so advantageous.

Which begs the question, what of the English? What do they get out of it? After all, the economics is not so clear cut. England makes significant fiscal transfers to Scotland (and Wales and Northern Ireland). The return in terms of a larger single market is, proportionality, not so great. The answer lies once again in the history books. In 1707 England was prepared to pay for the Union because it gained political stability within the British Isles and greater political heft abroad.

Nowadays sentiment – pride and affection in the UK and what its four nations have achieved together – is the reason usually given for the Union down South. And of course, sentiment has added to the many good reasons for the Union, making its justification stronger than ever. But when SNP politicians try to cause as much trouble for the rest of the UK as they can, exploiting constitutional anomalies, furthering confected grievance and insulting their neighbours, English voters should remember that the dissolution of the UK would result in a catastrophic loss of standing affecting all the constituent nations. The rump UK would be relegated from its current position in the second tier of international players – equivalent broadly to France, Germany and Japan– to the third, alongside Spain, Canada, Italy and so on. Respected nations to be sure, but no longer capable of meaningful independent action and influence on the world stage. This would be s serious blow not just to England, but to but to the wider West. Which is why of course our enemies in Russia and elsewhere are so keen to promote Scottish nationalism.

A version of this article appeared on the ThinkScotland website in 18th April 2022

The Bargain is published by Birlinn this Spring https://birlinn.co.uk/product/the-bargain/

Follow Tom Miers and The Bargain on Twitter @TomMiers1

The Bargain: how our ancestors saw an opportunity for Scotland that still makes sense

A version if this article was published by ThinkScotland on 7th April 2022

In the first of a series of four articles on the Union and how to save it, Tom Miers argues that we need to understand the original bargain struck by Scotland in 1707 and the nature of the nationalist threat to it

Three centuries ago, Scotland struck an extraordinary bargain with its historic rival and neighbour to the South. Together, they forged one of the success stories of modern history. Great Britain became a powerhouse of industry and the spread of enlightenment values across the world.  Yet that Union with England is now in extreme danger. In a campaign of remarkable ruthlessness and discipline, nationalists have persuaded nearly half the population that Scotland would do better as a separate state.

How has it come to this, and what can those who cherish the Union do to save the situation? Typically, the fierce debate that dominates Scotland’s public life on this matter is focussed on economics. For sure, money is important, the stakes are high, and the statistical evidence in favour of a continued Union very strong. Yet somehow this don’t cut through to many Scots.

In my new book The Bargain I argue that, if we are to understand and promote Scotland’s place in the UK, we need to place it in the context of the original purpose of the Union and how the sophisticated calculation that our ancestors made is still valid today. While sentiment is important – not least to me – the original Bargain struck all those years ago was ruthlessly transactional. The core ingredients of that deal – political, economic, and cultural – are still with us and we need to explain that in its entirety so that Scots can see the extraordinary win-win situation that we enjoy.

The key insight of the Scots who negotiated the Union all those years ago was that the country could exchange something insubstantial – the trappings of sovereignty – for significant political and economic gains. The essence of the deal was that Scotland retained control of the important domestic matters, while in international affairs it gained influence where before it had had none. Meanwhile, the economic gains were very significant – access to England’s much larger markets, fiscal support backed by economies of scale, and a stable monetary framework.

Culture was a crucial part of the equation too. There was not much love lost between the two old rivals, but the calculation was that, with its shared experience of the Reformation, England was sufficiently compatible as a long-term partner given the safeguards over domestic policy. Of course, since then the two countries have become much more similar, with distinctiveness either side of the border eroded by joint endeavour and the passage of time.

Most importantly, in practical terms Scotland has more control, not less, over its affairs within the UK than it would have outside it, and this is the enduring genius of the bargain struck all those years ago. A good current example of this is the crisis in the Ukraine. As part of a medium sized power that takes a lead in the Western Alliance, Scotland can affect the crisis in its own interest. On its own it would be reliant on the goodwill of others and would contribute nothing but platitudes and disunity. Putin would be delighted by the breakup of the UK.

I will explore the political side of the Union Bargain more in my next article here. But having the best arguments is not enough. They need to be articulated skilfully and convincingly. And it is the field of pure politics that the SNP has the mastery. A great part of the explanation for the UK’s parlous situation is the way in which the SNP has exploited, with great skill, a combination of several features that characterise British politics today.

First of all is the zeitgeist that is shared by all Western democracies at present. A general weariness with the endless and unsatisfying balance between competing vested interests that is the bread and butter of social democracy. Lots of spending, lots of tax, lots of borrowing, general but stagnant prosperity undermined by intractable social problems. In most Western countries insurgent political movements have arisen from left and right to challenge this unsatisfactory mix. The modern SNP is one of these. It has much in common in its appeal with movement as varied as AfD, Podemos, Syriza, 5 Star, Trump and, yes, Nigel Farage. Forget the notional objectives, it’s the insurgent appeal that counts.

Look back at their history: the SNP’s original (but limited) appeal was to a culturally conservative but marginalised constituency strongest (like UKIP’s) in economically left-behind rural or coastal areas, usually Tory voting. They were even known as the ‘Tartan Tories’. Its pioneering breakthrough wad to add a much larger base of disillusioned working class voters fed up with the left-liberal elite that purported to represent them but failed to address their problems. This template – an alliance of two very different tribes united in disgruntlement and social conservatism – has been emulated by all of the movements I mentioned above.

I hasted to add that I have no complaint with the values, issues or outlook of either of these two unhappy tribes. Though I believe strongly that Scottish Nationalism is the last thing that either of them needs. 

The SNP has combined this generally fertile background with very skilful tactical exploitation of unfolding British events. To achieve this so consistently over the years requires enormous discipline as well as an unscrupulous approach to politics. The SNP is essentially a revolutionary movement in its tactics and approach and this, I would suggest, is the key not just to its success but its eventual demise.

The secret, then, to saving the UK is to understand not just the nature of the Union Bargain, but the opponent that is threatening it.

The Bargain is published by Birlinn this Spring https://birlinn.co.uk/product/the-bargain/

Follow Tom Miers and The Bargain on Twitter @TomMiers1

Goodbye to the local Council

In May, Borders voters will elect a new Council. Much as I’ve enjoyed the last five years representing Leaderdale and Melrose, I’ve decided not to stand this time.

When I look back at my experience of being a councillor, one thing stands out in particular: Almost all of the major initiatives undertaken by the Council were instigated by council officers (ie public servants) or by outside agencies such as the UK or Scottish Governments. Very few were initiated by the elected administration. Instead, elected councillors tend to act as a sort of rubber stamp legislature (with the executive being unelected officers), combined of course with their other role as advocates for their constituents on specific issues (unfixed potholes etc).

Anyone who has seen the classic TV series Yes Minister might be unsurprised by this observation, but old hands at the council tell me it’s been particularly noticeable in recent years.

So when candidates come knocking on your door in the coming weeks and pushing their leaflets sore-fingeredly through your letterbox, do take the opportunity to ask them what they actually want to achieve.

Local authorities are responsible for a number of very important aspects of public life. The biggest three are childrens’ education, social care, and development planning. We in the Borders could be doing much better in all of these areas.

In schooling, the default policy of both council and Scottish Government is to spend hundreds of millions of pounds on new school buildings. Handsome 1930’s buildings have been abandoned for new blocks on the edge of town (with the unfortunate side effect of taking life and trade away from them). While this approach is superficially popular (everyone loves a shiny new building) it has no measurable effect on the quality of education here, which remains in gentle decline by European, UK and even Scottish standards.

In social care, the Borders is experimenting (again at officers’ behest) with a new Dutch style care village. But overall the sector is in a mess, with private providers closing rooms and beds and the council struggling to meet increased demand.

Meanwhile The Borders’ long-term prosperity surely depends on preserving and enhancing its unique environment and quality of life to attract people, investment and tourists. But too often planning permission is given to large, cheap, ugly housing estates and other easy development that threatens our built and natural heritage. We need to get a grip of this.

The council provides lots of other services too, from rubbish collection to fixing the roads. It’s worth asking candidates how these can be done cheaper and better every year, rather than more expensively, with ever higher Council Tax. Plus, of course, if Scotland left the UK, how they would plug the £50m odd hole in the council’s budget that the Scottish Government implies would arise from independence!

 ***

One project I’ll be busy on after I leave in May will be my new book, “The Bargain”. It takes the historical long view of our current debate on Scotland and the UK. I argue that the deal Scotland struck in 1707 is still relevant today, and its benefits – not just economic, but political and cultural too – are better than ever. There’s more in there too, including an assessment of devolution, what’s in it for the other UK nations, and how the nationalists could make a more honest case. So if you haven’t heard enough of my musings by now, The Bargain is published by Birlinn and will be available in all good book shops. Farewell!

This article was published by Gala Life in March 2022

Budget baloney

Imagine your boss came up to you at the end of the year and said: “You’ve earned a £250 bonus. Tell us what your priorities are in life and we’ll spend it for you.”

Now, you might trust your boss to make the right decision and spend the money wisely on your behalf. Or you might think to yourself ‘you know what, I’d rather take the money and decide for myself how to spend it.’

Every year, Scottish Borders Council conducts a public consultation designed to inform its budget decision making process. It explains the financial pressures the council faces – Scottish Government cuts, demographic problems, more ‘ringfencing’ (where the government tells it to spend money in a certain way), higher public sector wages and so on.

It then goes on to ask what are your priorities, first generally, and then within certain areas (education, roads etc) for spending the money.

I used to complain that there was never an option for ‘not spending the money’. In other words, the Council raises Council Tax every year and seems only interested in how to spend our money, not in whether it should be taken away from us in the first place. The assumption is that the Council knows how to spend it better than we do, and is more virtuous when it does.

In truth, we can’t be sure that the Council IS spending all the money wisely. Second, if you take money away from people it has consequences. The Borders is one of the lowest wage areas of Scotland, and many livelihoods have been hit very hard by Covid. Third, if the Council’s woes are caused by Scottish Government cuts, it seems to me that the Scottish Government should carry the can, not Borders households. Nicola Sturgeon has diverted hundreds of millions of pounds into setting up separate Scottish embassies abroad and planning another independence referendum. Why should we pay for that through higher Council Tax?

This year’s survey took some of my concerns into account. It did ask about Council Tax. However, it was what is called a ‘leading question’. There was no option to reduce Council Tax. Instead, the first option was to keep Council Tax as is, with a consequent ‘reduction in service provision’.  Why one should necessarily lead to another is not clear. A lot of Borderers have continued to provide services through their work at the same level or higher over the last couple of years with reduced income. Why can’t the Council?

The two other options were for further increases, of 2% and of more than 2%. Some choice!

Another question caught my eye. It asked respondents to rank seven issues in order or priority. The economy came out top by some distance. The best way to encourage the economy is to let people keep more of their own money. But the Council has an unfortunate tendency take money to spend on ‘economic development’ with lots going on bureaucracy along the way. The budget is decided later this month. Let’s see what happens.

A Roman marvel in Melrose

January 2022

If you haven’t yet been to the refurbished Trimontium Museum in Melrose, you really must plan a visit. Trimontium is what the Romans called their big base at Newstead, the name presumably referring to the three Eildon hills nearby.

The refurbishment has allowed the museum to display for the first time some of the high value finds from the fort that previously had to be held securely in Edinburgh. What is more, such is the quality of the display that artefacts belonging to private collectors and other museums can be shown, not just from the Borders but from across the Iron Age and Roman world.

When I went there, I saw an extraordinary collection of Roman helmets and weapons, including an intricate cavalry mask and a legionary helmet and sword straight out of Asterix. Plus, there was the Rubers Law hoard of beautifully made native bronze implements. The Newstead finds are extraordinary too – weapons and tools and ornaments that could have been made yesterday, such is their quality and elegance, plus a fascinating collection of imperial coins that allows archaeologists to put a timeline on the Romans occupation.

You feel like you have been transported to one of the marquee rooms of the British Museum. It really is a Borders marvel, and a great tribute to the patient work of John Reid, the chairman, and his colleagues. I’ve found that a good way to keep up with what’s going on at Trimontium is to follow them on Twitter. Every day there’s a new post with some fascinating fact from the Roman past as well as glorious images of artefacts from the Iron Age, including of course many that you can see in Melrose. I should I suppose declare an interest in that I am on the board ex officio in my role as a local councillor, though I can’t claim any credit whatsoever for its success. The museum reopens after a winter break on February 12^th.

**

By that stage we’ll know whether the dreaded Omicron variant of Covid is a serious setback to our recovery from the pandemic, or is sufficiently mild in its effects to be fended off by our vaccination programme. One thing I can’t work out is why it’s called Omicron, the 15^th letter of the Greek alphabet. We seems to have come here straight from Delta, missing out Epsilon, Zeta and the rest. Unless, like Thomas the Rhymer, I have missed some of the action. Let’s pray for Omega soon, and the end of this drawn out tragedy.

Happy New Year!

PS: since this blog was published in Gala Life a medical constituent contacted me to explain that there have been many more Covid variants names after Greek letters, but they have not been ‘of concern’ and so haven’t hit the media. Apparently we’ve now done about half the alphabet, missing out the letter ‘Nu’ on the grounds that it would confuse everybody

Fantasy jobs and where not to build a supermarket

December 2021

Lidl, the excellent low-cost supermarket chain, intends to build a new shop in the Central Borders Business Park between Tweedbank and Darnick on the Melrose roundabout. The outlet will undoubtedly provide more choice, convenience and good quality shopping for many residents of the Central Borders.

So why is it such a bad idea?

The answer is, of course, that you can’t just build supermarkets anywhere. While they might bring certain benefits to shoppers and the economy, you have to take into account where and how they are built to make sure that they don’t damage the environment or other developments and so impose more costs than they save. For example, if Lidl built a supermarket on the Ravenswood roundabout or, say, on Gibson Park in the middle of Melrose, that would certainly be convenient. But it wouldn’t be a good idea.

There are two principal problems with Lidl’s plan.

The clue to the first lies in the name of the site: the Central Borders Business Park. This land was allocated by the council to provide much needed space for offices and other non-retail commercial uses. There is a dearth of such land in the Borders. The whole rationale behind the Business Park is that we are trying to encourage a cluster of high value businesses here near the railway. Special planning rules have been implemented by the Council to encourage such businesses – and to discourage other uses for the land such as retail.

Second, if we are to nurture and enhance the Borders landscape and townscapes – the key to our future prosperity – we need to be careful about haphazard out-of-town development. As far as possible retail should be encouraged in or near town centres so that our towns thrive and high streets flourish. Again, this principle is enshrined in Council policy.

So why is Lidl trying to build in such an unsuitable location? Well, presumably they sense an opportunity. The site had been given planning permission for a hotel – similarly against council policy (I voted against). The planning committee was swayed by the promise of jobs that the hotel brought. The hotel has now, thankfully, withdrawn its plans, and Lidl hopes to take its place.

The supermarket’s campaign to do so follows a familiar pattern. A loud media announcement as if it’s a done deal (despite no planning permission). Promises of a local consultation (no doubt with carefully crafted questions designed to prompt the right answers). And of course a pledge of jobs – 35 in this case.

Organisations that make controversial proposals often hire consultants to ‘model’ the number of jobs they’ll create. The model shows not just those directly employed, but applies ‘multipliers’ to estimate the demand created by those employees’ salaries being spent in the local area and so on. But such modelling tends only to show only one side of the ledger. If a new supermarket comes to the Borders, of course it’ll hire people. But jobs elsewhere – in the existing shops in Melrose and Tweedbank – will be lost, and some might even close as customers shift to Lidl. Borderers can only spend their money once. So the net effect of a new shop will be neutral in jobs terms.

That doesn’t mean to say that new shops are pointless. Competition offers incremental gains from new ideas, new products and better value for money. But that needs to be weighed against any damage done from the development, which in this case would be significant. Lidl’s jobs are a fantasy and should be ignored by planners.

Long term care – still no answers

November 2021

The Covid crisis focussed attention on the problems of long-term care for the elderly. For that at least we can be thankful – for too long society has paid too little heed to this problem. The situation in Scotland is particularly acute.

There are many sides to this very complex issue. Its not just about the elderly, of course. We are talking about many different types of care required for a whole range of conditions with many different levels of medical acuteness.

Very broadly, as life expectancy increases, more of us spend more time in old age, and therefore with long term care requirements. To that extent, then, it’s the by-product of an advance in society. But it throws up major challenges for all of us, not least from a financial point of view.

It’s also a structural one. The market in care providers, and how they are funded, doesn’t work well. In the Borders, for example, we are losing private care capacity because providers can’t make ends meet. Meanwhile the public sector can’t meet demand with its existing capacity.

The government recently announced an increase in National Insurance contributions to pay for, first, addressing the backlog in NHS waiting lists caused by the pandemic, and then to provide more for social care, or rather to cap what people have to pay out of their own pockets. Meanwhile the Scottish Government is consulting on a ‘national care service’.

Neither of these approaches will solve the problem in the long term. Covid should have provided us with the spur to much more imaginative thinking on this.

One of the UK’s greatest weaknesses is the way our public services are structured and financed. We have a poor record, particularly in Scotland, on outcomes in health, education and welfare. In Western Europe, such services are typically paid for through social insurance systems (particularly health and welfare) and provided by independent institutions (notably in health and education). Access to public services is just as equitable as here – if you can’t pay via your salary the state pays on your behalf. But the quality of service tends to be higher, with providers competing for custom, and, because citizens have more choice and control over the system, they are happier to pay more, so services tend to be better funded.

It’s very hard to enact wholesale reform along these lines in the UK, though the Conservatives, Labour and the Liberals all deserve credit for limited reforms in England over the last 25 years. The current crisis could have been an opportunity to introduce some of these concepts into social care. For example, instead of taxing workers to pay for a monolithic system, why not require everyone to pay into long term schemes that pay out as and when they need care at the end of their lives. Any surplus would be heritable, so it would be like a cross between a pension and an insurance policy.  People would be able to choose between different policy providers who would then have the market clout to seek out the best carers at competitive prices. This European-style model could then be a template for further reforms in the NHS, welfare, pensions and so on.

As it is, I can’t help feeling we have missed an opportunity here, and the issue of care for the elderly will need to be rethought again in a few years’ time.

Zoom forever

October 2021

As Covid eases, one dilemma is whether or not to meet physically for work meetings outside the office. By this I mean non-social meetings with people you don’t work with day-to-day: charity groups, board meetings, steering committees, local community councils or indeed Council meetings.

Scottish Borders Council has been very cautious about allowing or encouraging such meetings. It’s tempting to sigh at another example of public sector ‘gold plating’ of Covid restrictions. It’s been striking over the last 18 months that anyone needing to earn a living has been desperate to open up while many government organisations seem to down tools at the slightest opportunity.

But on this matter I’m with the Council.

I was a bit of a slow adopter of online meeting technology. It took me a while to get used to Zoom, Teams and the others. But now they’ve become so widespread and everyone’s got used to them it seems crazy to go back. It’s a bit like learning to drive only to go back to riding a horse.

I’m not saying that we should never meet up. With small groups of less than 6 or so, when the conversation naturally bounces around between people, it’s much better to meet in person. But larger meetings which tend to be chaired and go round the room in a structured way seem to be more efficient on Zoom. Online, people tend to feel less pressure to have to say something, and only speak when its important. Meetings are shorter, more to the point and more productive.

Add to that, of course, nobody has to travel to the meeting. More people can ‘attend’ so it’s more democratic. It’s greener too and you’re less likely to spread the big bug.

Take Scottish Borders Council meetings, for example. There are 34 councillors and numerous officers who attend, plus people from the media and members of the public. Let’s say 60 people minimum. On average they must have to travel 20 miles or so there and back, taking them an hour. That’s 85 weeks of work and hundreds of pounds in ‘mileage’ expenses, just to get everyone there and back.

Of course, some miss the sociability of meeting up in the flesh. For many, this is part of the attraction of serving on the many voluntary committees and bodies that play such an important part in civic society. One answer might be for organisations like these to hold occasional less formal meetings, perhaps at weekends, for members to enjoy each others’ company as well as chew the fat on the issues of the day.