Rob Roy's missing blade feels like an apt metaphor for our situation
The hilt would be the Scottish Parliament, the missing blade the powers and resources needed to make the sword whole and let Rob get about his business.
Since its inception in 1999 the Scottish Parliament has been a political trap, well designed by Donald Dewar, and built to ensure the rebellious Scots could go politically no further forward for the foreseeable future – let alone a generation or even a lifetime.
READ MORE: Fergus Ewing's solo Holyrood bid 'unnecessary', John Swinney says
From the massive cost overrun on the parliament building itself to today's similar cost overruns on the Port Glasgow ferries, the parliament has provided fuel for the Unionists to say 'we told you so'. It has provided gainful employment for more than 100 politicians and special advisors, many of whom seem to have become very settled into the parliament's day-to-day routine.
In the 1990s the SNP debated, at length, what would be its attitude to the parliament. The majority thought that half a loaf was better than no loaf. The parliament has attract the blame for all that is wrong in Scotland, and will continue to do so, while receiving little credit for what works well. The SNP have spent the past 18 years managing devolution.
READ MORE: Scotland 'should not be treated as afterthought' of HS2 project
They have tried to make the best of a sometimes difficult political and financial situation but at times appear to have lost the drive to finish the job and press on to independence.
According to the small army of accountants employed by the parliament, much bigger financial challenges lie ahead. The pocket money from Westminster will very soon not stretch to cover the demands of Scotland's ageing population and its more generous welfare policies. In response, the SNP are now looking to 'reform' public services to bridge the financial gap. If (and it's a big if) the SNP form the Scottish Government from May 2026 onwards, 'reform' could be a very painful process and will only serve to further distract the SNP from its allegedly core purpose – independence.
Brian Lawson
Paisley
IN The National on Saturday Kate Forbes was yet again writing about Scotland's successful record in attracting foreign investment (FDI). (The numbers prove it – the world is ignoring those who talk Scotland down, Jun 21). She obviously sees this as a great success story for the SNP-led Scottish Government, and provides a narrative to contrast with the litany of their failures to deliver on a range of targets, including reductions in poverty, the educational attainment gap, drug deaths, homelessness, NHS waiting lists; it's a long list.
To be fair, increasing FDI has a pragmatic element to it given the economic constraints that remaining in the Union creates. The Scottish Government has limited capacity to grow the economy by increasing public spending because it has to 'balance the books' – spending must be matched by taxation, meaning as much money is taken out of the economy as has been added. The only part of Scottish Government spending which adds to the economy is the funds allocated under the Barnett Formula, which is derived from UK Government public spending decisions. FDI brings additional capital into Scotland and helps generate more income tax revenue through the employment it creates.
READ MORE: Ex-Unionist party leader backs Scottish independence referendum
The problem, however, is that the profits don't stay here – 6% of Scotland's GDP leaves our shores, much of it headed for tax havens. Foreign investors can also withdraw, as exemplified by a foreign investor (Ineos) closing Grangemouth. Much of our essential industries such as food supply and energy are dominated by foreign companies. Our whisky and salmon export industries are also owned mostly by foreign investors.
This is not a viable scenario for an independent Scottish economy but it is clear that Kate and her fellow ministers think that managing the economy after independence will be very much the same as now. The difference will be greater borrowing powers, which essentially means swapping the Barnett Formula for dependence on the bond markets.
Is it any wonder, then, that Kate and her colleagues don't think the currency question is at all important? Perhaps, since they think running the post-independence economy will be similar to managing the current one under devolution, they consider themselves the ones best equipped to do that. Their refusal to join a convention along with other elements of the independence movement might reasonably be explained by a reluctance to engage with 'a bunch of amateurs'.
It looks like the rest of the independence movement will need to develop a way forward without them, and there is no shortage of ideas, knowledge and talent in Scotland which can do this.
Jim Osborne
Glasgow
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
16 minutes ago
- Times
Labour must get a grip or its entire economic plan could unravel
Twelve months on from Labour's general election landslide, it is a good time to ditch the slogans and soundbites — and I am afraid there will be plenty of those this week — and assess what the latest economic data says about Labour's stewardship of the economy. From my standpoint its record is neither disastrous, nor dazzling. There is a credible argument that things could have been considerably worse given the structural challenges inherited from the Conservatives. Yet a series of policy missteps have needlessly sapped momentum. In essence, Labour's first year has been defined less by a transformative economic mission and more by steady progress, punctuated by damaging miscalculation. To give credit where it is due, this government appears to be learning on the job. But it is also true that there has been a lot to learn from — unforced errors on welfare reform, labour market policy and the management of the public finances have blunted early optimism among the UK business community. A persistently tricky international backdrop has not helped either. Let us begin our assessment with GDP — that most central, yet blunt, measurement tool. Growth in GDP since Labour entered office in July last year has not collapsed, nor has it accelerated meaningfully. On an international comparative basis, the UK has largely tracked the G7 average, growing by a compound 0.8 per cent in US dollar terms across the last three quarters. GDP per capita, a more revealing metric of national wellbeing, has risen by a modest 0.3 per cent. This is an improvement after two years of declines, but hardly a stirring renaissance. Inflation remains central to household perceptions of the government's economic competency, and its record here is mixed. Headline inflation peaked at more than 11 per cent well before Labour took power and has markedly softened since. However, the core problem, quite literally, lies in 'core inflation' which remains stubbornly high at an annualised 3.5 per cent. Above-inflation increases to the national living wage and public sector pay have added volatility to service prices just as the Bank of England was seeking calm. April's spike in consumer price inflation, though partially driven by regulated costs like air fares and energy levies, has muddied the water for monetary policy. This dissonance — between a government talking up interest rate cuts and simultaneously fuelling wage pressures — has not gone unnoticed at the Bank. We should be wary of attributing lower interest rates as the fruit of government policy. They are being delivered despite it. Turning to fiscal policy and the record is equally chequered. While the cost for the UK government to borrow for ten years — the ten-year gilt yield — has held steady in nominal terms, the interest rate spread that the UK pays compared with its G7 peers has widened to a worrying 1.25 percentage points. This reflects heightened debt issuance pressure after the October budget, and market suspicion about the UK's long-term fiscal sustainability. If rebellious Labour backbenchers think this arithmetic magically improves with a change of chancellor I have some bad news for them. The financial markets see Rachel Reeves as considerably more credible than the vast majority of alternatives within the Labour parliamentary party. Against this backdrop the autumn budget now looms large. Having left herself just £9.9 billion of headroom against her primary fiscal rule back in March, the chancellor now faces slippage on multiple fronts. Public sector borrowing has risen faster than forecast. The headwinds from U-turns on welfare reform and winter fuel payments threaten to eat into nearly half of the existing cushion. Visa reforms that suppress labour force growth and murmurings about the two-child benefit cap could further erode fiscal wriggle room. And the private sector is signalling unease with what is to come on tax. Since the general election, both deposits and the household savings rate have risen. This looks like a quiet vote of no confidence in the economic outlook and shows that speculative fiscal noise has a real cost: muted consumer spending, and deferred investment. But Labour's biggest headache is that it has sowed itself problems in the jobs market. Payroll employment, once a bright spot, has stalled since July 2024. Critics rightly argue that employer national insurance increases, combined with expanded employment rights and minimum wage hikes, have depressed hiring appetite. Two caveats are worth considering. First, payroll data may understate real employment if more workers are now classifying as self-employed to avoid higher employer contributions. Indeed Labour Force Survey data — though statistically compromised — shows overall employment still rising. Nonetheless, qualitative data from the Bank of England's decision maker panel confirms a palpable pullback in hiring intentions. This is consistent with the broader trend: firmer labour market regulation may be well-intentioned, but it is weighing on labour demand. The second caveat is that green shoots are now emerging in labour market participation which has inched upwards — possibly aided by NHS capacity improvements. Yet the metric that matters most for fiscal arithmetic — productivity — remains worryingly flat. If the Office for Budget Responsibility downgrades its productivity assumptions in the coming weeks, the government's already tight headroom could vanish entirely ahead of the budget. So what happens this autumn? The chancellor faces a vexing equation. Maintain fiscal rules, avoid tax rises on working people (her words, not mine!), protect spending pledges, and hold her parliamentary party together. At least one of these constraints looks certain to give. Options are narrowing. Loosening rules risks a bond market backlash. New taxes or spending cuts risk backbench revolt and sap economic momentum. Supply-side tweaks — such as speeding up infrastructure approvals or revisiting the North Sea tax and licencing regime — offer some room, but their fiscal payoff is modest and long term. The chancellor may also be tempted to revisit the policy of interest paid on central bank reserves. This is a potentially lucrative move but one fraught with risks to monetary policy effectiveness as her governor, Andrew Bailey, has recently noted in response to similar proposals from Reform UK. None of these options are easy. Some are not credible. But the current fiscal impasse is even less sustainable. Yet mere policy competence will not be enough. The fiscal debate is increasingly constrained not by in-year numbers, but by a refusal to confront long term trade-offs on healthcare spending and pensions. If the government truly wishes to spark the 'renewal' it promised, it must move from a mindset of management to one of reform. The alternative is a parliament of drift — marked by tactical retreats, fiscal fudge and faster growth that never quite arrives. In the months ahead, the OBR's pen may prove more consequential than the chancellor's speeches. Should productivity assumptions fall, the government's entire economic strategy could yet unravel. The risk, as ever, is not that the centre cannot hold — but that no one dares to grip the centre at all.
STV News
18 minutes ago
- STV News
Growing mental health crisis among Scottish police officers, Labour warns
Labour has warned of a 'growing mental health crisis' among Scottish police officers, as figures show the number of officers taking time off because of psychological issues rose by more than 50% over the last three years. The figures, obtained by the party via a Freedom of Information request, show the number of officers off work because of anxiety, depression, stress or post-traumatic stress rose from 814 in 2021 to 1,236 in 2024, an increase of 52%. The figures also show the number of officers taking time off grew each year over the period, with 1,024 in 2022 and 1,102 in 2023. The party said the figures showed officers are at 'breaking point' and called on the government to address the 'mounting pressures' facing officers. Scottish Labour Justice spokesperson Pauline McNeill said: 'It's clear police in Scotland are at breaking point after years of SNP mismanagement and neglect. 'We owe it to police officers to ensure they have the support they need while they work to keep our communities safe, but it's clear that is not the case under the SNP. 'The SNP has let police officer numbers collapse over the last five years, piling pressure on remaining officers and threatening to undermine public safety. 'The SNP must wake up to this growing mental health crisis and work with Police Scotland to support officers struggling with stress, trauma or poor mental health. 'Dealing with this crisis is vital to keeping police officers in work and on duty at a time when we need visible officers in communities. 'Police officers cannot keep bearing the brunt of SNP failure – more must be done to support police and the vital work they do.' Earlier this year it was reported that the number of days taken off by police officers and staff suffering from mental ill health rose from 63,797 in 2019/20 to 96,509 in 2023/24, a 51.3% rise Deputy Chief Constable Alan Speirs said: 'The health and welfare of our officers and staff remains one of Police Scotland's highest priorities with enhanced provisions from both our Employee Assistance and Your Wellbeing Matters programmes. 'This will be further enhanced through the implementation of our new HR structure with increased resource within our Health and Wellbeing team. 'We also have a range of mechanisms in place to support our employees who are absent from work for any reason. 'We continue to work with our occupational health provider to support police officers and staff in their journey back to health and, subsequently, to work.' A Scottish Government spokesperson said: 'Police officers and staff do a challenging job and we have welcomed the Chief Constable's commitment to workforce wellbeing. 'Staff and officers can access a range of services to support their physical and mental wellbeing. 'This includes access to a 24/7 employee assistance programme, and direct access to occupational health services. 'We are investing a record £1.64bn for policing in 2025-26, an increase of £90m on 2024-25, and Police Scotland took on more recruits in 2024-25 than at any time since 2013, with more intakes planned this year.' Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country
The National
18 minutes ago
- The National
Social Security Scotland is 'shining example of what independence can do'
Social Justice Secretary Shirley-Anne Somerville has said after being in charge of the social security system in Scotland for more than half of its life, the 'extraordinary amount' the Holyrood government has to spend on mitigating Westminster policies has become 'a real frustration'. While she said she is proud of the way the Government has 'stepped up' to save Scots from the worst impacts of UK Government welfare policies – with £1.4 billion spent on mitigation over the last 15 years – she is 'angry' so much money has had to be spent on covering for 'the inadequacies of the Union'. Somerville insisted that with Social Security Scotland – which has been responsible for devolved benefits since 2018 – the Scottish Government has demonstrated how the welfare system could be transformed through independence. 'What we've done is demonstrate, through the work we've done through devolution, that you can have a robust system, but a fair and humane one, and it works exceptionally well,' she said. 'It doesn't mean to say we can't make it better, but we've demonstrated you can have a system that delivers for people, and I think social security and the success we've made of it, it doesn't just demonstrate why we should have the powers for the remainder of the social security system – because the vast majority is still down at Westminster – I think it demonstrates exactly why when Scotland has powers we use them differently and the people of Scotland benefit from that type of service that's done in a different way, that has their interests at heart.' Somerville (below) added: 'I am proud the Scottish Government stepped up [to mitigate Westminster policies], but I am angry and frustrated we have to, and that we do that because of the inadequacies of the Union and the settlement we are in. (Image: Jane Barlow) 'Everything we mitigate against is money we cannot spend on the NHS, on our transport system. That's the real frustration to me. 'While we remain in this settlement, we will continue to step up to protect people but there is a better way, and I think that's why, while I'm proud of what we're doing in social security, I think it is the shining example of how you can do things differently. 'If we had our independence, we could be doing that on a much bigger scale than we are at the moment when we are still beholden to Westminster.' Next year, the Scottish Government will mitigate against the two-child benefit cap introduced by the Tories at Westminster in 2017 and continued by Labour. An estimated £155 million will be spent on mitigating the policy in 2026/27, and this will rise to £200m by 2029/30, according to the Scottish Fiscal Commission. Somerville said: 'If you look at the cost of mitigation overall, we've committed £1.4 bn from 15 years of mitigation. That's an extraordinary amount that we have not been able to spend on other areas. 'That will go up still further when we begin to mitigate the full extent of the two-child cap. That's a choice we've taken and I'm proud of the fact we will do that and support people, but we have to recognise it has implications for the Scottish Government budget and it doesn't need to be like that if only the UK Government would do its job rather than us having to do that for them.' Social Security Scotland delivers several benefits including family and disability payments, many of which are unique to Scotland such as the Scottish Child Payment (SCP). In 2023, Oxford professor Danny Dorling said the SCP had sparked the biggest reduction in inequality caused by a single policy change since the collapse of the Berlin Wall. Statistics in March show rates of both relative and absolute child poverty were nine percentage points lower in Scotland than the UK average in 2023/24. Somerville explained the SCP was brought in as a response to the 'inadequacy' of Universal Credit – one of many benefits still reserved to Westminster. The SCP forms a significant part of Social Security Scotland's different approach to benefits administration which is based on 'dignity, fairness and respect'. (Image: NICK MAILER) Professor Stephen Sinclair (above), based at Glasgow Caledonian University, said in 2023 that the 'style and culture' around benefits in Scotland was different to that in the London government, as well as the benefits themselves being more generous. He said claimants on Scottish benefits felt a residual 'unease and suspicion' when interacting with social security agencies because of their experiences on the UK Government's systems – comparing this with the 'new more engaged human rights approach' of Social Security Scotland. Somerville said it had been made clear to her how much this different approach was valued. 'I spoke to one gentleman when I was on a visit who was too frightened to come forward [to DWP] when his disability worsened because he thought he might get the money he had taken away from him,' Somerville told The National. 'We know of people that didn't come forward because they found that system inhumane and degrading and what we've done is demonstrated we have a system that is based on dignity, fairness and respect and you have people who now feel they can come forward for the first time.' Asked how she felt about the welfare state in 2025, Somerville added the least society should expect from a government is that they are supported to get money they are entitled to. 'Every single one of us may need the support of a social security system at any point. The social security system is there for all of us and it's important we see that as a right and an investment in people and that has to be the core foundation of how we develop social security,' she said. 'If you're eligible, it is your right to get that benefit and it is our obligation to support you to get you what you're entitled to. That doesn't mean our system is soft-touch, but we go out of our way to make sure those people who are entitled to benefits get that money and they're supported to do so. 'That's the very least society should expect from their government.'
