Herald letter: ‘The SNP is an ideas-free zone. The only way is down

THE penny seems to have dropped for Neil Mackay as he has identified that the SNP’s commitment to independence is a declining asset in today’s politics, if it is indeed not already a liability (“SNP’s indy obsession will hand victory to Labour”, The Herald April 18). The fact is that the SNP resembles nothing more than Wile E Coyote in the Roadrunner cartoons: the momentum generated by the 2014 referendum has allowed it to artificially defy the laws of political gravity, but now the only way is down.

Moreover, it is clear is that the cause of the party’s decline is its lack of intellectual and philosophical substance. By comparison, we can learn about Labour’s social democracy from reading the works of Tonys Crosland and Benn, and its political application from the memoirs of the likes of Denis Healey, Roy Jenkins and Robin Cook; for contemporary political debate, as an active Fabian, I would recommend that Society and its publications. Likewise, the Conservatives have an intellectual background which pits the One Nation ideas of Disraeli with the Hayek-inspired Thatcher-Joseph ideas of the 1970s.

You do not have to agree with their ideas, but no-one can claim that they have had none – which is very much in contrast to the SNP: it has no Fabian-style policy hinterland; it has had no Benn or Cook or Disraeli or Hayek. Instead it relies on vacuous nonsense like “independence is normal” (when in fact nation states comprising unions are at least as frequent) and “why should Scotland not be like Denmark?” (er, because it is not Denmark?) or claims exceptionalist “Scottish values” (while at the same time telling us that Scots are responsible for such a rising tide of hatred that we need a special new law to tackle it).

It is notable that when Labour and the Tories have had leaderships which have been interested in slogans and not ideas (for example, Corbyn and Johnson and Truss respectively), their standing has fallen disastrously. It looks like the same fate now awaits the rather dim Humza Yousaf, and the ideas-free zone which is the SNP.

Peter A Russell, Glasgow.

Herald letter: Pity traditional working-class decorum never reached Yousaf and Anderson

IT is a sad reflection of the divided state of Scottish discourse that everything must be reduced to the simplistic binary level of Yes vs No, or SNP vs Tory and it is depressing to see that the modern propensity to foul language is part of that process, as demonstrated by Neil Mackay’s article on the subject (“A tale of two ‘f***s’ … and why they are so different”, The Herald, August 10).

I am sure I am not alone amongst your readers in remembering the days when habitual and fluent swearing was a feature of the working day for many men, but outside of the factory gates was subject to a code of “no need for that – ladies present” or “mind your language in front of the children”. As children ourselves, we were taught never to say anything in public that you would not say to your mother in private and that swearing was neither grown-up nor funny nor clever. We can only assume that these lessons of working-class decorum were never passed on to the likes of Humza Yousaf, Lee Anderson or indeed Neil Mackay.

Those individuals should consider the example that they have set and indeed, I think in earlier age, Mr Yousaf’s position as First Minister would not have been tenable. And they should ponder on the example of Labour’s Wes Streeting in an earlier Edinburgh conversation. As reported in this paper, he “mocked the idea that he would ever tell Scottish Labour what to do, and if he tried that with Dame Jackie [Baillie] the second word would be ‘off’.”

The point was made with humour, articulacy and decency – qualities that are apparently absent from Messrs Yousaf and Anderson, and not valued by Mr Mackay.

Peter A Russell, Glasgow.

Herald letter: The solid and moral Starmer is the only man for the job

MARK McGeoghegan’s article on Sir Keir Starmer and Labour (“Starmer’s party has lost the courage of its convictions”, The Herald, July 24) is measured and justifiably critical and for that reason, it is worth a similarly measured response. Above all, it needs to be appreciated how far the UK has deteriorated under the Tories.

First they took the calamitous choice of austerity and then they caved into the Ukip agenda which had previously been the preserve of the far right and the far left; having lost the EU referendum, the Tory governments that followed had no Plan B (such as EEA/Efta) which would have kept the UK in the single market. They compounded that dereliction of national duty by electing as their leader and as our PM first Boris Johnson and then Liz Truss, who crashed the economy with a programme of unfunded spending that belted home the final nails in the reputation of the UK as a competently-run country.

We are back to somewhere like the mid-1970s, when Helmut Schmidt was moved to remark that Tony Benn (then a leading Cabinet minister) was the Bertie Wooster of political economics. The implication was that the UK was a joke (even under Herr Schmidt’s social democratic Labour colleagues) and that the international markets could not trust its government to run the country effectively, and least of all to do so on the basis of sound money.

As the only politician of our times who has actually had a responsible job of national importance in his career, Sir Keir Starmer appreciates the value of getting the basics right and of convincing the rest of the world that this has been achieved. This is double the task which faced the incoming Tony Blair government in 1997 – which inherited an economy that had largely recovered after the disaster of Black Wednesday and needed only prove its own competence. Sir Keir starts at a much lower point and needs to do more.

By the end of the next Labour government, I would expect the UK to be moving once more in the right direction towards a society that is both more prosperous and more equal. How far we get in that direction will depend on many factors, not least whether Sir Keir and Rachel Reeves can achieve their massively-ambitious goal of making UK growth the highest in the G7. But the sine qua non of doing so has to be restoring international confidence in the country, in its institutions and its ability to govern itself rationally and prudently.

So we will need a solid figure of a Prime Minister who is not hyperbolic in his claims and who does not over-promise and under-deliver; and who has a demonstrable moral compass and who will not commit money unless he is certain that it is there for the government to spend. Sounds like a job for Sir Keir to me.

Peter A Russell, Glasgow.

Herald letter: A seal of approval for Britain

Your Business editor Ian McConnell has repeated the good news about Scotland’s inward investment performance as recorded by EY UK and Scotland (“External seal of approval for Scotland in insular Brexit Britain,” , The Herald, June 26).

However, on closer examination, it turns out that this is not the conclusion of the EY report itself. What EY says is: “Perceptions of the UK remain high on fundamentals such as its quality of life and legal system, bolstering its attractiveness as a headquarters location. It remains a large and vibrant consumer market. … These attributes – together with the openness of its economy, global historical links and the pivot to ‘Global Britain’ – help to explain why the UK continues to attract a more global cast of investors than most other FDI destinations.”

Scotland’s inward investment performance must be seen in this context, and it is a shame that Mr McConnell has repeatedly succumbed to the perhaps understandable temptation to have a pop at Brexit and Jacob Rees-Mogg, rather than offering your readers a full and balanced account. The whole story is more complex and hopefully more positive than EU-loving Scotland = Good and Brexit Britain = Bad.

Peter A. Russell, Glasgow

Herald letter: Indy contrary to Christian belief

TO an outsider like myself, the debate about independence and the Church of Scotland (Letters, May 24 & 25) is very clear-cut.

My recollection of the central message of the Christian faith is “to love thy neighbour as thyself”. If this is the case, it would appear that political aims based on division and distancing ourselves from our nearest neighbour are contradictory to Christian belief.

Perhaps the seed of that message has fallen on stony ground in the case of Scottish nationalists?

Peter A Russell, Glasgow.

Herald letter: Our councils must be freed from the dead hand of Holyrood

BY coincidence, we have in The Herald today (May 17) several articles which lead us to the same conclusion.

The first such article is your report on the view of Andy Cliffe of Glasgow Airport citing the city’s massive but unfulfilled potential (“Airport boss says Glasgow is missing out on huge potential”). The second is the letter from Colin Green of Dumfries regarding the state of Scotland’s high streets and what might be done to rectify it. Finally, and what draws this and many other issues together, is the stark warning from Tim McKay of the Accounts Commission that radical change is needed if Scotland’s councils are to avoid a bleak future (“Councils’ deal is ‘overdue’”).

From its very inception, there was never any pretence that the Scottish Parliament would be a champion of local democracy and indeed it has transpired that local councils and councillors are seen by the Holyrood establishment as part of the problem, and not part of the solution. The latest iteration of this is the SNP Minister Joe FitzPatrick telling us that he wants “a New Deal for Local Government that promotes empowerment and provides greater flexibility over local funding with clear accountability for delivery of shared priorities and outcomes”.

The whole point of local government should be that it does not have to share the priorities of central authority. The outcome of doing so is a monoculture of policy and practice which is unresponsive to local needs and deeply conservative in nature. For example, if there had been no plurality of policy formulation in Glasgow, there would have been no tenement refurbishment and community-based housing associations; likewise the city would not have seen arts-based regeneration and there would have been no Miles Better Campaign and no 1990 City of Culture and no tourist industry and probably no International Financial Services District. It is no exaggeration to say that Glasgow was saved from a slow death by the district and city councils, led by Michael Kelly, Jean McFadden, Pat Lally and many others – all of whom were working against the grain of central government.

Today, we have the call from Mr Cliffe for Glasgow to once again live up to its potential, and we have need for towns and districts around the country to have their local voices in the form of councillors and provosts to speak up for their high streets. And as pointed out by Mr McKay, they need the financial means to do the job that Holyrood is so clearly unable and unwilling to do. A good start would be a programme of double devolution from Holyrood to local councils, and a flexible menu of local taxes and charges supported by no-strings-attached redistribution across Scotland from more prosperous areas to less well-off councils.

Peter A Russell, Glasgow.

Herald letter: You Can’t Always Get What You Want….

MARK McGeoghegan asks what Labour can offer pro-independence Scots, and concludes that it will be tricky to please them (“Can Labour become home to pro-independence Scots? It will be tricky…”, The Herald, April 13). However, there is another possibility, especially as we now experience the twilight of the long Salmond-Sturgeon era.

This is the prospect that those who were carried away in the delusional hysteria of 2014 have now grown up, either chronologically or politically. Since Scotland decided that it wished to stay in the UK, they will have learned from the Supreme Court decision secured by Nicola Sturgeon that independence is politically impossible and from the lack of a coherent economic strategy that it is unaffordable. (You can’t always get what you want.)

With these facts now apparent as the failings of nationalism to all who are willing to see them, the rational response must be to look elsewhere and to find ways in which to create a better Scotland within the UK. (But if you try sometimes, you get what you need.)

Peter A Russell, Glasgow.

Scotland 2042

Bella Caledonia asked for submissions imagining what Scotland might be like in 2042. I submitted the following. (I did not win.)

“My fellow MSPs,

It is my privilege to address you on this historic occasion. We will all, as a nation, be proud to have shared this moment here today in 2042. Our achievement is not one of politicians but one of people coming together for the common weal – just as those who set up this parliament in the last century demanded.

And it has needed that common purpose, considering the condition of Scotland when we first took over after the wasted years of the old sterile Nationalist vs Unionist battle. That was of course ended when my predecessor sought an extra-parliamentary mandate for independence – and the sorry collapse of that venture into national recrimination and mutual animosity. Scotland at that moment faced a real choice – whether to persist down the road to endless strife and – who knows where? We will never know how close we were to the sort of societal breakdown which disfigured Northern Ireland for decades in the late 20th century.

So while I was pleased to take the mantle of First Minister, I had few illusions about the size of the task ahead. But the weight of that task also meant that I had no choice: Scotland needed to be brought together because the alternative was just too dangerous to contemplate. That is why I actively welcomed the chance to lead a coalition government, even if it was a minority. I also welcomed the chance to work with the Holyrood Tories – and I could remind the Nationalists that the 2007 SNP government had used exactly the same arrangement.

Moreover, my task – my mission – was bring Scots of all political persuasions together, and had to include those with whom we disagree on so many things, but with whom we have more in common – especially our love of and aspirations for Scotland and its people.

So our first task was to restore to Scotland’s politics that mutual respect had been missing: in this we were much helped by the eviction of a UK government which had ruled with distrust, arrogance and animosity in equal measures and its replacement by the Keir Starmer regime. In particular, the introduction of Proportional Representation for MPs meant that Scotland (like the rest of the UK) could be seen for the glorious multiplicity of its political views, all of which would be represented fairly.

The inversion of the old politics was complete: parties only commanding a minority of votes were no longer allowed to dominate with their absolutist doctrinaire attitudes: the myths of “Tory England” and “Nationalist Scotland” were dispatched to the dustbin of history where they have stayed. Instead, Scotland has enjoyed a stable and comfortable position in the UK, and like Wales, Northern Ireland and the regions of England, has benefitted from the support and redistribution that followed.

Having established Scotland’s New Politics, and with the support of Westminster, we set about rebuilding the country for the post-Covid and Climate Emergency era. We knew that to do so, we needed to harness the power of localism. So we set about the biggest-ever decentralisation of power that we have ever seen: we in Holyrood transferred as much operational decision-making as possible to new regional authorities, all with real powers for public health, environmental protection and transport – and all backed by their own tax-raising powers and generous central grants. And below these regional authorities, we now have Burgh Councils. We have restored to our towns provosts and local councils that can address the problems of their high streets and their housing estates. The dead hand of Holyrood has been lifted from local services and decision-making.

The late Scottish Labour radical Robin Cook used to say: “if we want to change the country, we need to have the support of the majority to do so.” Conversely, when you have the support of the majority, you can use it in one of two ways. The first is to use it for your own political ends, as the old SNP administrations had; and the second way is the way we have taken  – to use it for the good of all.

That is why we now have a modern and efficient railway in Scotland; it is why our islands now have a modern and efficient fleet of ferries; and why our roads now boast civil engineering achievements like the A83 Rest And Be Thankful Tunnel.

And even more importantly, it is why we now are now investing so heavily in our children: our decision to have the best STEM education in Europe in a fifteen-year period is on course to create a wonderful academic and practical resource – we are the envy of the world.

Likewise our revolution in food and nutrition has changed the population’s views and habits literally from the ground up – we now all know the value of microbes in soil and the value of sustainable farming and above all how that effects what we should grow, how we should shop and how we must cook and eat in future.

Before we took power, Scotland was at the edge of an abyss. We have looked into that abyss and we have turned our backs on it. Like President Kennedy said about space travel eighty years ago: we choose to do these things not because they are easy, but because they are hard. In the same way, our achievements are the result of working hard at working together, rather than working hard at tearing ourselves apart.

Which is why I now stand before you with this historic piece of legislation. We have promulgated this Act to ensure that our children and their children will never again be neglected in their education and their wellbeing, relegated behind the constitutional obsessions of politicians. And never again will this Parliament be deflected from our historic task of making Scotland the best possible place that it can be.

I celebrate the passing of the New Act of Union and commend it to Scotland.”

Herald letter: It’s time we had a Greater Glasgow Council

THREE cheers for Mark Smith’s article regarding the state of local government in Scotland (“Can someone stand up for our cash-strapped councils?”, The Herald, December 19). It reflected what has been apparent for many years – that a double-devolution revolution is needed: local councils need more powers so that they can provide better and more responsive services to their citizens.

Moreover, they also need better financial arrangements – there are plenty of options, from the long-promised but just as long-overdue reform of local property taxes to the reversal of Michael Forsyth’s nationalisation of non-domestic rates. All of these could be done by the Scottish Government in short order, if the political will were there to do so, which sadly it never has been – it has always been clear that all parties at Holyrood see councils as part of the problem rather than of the solution.

Moreover, in highlighting the problems of Glasgow City Council, Mr Smith ignores a vital issue: that of the city council’s boundaries. Unlike Edinburgh and equivalent cities in England such as Newcastle and Manchester, Glasgow’s boundaries are tightly drawn to exclude its affluent contiguous suburbs such as Bearsden and Clarkston.

As a result, Glasgow’s local taxation base has been chronically under-resourced and has lacked the structural capacity to redistribute resources from the richest to the least well-off. Although this was mitigated to some extent in the days of Strathclyde Region, no measures were put in place to replace that mechanism in John Major’s ignorant and prejudiced reorganisation of the mid-1990s. A short-term solution might be for the Scottish Government to set a Greater Glasgow Precept for the surrounding councils on both the council tax and non-domestic rates, although a much better longer-term aim would be to include those areas in a strategic Greater Glasgow Council funded by a regional income tax, working with smaller burgh councils funded by local property taxes and service charges to provide local services for local communities.
Peter A Russell, Glasgow

Poem for all strikers at Christmas

The Strike At Thyssen’s Steelworks
Wolf Biermann (trans. Peter Russell)

In Duisberg Thyssen’s furnace was out
Their great furnace cold day and night
The foundry workers union up there
Forced into a six-week strike
Better pay was their demand, but their aim
Not fired by Maloch or greed  -
A fair day’s work for a fair day’s wage
And a thirty-five hour week!

The foundries stand cold in the wind
The coke ovens quiet and still
Nothing burning, no industrial stench, 
it was a ghostly quiet idyll
No smoke, no soot, no dust, no racket
All the mess was far far away
For once the Ruhr coalfield was as clear
As a spa on a summer’s day

But this environmentally friendly scene
Concealed a struggle elemental
A strike, my nature-loving friends
Is never sweet nor sentimental
The workers were every man locked out
Pickets barred the main gate
They asked the board of directors
If they could ever imagine that fate:

“We freeze our bloody arses off out here
Being persuasive, militant and restive
Meanwhile Herr Thyssen sits cosy at home
with his Christmas goose so festive.”
So they took their stand on Silent Night
And watched the sun sink dim and low
And warmed their freezing fingers
By the heat of the brazier’s glow

Then while pickets watched their wives came down
With Stollen, Glühwein and rum
They laughed and sang Oh-Tann-en-Baum 
And in solidarity swore and drank as one.