Ken Mathiason is a fairly regular commentator on this blog. He is Scottish and we share an interest in all things to do with accountancy, as well as Scottish politics. Ken wrote this on the blog last week:
Unfortunately there are signs that the Tories are actively trying to undermine the Scottish Parliament. The other day Mundell (the Secretary of State for Scotland — which is his job title but doesn't describe how he acts) announced the opening of new offices for the UK in Scotland, with the proposal to hire 2900 civil servants. With a staff that size it's obviously not just a PR exercise, and where's he going to get them, other than denuding Holyrood of its civil service support? There are reports that the new organisation will channel UK Gov investment in Scotland and, given the Scottish Gov's restricted budgets and borrowing powers, it implies that Holyrood will be squeezed out of its role in the governance of Scotland.
The majority of Scots believe Scottish governance has improved since devolution, so quite how the Scottish public will react to an undermining of the devolution they fought so hard to get and have supported ever since is an interesting question. Civil disobedience on a grand scale is not unlikely.
He then added this:
As a postscript to my posts above, here are some further thoughts on the proposals by the UK Gov to increase its presence and to start developing its own investment proposals in Scotland:
1. The mere presence of a significant UK Gov presence is likely to interfere with the governance by the elected Gov of Scotland.
2. The UK Gov will make its policy and investment decisions for political reasons and not necessarily in the best interests of Scotland or its people.
3. This could easily lead to UK Gov acting contrary to Scottish Gov policies (for instance nuclear power generation, immigration policy etc).
4. The value of UK Gov investments and the costs of running their Scottish operation will almost certainly be deducted from the block grant allocation which funds the Scottish Gov's spending.
5 This would inevitably result in an undermining of the Scottish Gov's policies and governance, leading to confrontations.
6. It's a racing certainty that these costs will be “charged” to Scotland in GERS and form part of the supposed “Scottish Fiscal Deficit”.
7. It could also lead to the cessation of the Barnett Formula processes by which Scotland's supposed share of UK investment spending is calculated (this is regularly mooted by the Tories).
8. Mundell talks of having 2,900 civil servants to support this new venture, but where will he find them other than by transferring them from civil servant support for the Scottish Parliament?
9. The Tories loathe the idea of devolution and it seems likely that they are planning to choke the Scottish Parliament to death and revert to direct rule from Westminster.It's pretty obvious that any of these outcomes will raise the ire of the majority of Scots. Polls show that a substantial majority of Scots consider their governance by Holyrood as being markedly better than that of Westminster. It's also pretty obvious that any diminution of funding to the Scottish Government will imperil its budget and its policies of mitigating (from its own funds) the worst excesses of the Tories' austerity and welfare policies.
Ken raises a fundamental point - which is whether Westminster ( and both major parties might be aligned with this goal) undermining Scottish independence?
I can see every reason to think that it is and that Ken's concern is justified. What Mindell is doing appears to be a deliberate full frontal challenge to Scottish government authority and action. And that cannot end well, for England. It's as if the end game has begun, and they have to get angry and spiteful before they give in. I just hope this phase is short.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
The plot is all too glaringly obvious. Mundell has been the most spineless and sycophantic holder of his post ever, and his pantomime performance when accepting a huge golden cardboard ‘key’ to the new building only lacked a pith helmet and ostrich plumes to complete it. There is every sign – from all the ‘main’ British Westminster parties – that they are in panic desperation to hold on to Scotland and its resources. There are zero signs that any of them will accede to the democratic will of the peoples of Scotland to depart and the Brexit fiasco has underlined this at every stage. In the long run – they will lose, as their predecessors did everywhere else from India to Ireland. Alas, so decayed are the standards of intelligence and probity in British nationalist politics, there are also no signs that they have learned from their disastrous past and, I fear, the process is not going to be a pleasant one. It is, perhaps, an apt symbol of our times that only the Breximaniac tendencies of the rank and file of Tory Party members, offers any hope that we may be allowed – even encouraged – to depart in peace.
At least the old imperialists had more style. I think it was Clemenceau, who declared that the new Imnperial buildings in Delhi would make the “grandest ruins of them all”. Nobody could think that of Mundell’s new Lubianka which I profoundly hope to live to see bulldozed.
Have you actually looked at it yourself?
Ken’s post makes it sound like Mundell is hiring 2,900 new civil servants. In reality it’s a project to consolidate existing (mostly old, small and car based) government offices around Edinburgh and the central belt into a modern city centre location next to Waverley railway station. HMRC are leading the project as part of their shift from 170 offices to 13 regional hubs around the UK to increase collaboration between departments and give staff new opportunities while reducing costs and getting rid of ancient accommodation.
https://quarterly.blog.gov.uk/2018/10/16/modernising-the-government-estate-a-transformation-strategy/
I am aware of this
I also know of the enormous reluctance of people to move
So I suspect Ken is right
I also share hs doubt in the motivation – right down to the need for an Edinburgh Cabinet Room
Iain, It’s more than shuffling the civil servants around the Titanic that is the UK, as Ken points out. Tory MP’s in Scotland wrote to the PM advocating the bypassing of Holyrood and it seems both contenders for PM think it’s a good idea: https://www.thenational.scot/news/17724176.theresa-may-plans-to-bypass-holyrood-are-attack-on-devolution-snp-say/
The consolidation of offices line, of which I am also aware, does not, indeed, account for the Cabinet room – and all of this has to be seen in the developing political context – notably in the fields of propaganda/image manipulation and Government statements re Brexit and Scotland. None of this context points to harmless, efficiency-driven office rationalisation.
The Scottish Office has been renamed UK Government in Scotland. There is a flood of Union-Jackery sweeping across the shelves of supermarkets – increasingly using exactly the same strange ‘slice’ of one side of a Union flag that was first roled out by UK Goverment Scotland at Highland and other shows last year and has also be used in rebranding all sorts of adverts from the new V&A in Dundee onwards. Everything from our driving licences to the handbooks for such places as Edinburgh and Stirling Castles has been flagged with Union Jacks. Even some suppliers and stores (and BBC straps on news channels) have cooperated with labelling British Whisky. Long-standing produce of known and celebrated quality from Scotland, is increasingly being labelled – with added Union Jacks – as British. Finding Scottish strawberries, beef or vegetable produce has become increasingly difficult. It goes on – and on – and on. While at Westminster, contempt is demonstrated for Scotland, the proposals of our Government and even our parliament on a virtually daily basis.
Office relocation – I think not.
The same is happening in Wales as well.
Apparently, it’ll be too difficult to sell Welsh lamb after Brexit so better label it British.
Renaming the Severn Bridge the Prince of Wales Bridge without any consultation, on and on it goes.
I have noted – I have a son who drags me (willingly) to Wales quite often and has just declared that the only university he wants to go to is Aberystwyth
I fear Ken Mathieson is correct in his analysis. It appears that the spirit of William of Normandy is alive and well down south. If any people show resistance to rule from the centre their country must be laid waste until, through hardship, they accept that they have been mastered. What a disgrace it is that such thinking should be current, and apparently acceptable, in any part of Europe in the 21st century. Mundell’s new office is an analogue of the Norman castle of the 11th century.
This affair is not likely to end well if the Union is not dissolved very soon.
Clearly a second invasion of Scotland’s under way. Sooner you guys leave the union, then, the better off you’ll be. This latest action alone surely provides all the reason you need.
I think that the Fixed Term Parliament legislation, and the flexibility of parliamentary procedure offer interesting additional possibilities.
Events at City of Glasgow Council provide an interesting precedent. SNP required Green support in order to govern, and this was forthcoming. However, the Greens refused to allow SNP dominant control over any Committee and SNP were defeated when they moved to take majority control of committees.
Parliament finds itself in a similar situation to Glasgow, and I see no reason why a vote of No Confidence in Johnson’s administration should not lead to an interim administration until 2022 (at latest) tasked with negotiating a Brexit implementation without May’s xenophobic (at best) and frankly racist (at worst) red lines.
Such an interim Brexit Parliament could probably empower Glasgow-style select committees with ministers selected (and overseen) as far as possible on the basis of the best candidate rather than on conventional party apparatchik lines.
This is something Johnson would probably be inclined to nominally preside over (as he did as a dilettante London Mayor), even though the idle so and so would leave all the work to others. If he refused, then a neutral PM such as Caroline Lucas could be co-opted for the duration. Over the period to 2022 final deal implementation would be worked out, and then in 2022 (or earlier) the election would simply double as a referendum on the deal.
I have thought for some time, that Parliamentary governance must now evolve away from obsolete oppositional politics now that neoliberalism has been as discredited as state socialism. I am reminded of the 1912 transformation when the aristocracy was able to fight off land value taxation at the cost of their loss of historic power through the House of Lords.
Thanks Chris
I called for such a government to achieve that goal in June 2016 – before the referendum…..
…and of course, living in Scotland, I agree that this is a pretty naked power grab, which has been in gestation for some time. I know one or two of the civil servants involved and I have no doubt this is the aim.
As a matter of interest, I voted for independence for the UK from the EU also for independence for Scotland from the UK, and I would vote for independence for West Lothian from Scotland, and for Linlithgow from West Lothian.
I think the future lies in functional independence, and hence security & resilience through new – complementary – institutions and instruments, bottom up. ie housing independence, energy independence, food Independence, care independence and so on, and the key to this is devolving credit creation to local level.
I believe that the days of Party creating Policy according to some ideology are over and that in future Policy will create Party. Inherent in this is an evolution from a monolithic centralised top down State institution (towards which the SNP is almost entirely inclined) to a networked participative institution.
End of musings.
So let’s get this straight.
Apparently we were going to have English laws for England not so long ago and the infected yeast that passes for true blue Tory voters don’t give a damn about the Union separating apparently.
So what gives?
The same party that dos not give a fig also wants to hold on more tightly to what it says it does not care about it seems!!
So Scotland – yet again – faces being governed along the lines of a traditional British rule (as does Wales).
I think that this is asking for trouble frankly.
I saw devolution as a means of keeping the union together by also allowing more power sharing from the centre, more regional control of policy and an acceptance of nations within nations.
These Tory extremists seem to want to turn the clock back. That is totally unacceptable.
In fact the more I think about it, the more outraged I become – and I’m English!!
You’re joining the club!
Could I just raise a couple of points:
– I’ve read the document that Ian above linked to and it would seem that there is a UK wide strategy to reduce the number of buildings in the estate, and that all 4 countries that make up the UK are being impacted.
– In Edinburgh specifically there seem to be a new building next to Waverley station which will accommodate staff from a number of offices around the city and (assuming what Ian says was correct) reduce costs as per the strategy. It would seem to also allow more commuting by public transport than is current.
These seem to be the basic principles behind this – have I understood this correctly?
And how does that explain the renaming of the Scottish Office, the change of apparent investment strategy and a cabinet meeting room in Edinburgh? The reality and the document appear inconsistent to me and others
Of course it doesn’t explain any of those things – they are not mentioned in the strategy document as far as I can see – I didn’t attempt to. The reality, as far as I can understand it, is that Edinburgh locality offices and being amalgamated into a new building the the existing properties disposed of.
There doesn’t seem to be any real objection to this plan from your correspondents, rather the other issues raised.
I’m not sure that renaming the Scottish Office etc have anything to do with the UK wide strategy described in the documents. You and your posters may well know better, but I can’t see it.
I have had over the last few years letters published in the National newspaper to this effect. The “one nation” Tories are definitely for one nation run by Westminster without reference to the devolved parliaments to which they have always been opposed. The Brexit debacle gives them a great opportunity to force their will on the people. My main concern is that for all their so-called education, they seem unable to grasp the obvious. The people of the Irish Borders do not want a hard border of any sort because they do not want a return to the troubles. My worry is that certain groups in Scotland may decide to follow the Irish way and instigate violence which will harm innocent people wherever it occurs. Thus far, any violence connected to Scottish independence seems to have come from the Unionist/British Nationalist side as in the destruction of George Square in Glasgow following the indyref in 2014. I hope my fellow Scots will not see violence as the only way to counter the anti-democratic moves of the current government at Westminster, but I fear a blood-bath if certain Westminster politicians get their way. It would not be the first time that troops were sent to Glasgow to “keep order”, not least by one Winston Spencer Churchill so admired by Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson.
Have a look at posts from Random Public Journal on the subject of violence in Ireland.
http://randompublicjournal.com/2019/06/24/no-legal-route-to-independence/
http://randompublicjournal.com/2019/06/25/the-irish-example/
The British State has lot to answer for.
Graham
I see stuff like this as just the continuity of the Tory Government over turning the progressive gains of the Blair administration for having the temerity to get into power in 1997. The Tories have been gleefully ripping up New Labour’s work since 2010 as well as that before it.
Please do not under estimate the resentfulness and nastiness of the Tory party. This is modern Tory politics – up close and personal and purely ideological. They are a party of extremists.
The sort answer to your question is YES
Gordon Ross has been flagging up this for quite some time now on Facebook. I agree with most of what he suggests. Have a look at the videos on his page….
https://m.facebook.com/indycargordonross/
It has been increasingly evident to many of us for some time that the closer the Scottish electorate move toward reclaiming their own sovereignty, the more determined Westminster (of whatever political hue) will move to prevent it. The 2014 Independence referendum so nearly delivered self-determination back to the people that skulduggery and false promises of some magnitude at the last minute (on the surface at least) rescued the No vote. The fact that EVEl was ready to be announced less than 12 hours after the polls closed, and the Westminster’s obvious naked hostility and contempt toward Scotland’s elected Government in the years since, demonstrate that Scots will never be gifted our rightful place among the Independent Nations of the world.
We will require to take it for ourselves, to wrest it from another country’s grasp. I profoundly hope that our Scottish Government have the legal means for achieving this peaceably to hand…and very soon. The alternative will not be easily palatable…but will rest entirely on the conscience of Westminster…such as that may be.
The endgame draws nigh.
I have a friend who is a senior civil servant in the Scottish Government. She is exceptionally bright, and exceptionally discreet. I asked her about this very question, and all she would say was that some of the jobs they had been advertising (this is NOT just a consolidation) ‘raised her eyebrows.’ Coming from her, that held a weight of meaning.