Scotland’s Ten Tomorrows – Bill Jamieson – Review by Wendy Alexander MSP

Saturday, 24th June 2006

Scotland’s 10 Tomorrows begins with the claim that it will “inspire and infuriate in equal measure”. It certainly has the capacity to infuriate – whether it inspires depends on where you stand politically.

 

Let me declare an interest. As someone who helped bring about the Allander Series on Scotland’s prospects a couple of years ago I have an instinctive sympathy for serious writing about policy and devolution – we need more of it. But whereas the Allander Series was scholarly and non-partisan, inviting outsiders to look in on Scotland, this volume comes from a very different direction. It is partisan, polemical and looks from the inside out.

 

Styled as a “rebel standard” against the pro-devolution consensus, this is Scotland’s Right wing’s response to the current state of our politics and governance.

 

The text is best approached as pamphleteering polemic. If you generally agree with the Scotsman’s editorial line then this is the book for you. If not – it is still worth reading - but as a powerful clarion call against complacency.

 

The majority of contributors are Scotsman Publication journalists or columnists, an advantage reflected in the book’s pithy, direct style. Bill Jamieson, as editor, has brought what might have been a sprawling, repetitious volume into focused, coherent narrative.

It is also commendably brief. I read it over two sunny afternoons with my fifteen-week-old daughter cradled in my arm. Leading me to ponder what she would make of its analysis, if, in fifteen years time she were to reach for it for a Modern Studies essay on ” Where stands devolution in 2020?”

 

What already seems dated and redundant is the intermittent overt hostility to the very existence of a Scottish Parliament. Although for devolution’s longstanding supporters, it must count as a victory of sorts that Scotland’s rightwing no longer propose returning to the pre-devolution settlement.

What will endure from this volume are its ideas. And interestingly in today’s Scotland, the provenance of an idea is less and less of a guide to its appeal. Political cross-dressing abounds from Michael Fry’s rallying cry for the teaching of Scottish history, to Fraser Nelson’s advocacy of assisting IB claimants into work. The thoughtful perspectives in the history and culture section would also be widely shared across the political spectrum.

 

Devolution’s longstanding devotees will be intrigued to discover that Scotland’s right is now enamoured of those issues that for so long preoccupied the Scottish left – electoral systems, the legitimacy of political institutions, scrutiny mechanisms, and the accountability of politicians.

 

Hence Allan Massie’s entertaining threefold cure for Scotland’s ills are: more financial powers for the Scottish Parliament; electoral reform and empowering local authorities. A shopping list indistinguishable from that found in countless Scottish Labour left tracts of the mid 1980s.

 

But despite this apparently widening consensus in favour of further constitutional reform/refinement/radical overhaul – it is on the constitutional agenda that I found the book least persuasive.

 

As we rather older devolution hands have discovered, constitutional reform may be a pre-requisite for progress but its transformative powers can also be exaggerated. Only rarely does constitutional change bear the weight of expectation vested in it. Surely one of the things we have learned over the last decade is that it is easier to rewrite a constitutional arrangement than it is to transform a nation. Such national advance comes instead from ideals, ideas and convictions held in common.

 

As Michael Fry observes in an aside about Scotland’s past, “it was the character of the nation that gave shape to its public life, not the other way around”. Precisely. And although he and I would almost certainly differ on our assessment of “the best of the nation’s character”, he is surely right to pinpoint its central role in securing national progress. By contrast the role of institutions is invariably secondary.

 

This book is therefore at its most provocative, persuasive and engaging when it stops over-selling further constitutional adjustments in favour of some red, or rather blue-blooded, policy prescriptions.

 

This policy ‘meat’ is concentrated in the impressive economy chapters by George Kerevan and Donald MacKay and those by Fraser Nelson and Gillian Bowditch on welfare and health respectively. The economy chapters in particular also engage seriously with alternative perspectives, discuss global trends and cite external evidence.

 

More generally, as befits a polemic, the evidence base is variable with any data supporting the contributor’s case tending to find its way into the text. This leads to the rather uncritical repetition of contentious data about, for example, relative under investment in Scotland and the scale and impact of public sector activity. The infrequent use of footnotes and references will frustrate those interested in weighing the evidence.

 

Alan Cochrane’s interesting contribution on political realignment possibilities accurately identifies the key role of Labour in solidifying party loyalties within the Parliament. Although the speculation about a future SNP/Tory rapprochement may prove wishful thinking.

 

This book was written before David Cameron’s much heralded recent call for “GWB” – General Well-being” to become as important as “GDP” in future policy making. And I suspect if my daughter was reviewing this volume in fifteen years she would be puzzled that issues of sustainability, climate change and energy - in addition to well-being - feature so little in the text.

 

Although marred in places by misplaced invective - I do not detect “corrosive conceit” as a defining characteristic amongst my fellow parliamentarians -this book deserves to be read. The editor’s hope that it will make a positive contribution to debate about Scotland’s future is realised where it concentrates on policy choices.

 

Paradoxically whilst ignoring the achievements of the Scottish Parliament the book discusses the Scandinavian model with respect, if ideological hostility. Interestingly, the impressive electoral records of Scandinavia’s social democratic parties has invariably relied upon their championing of change. Conversely, when these parties have been perceived as guardians of the status quo, their electorates have tended to modify or withdraw their support. Therein lies a powerful message for Scotland’s progressives.

 

Yes this is a book to infuriate. But setting the hackneyed hostility aside - it also inspires, although not perhaps in the way its authors intended.

 

It should inspire those who do not share its political outlook to bring forward their own, more compelling vision to the nation. So whatever your politics this is most definitely provocative and thought provoking holiday reading.

This article appeared in the Scotsman on 24th June 2006