Moving Scotland Forward

Speech delivered on Thu 29th May 2008

This is one of the debates that the SNP Government did not want to have-and one can readily understand why. Variously described as disappointing, vacuous and thin, the First Minister's aspirational statement to the Scottish Parliament two weeks ago was notable only for having no aspiration and containing no future plans. The Deputy First Minister was wise in her opening remarks to bin the statement and try to dredge up a few answers to consultations to add to the impression that there are things that the SNP Government is about to do. In opening for the Liberal Democrats, Ross Finnie said quite rightly that, after one year, it is reasonable for the Parliament to feel entitled to something a bit better.

The Scottish Parliament information centre always provides at the back of the chamber various papers and documents that relate to the debate. Before the debate, I looked to see what had been provided. There was zilch-not one document, not even the First Minister's statement. That is not a criticism of SPICe; it is a criticism of the lack of content of the First Minister's statement two weeks ago.

It would be churlish not to acknowledge that the First Minister is good on mood music and style. Indeed, he is a First Minister who has built his second coming on mood music, memorable quips and repartee as a substitute for substance and statesmanship. We are given the impression that, under his Government, the sun shines every day, the Scottish football team always wins and all is well under the beneficent rule of Uncle Alex.

The reality is somewhat different. We now have some evidence as to the shape and direction of the SNP Government. In the first instance, it is not a Government that respects Parliament, as Johann Lamont and a number of other members have pointed out. Indeed, the Government does its best to sideline Parliament. The announcement of the U-turn on the Scottish futures trust-one of the central ideas of the Administration-was made at a media briefing, rather than to the Parliament. The SNP was feart to bring it here. Indeed, the absence of the First Minister today, which David Whitton mentioned, is worthy of note. Having delivered his address two weeks ago, the First Minister leaves it to his subordinates to take the flak for its manifold inaccuracy. Is he feart or is his absence an exercise in arrogance?

To her credit, Nicola Sturgeon has never shirked the unpleasant jobs, but the fact that Mike Russell has been put up to close for the SNP is a dead giveaway of who is in trouble. Even Mike Russell knows that the SNP Government would not give him announcements on Government largesse. After all, he is not entirely one of us. He always manages to convey the impression that he believes that he can do a better job than the current First Minister. That is certainly a difficult-and dangerous-course for an ambitious minister to take.

The softening-up referendum on independence, which is the central plank of the Government's platform-indeed, its very raison d'être-has not been brought to Parliament either. The nationalists are also feart about that, despite the legions of camp followers that Wendy Alexander recently brought to their support.

This is not a Government that keeps its election promises. It has made U-turn after U-turn after U-turn, most of which have not been exposed even to a whiff of Opposition gunfire. Promises on class sizes, police numbers and student debt have all been binned, although the last rites have still to be said over some of them. I should point out that when we were in government, we provided 3,000 extra teachers and reduced class sizes. Yesterday, we learned that reducing class sizes SNP-style is likely to cost in excess of £0.3 billion. However, in its farcical alternative universe, the SNP Government has provided enough funding for that. It should tell that to Steven Purcell, who is busy in Glasgow slashing the education budget and reducing teaching posts to balance his books.

The fact is that SNP class size reductions are dead. However, it is a little like the eerie period after Stalin died; no one dares to go and check, just in case it comes back to life. Well, members can rest easy. Reducing class sizes, writing off student debt and providing £2,000 grants to first-time house buyers are all dead under this Government. I hope only that the new Forth bridge, which we heard about at First Minister's questions, goes all the way over the firth.

In an excellent speech, Jeremy Purvis identified with forensic incisiveness the key information that is required on class sizes and infrastructure to allow Parliament to do its job, set out why Parliament should have that information, and made clear the Government's duplicitous approach to these basic issues of accountability. That is an Achilles heel that will, in due course, bring the Government down.

What should the First Minister's statement have contained? Well, it might have had a full-blown commitment to extending the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 which, as Ross Finnie said, was a benchmark of its kind when it was brought in by the Liberal Democrats in government. However, the act needs to be extended to include bodies such as Glasgow Housing Association, Kilmarnock prison and the host of bodies that now provide public services that were previously the direct responsibility of Government. The SNP Government is lagging not just behind the standards set by Liberal Democrat in government but behind even the UK Government, which has already consulted on extending freedom of information.

The First Minister's statement might also have contained an aspiration to tackle child poverty and early disadvantage, which are the biggest challenges facing Scotland, and have laid out SNP measures for dealing with them. However, apart from a passing reference to the early years strategy, which has not been developed at all, there was nothing whatever about the issue.

It is somewhat unnerving to see in cold print this sentence in the First Minister's statement:

"We will take forward our manifesto and resist short-cuts or expedient offers that run contrary to it."-[Official Report, 14 May 2008; c 8536.]

This SNP Government has been notorious for the way in which it has ditched manifesto promises-not little ones but wholesale buckets of big ones. We saw that again today as the First Minister ducked what were fairly straightforward questions on the funding of the Forth bridge.

The First Minister's statement is like the emperor's new clothes. It will not do. It is time to move Scotland forward, not backward.

To read the debate in full please click on the link below.

Related Link:

Moving Scotland Forward.