You’ve read the press commentary, heard comments on the
radio and seen them on the Beeb. So here is one more view on the Scottish Government’s proposals.
It's Clear
Important, in a document that you want voters to read.
The book (I read the electronic version) is in clear
English. Technical terms are explained, and the layout, with a chapter on each
main area of government, and 650 questions – which form an index, referring
back to content in the book – is easy to use and understand.
The text distinguishes between the changes that will happen
if a majority votes Yes in 2014, and the policies that the current Government
would bring in if they win the planned 2016 elections. That is an important
distinction. The referendum is about one question – independence. If a majority
vote “Yes” then there will be an election in 2016 at which Scots can vote
Labour, Tory, SNP, Green, Raving Monster Loony, Jedi Knight or whatever they
want.
I've never read a book on how to run a whole country
This book covers almost everything. From the armed forces to
women’s rights and from banking to whisky exports. I’ve never read a book that
describes in detail how to run a country; it is like a Haynes Manual for
Scotland, showing how the engine works and how to fix the air conditioning.
It's a Rebuild
The writers of this book are drafting a new country, and
that gives plenty of opportunities to put right the things that are inherited,
wrong, when you carry on carrying on in an old country. For example, “Scotland’s
Future” proposes that Scotland should have a written constitution. Yes! Of
course it should! Every modern democracy does!
The Poor, and the Rich
There is a lot of focus on the poor, and on the wealth gap;
“poverty” is mentioned 82 times. This, for me personally, is the most important
part of any Government’s work. How we treat our poor is the measure of our
civilisation.
The UK’s record is not good. You don’t really need
statistics (“Scotland’s Future” includes plenty) to know about poverty, and the
substantial gap between rich and poor in the UK; next time you buy a copy of
The Big Issue, just ask the vendor about her or his life and you’ll get the
picture. But just in case you do like the certainty of numbers here are a few from
my own research:
The poorest tenth of the UK population, 2.6 million households had, in 2011/12, a
disposable income of £174 each week. The wealthiest tenth, again 2.6m
households, had a weekly disposable income of £1,452, eight times as much.
[Source: Office of National Statistics Family Spending 2013, Chapter 3, Table 14]
These are the numbers behind the “Gini Coefficient”, the OECD’s measure of the
gap between rich and poor (in fact the OECD, using a slightly different base,
calculate the difference in disposable incomes as 10 times).
The UK has the seventh largest wealth gap, measured by the
Gini Coefficient, amongst 34 countries analysed by the OECD [Source: Gini
Coefficient of Household Disposable Income 2010, Fig. 4, OECD]. Amongst the few
countries with wider wealth gaps are, er, Chile, Mexico and Turkey, while
fairer, much fairer countries include all of the Nordic states, Germany,
Netherlands, Hungary and even Switzerland.
Leaving your poor to become (relatively) poorer while your
rich become richer, as the UK has done since the 1980s is, for me, a moral
abomination. But it is also bad news economically. I interviewed a medical
researcher a while ago who told me that the UK’s wealth gap was the indirect
cause of illness and of educational failure. There are many studies that show
that when countries reduce the gap they improve health and educational outcomes
for the whole population.
Hidden in the text is a technical phrase that shows a newer
style of thinking about poverty and welfare. Welfare is described as a “’social
investment’ – an investment across a person’s life that is designed at all
stages to promote equality, fairness and social cohesion.” [p109] This style of
thinking, using investment principles in social provision underlies much of the
new thinking in philanthropy and particularly the world of “venture
philanthropy.” This direction, should it be taken by a Scottish Government,
would be a radical departure from Westminster’s “handout” thinking.
“Scotland’s Future” focuses on poverty and on reducing the
wealth gap – these are central ideas, backbone, to this particular vision of
how Scotland should be. For me, they give this vision a moral value that others
lack.
Women
The situation of women in Scotland is another central theme
in this book. In part this is linked to poverty; the majority of the lowest
paid workers in Scotland are women, says the book, and women live longer and
thus are more dependent on pension provision, so the book lays out plans for
linking pensions to inflation. There are plans for universal childcare from age
one; with women as, still, the main child carers at home this would allow women
to return to work and earning sooner.
“Scotland’s Future” also has plans for boosting the number
of women in positions of power. In fact the Scottish Parliament has already
done much of this; 35% of MSPs are women [source www.democraticaudit.com]
against 22% of MPs in Westminster. There are a number of reasons for this but
one is the simple, stupid but practical fact that the working hours in
Westminster are horrible (I’ve worked there, and know), with debates going on late
into the night. This does not attract women, or anyone who cares for a family.
By contrast, the Scottish Parliament works until 6pm. Yes! Sensible!
More Good Stuff
And there is more, most of it easy to agree with; continuing
free university education, a rebuilt taxation system, a focus on renewable
energy, and a constitutional pledge to provide 0.7% of GDP for international
development work…
Yes, I know. Who pays for this?
Who Pays for This?
We will, of course.
“Scotland’s Future” says “there is no requirement to
increase taxes to pay for the services we currently enjoy in Scotland.” [page
83]. I have no way of assessing that claim.
But tackling the wealth gap means taking money from people
who are wealthier, and shifting it to people who are poorer. This does not have
to mean loads more taxation; Austria, where the wealth gap is one third
narrower than in the UK, takes less taxes out of personal income than the UK
does. So do Hungary, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Germany and Switzerland, to
pick a selection of European states, all with substantially narrower wealth
gaps than the UK [sources: Gini coefficient of household disposable income
2010, and Taxation Key Tables, OECD, 2010].
This is not smoke and mirrors. People who are wealthier will
have to pay more tax, if the vision set out in “Scotland’s Future” is played
out. Then it becomes a simple choice: are you willing to pay a little more in
order to make a fairer society for everyone?
This is Not the Future
This book is a vision. It is how one group of people would
like Scotland to be. It is not, of course, a description of how things will be.
No one can write that book, outside of a Tardis.
But that is what we always have, in politics. Our
politicians tell us about their vision and we vote for it, or we don’t. We can
no more tell whether the vision of Messrs Cameron and Clegg will play out, or
whether it will be the UKIP vision that will dominate in UK politics. We cannot
know in advance of a referendum how negotiations over the pound, the EU, the
Queen, or Scotland’s membership of the International Monetary Fund will go; but
this group of people have told us what they will be aiming for when they
negotiate.
The vision in “Scotland’s Future”, with its focus on women’s
rights and on a rebuilt modern state with a written constitution would be
enough to make me vote Yes, if I could vote. But above all, the vision of
reducing the appalling wealth gap in the UK and the effects that has on
millions of very poor people, is the vision of a fair, good country. For that
alone I would vote Yes.
