Modernising Scotland

Thanks to 'New Labour', 'modernisation' has become a byword for empty rhetoric, bland managerialism and control freakery. Given some of the characters involved in the making of New Labour, this maybe shouldn't be too surprising. However, if the opposite of being modern is to be out-of-date, its still strange that a word associated with progress should have had its meaning twisted into something approaching a term of abuse.

Scotland has gone through a number of periods of modernization. From the reformation and the industrial revolution to the creation of the welfare state, the legal reforms and university expansions of the 60’s and 70’s to the post-industrial and property-owning society which began to emerge in the 1980’s, all have shaken up and seen a shift in power away from the previous established order.

Deliberately, I left out both the union and devolution from the above sweep of Scottish social history. Some have hailed the union as a force for good, pointing to the Enlightenment as proof-positive of what could happen when minds were liberated from the burdens of self-government. This, however, was and remains provocative nonsense. It’s provocative in that it tries to patronise Scots into accepting their lot, and nonsense since it ignores a century of economic and social stagnation after 1707.

Since modernity is something which can't be fixed in time, it must instead be regarded as a process. Post union, Scottish institutions were allowed to retain an arms length freedom to run their own affairs. The church, the legal system and the universities all enjoyed substantial autonomy from London rule. As the scope of government increased, administrative devolution and the development of the quango state allowed ministers to claim with an element of truth that most of the decisions relevant to Scotland continued to be taken in Scotland.

An early example of Scottish solutions to Scottish problems, then? Not really. For while the decisions may have been taken in Scotland, they had little in the way of any democratic legitimacy. The dominance of  English MPs in the House of Commons ensured that for most of the 20th century, the balance of representation from Scotland was largely irrelevant in deciding which party formed a government at Westminster, with which came the 'right' to govern Scotland.

This allowed the state to create an appointed establishment which was seldom, if ever, held to account or pushed into change through the ballot box. As such, it has very often retarded or stopped completely the process of modernisation. Always distinctly lukewarm to the idea of home rule, it was only when this establishment found itself threatened by Thatcherism that it began to support a Scottish Parliament, and even then only as a means of protecting its interests.

Establishment Scotland now sits in comfort on the Labour benches at Holyrood, represented by the teachers, social workers and former councillors who long ago threw their lot in with the party. They can be said to represent the 'Scottish Consensus' – that elusive but much lauded set of common values on society, politics and economics which every Scot is supposed to have taken in with their mother's milk.

But a 'consensus' is only a set of ideas which the ruling establishment regards as politically acceptable, or as Abba Eban said more cynically, what everyone agrees on collectively but nobody believes individually.  It's taken a Scottish Parliament and a PR system of sorts to show it, but Scotland is a coalition of constantly shifting minorities. Ultimately, trying to establish 'consensus' amidst the diversity of opinion which really exists is as difficult as trying to hold water in your hand.

Since Labour and their Lib Dem coalition partners represent the public face of an establishment which has learned to identify its interests with ultimate rule from London, what might it take to sweep them from power and to allow a modernisation of the way we order things in Scotland?

Firstly, its important to recognise that Labour is incapable of modernisation, since its cadres are drawn from the bureaucratic establishment which equates its interests with keeping Scotland in its current state. The Labour Party, new or otherwise, is the therefore the problem and not the solution.

The SNP has since the 1980s been assiduous in courting this politically conservative, corporatist establishment, in the hope that it would swing behind Independence. However, all of the changes to the European map which happened in the 1990's came as outbreaks of war, peace or revolution allowed for wholesale clearouts at the top.

Since, thank goodness, there's unlikely to be a similar set of circumstances in Scotland again any time soon, we must look to the ballot box for change instead. That's why the SNP needs to position itself as the party which will take Scotland into the modern world, through the normality of Independence and statehood.

But to do that, the party will need to realise that Scotland won't always define itself by opposition to Thatcherism. As Gerry Hassan points out in the latest edition of 'Holyrood' magazine, the struggle of the 1980's is becoming like the Jarrow march – a cause which epitomised an era but which is slipping into history as a new generation with no memory of it comes to maturity.

My generation has had to pay for its own education and now finds it can't get an NHS dentist. We struggle to buy homes, so end up living collectively in homes of multiple occupancy or instead stay at home with our parents. We're a generation which for a decade or more has been the butt of society's ire when it comes to our supposed crime-ridden streets. Perhaps most of all, we're now used to the idea of not having a job for life and that we'll have to provide for ourselves in retirement, since no-one else is going to do it for us.

We might be hedonistic and materialistic. But whatever else we might be derided for, we're hardly Thatcher's children. We do voluntary service overseas and charity work at home. We marched against the war in Iraq and to Make Poverty History. We show concern about corporate responsibility, AIDS awareness, homelessness and the environment. And in stark contrast to Blair's 'me' generation, we don't think our social responsibilities begin and end with the deductions at the bottom of our pay slips.

We're the generation which was cheated out of Scotland's oil wealth as we grew up, and which has a breadth of international references in our outlook. However, we're also the generation which doesn't vote, and which doesn't see how conventional politics can do much to change society.

This fits fine and dandy with Labour's scorched earth policy at election time, where any turnout is acceptable as long as Labour comes out in front. But there's nothing wrong with a little enlightened self-interest and an aspiration for greater freedoms and a better life The SNP’s great opportunity is to be in pole position next May to woo the first generation in Scotland to which the establishment has offered so little.

Scotland desperately needs a party which can reform Labour's patronage state, if not to dismantle it outright then at least to make it more representative of the country which it administers on our behalf. An SNP committed to giving junior civil servants their chance to shine, to letting our entrepreneurs succeed without guilt, to allowing a new generation to play a full part in a society which has marginalised them, would allow us to catch the wave of discontent sweeping Scotland currently.

At some point, we twenty and thirty somethings are going to become the forty and fifty somethings of the establishment ourselves. Before we get too old and cynical, the SNP needs to capitalise on our latent support for Independence, and harness our energies with the apparatus of the state so we can begin to modernise Scotland for the better.

The Business of Politics and the Politics of Business

In the last few years, there’s been an upsurge in popular culture’s interest in business as a way of life. TV series like ‘Dragon’s Den’, ‘Ramsay’s Kitchen Nightmares’ and ‘The Apprentice’, have all shown the trials and tribulations of ordinary people who are either desperate to make a career, save their business, or to develop an idea into the next big thing.

Part of the appeal, certainly as far as ‘The Apprentice’ goes, must be the comedy value of a dialogue which alternates between testosterone-soaked boardroom cliché and new-age psychobabble. I’ve been splitting my sides laughing at some of the lobotomized automatons taking part in the new series, all with fists-full of attitude about how ‘driven’ or ‘focused’ they are, but lacking entirely the evidence or personal insight to explain why this might either be true or a good thing.

This lack of self-awareness makes for great TV. But once the wheat has been separated from the chaff, its fascinating to see how someone’s entire outlook on life can begin to change over the course of a show, and even better to see the personal transformation when someone does
start to make a go of their business. You also know that the experienced business people heading them up, despite playing with an identikit cool indifference to the cameras, are just bursting to give the benefit of their experience to those starting out.

It’s not just broadcasters who are keen to show an understanding of business. Politicians too fall over themselves these days to talk about economic growth and to be seen to have the endorsement of business leaders. In fact, since devolution, you could be forgiven for thinking that it was the leaders of big Scottish business which had been most in favour, since it is they who now criticise the politicians most for being out of touch. Ironically, it is now the politicians, many so disdainful of this opinion before, who are at pains to be seen to be taking the concerns of business onboard.

All of which goes to show that successful businesspeople are the ultimate pragmatists, ready to accept any change in the political climate once the democratic vote makes it a fait accompli. It also shows up a tendency in politics to pay lip service to a particular point of view where it is expedient to do so. However, neither posture would last for long were it not for the excessive reverence which some accord to business in general.

We now fetishise business and wealth creation in a way that would have seemed extraordinary even a decade ago. ‘If only someone like Richard Branson could run the country’, is the cry from the golf club bore, as if running an airline or a record company was in any way similar to running an education or social security system. Meanwhile, there’s still the dirigiste response from the saloon bar that while everyone in business is a crook, at least there are a few maverick politicians who are slightly better.

Overall, an attitude prevails that those who can, do, while those who can't, try to govern. One newspaper columnist even went so far as to note recently that the candidate selection process in politics ‘often seems to be on the basis of Buggin's turn’, claiming that you can be 'inarticulate, dim-witted or dishonest but if you have been a bag carrier, fixer or chauffeur for the party hierarchy, you could end up devising legislation and telling the rest of us how to live'.

I wouldn’t attempt to deny that in politics, loyalty sometimes seems to be rewarded over other perhaps more useful qualities. However, anyone who doesn’t think that 'Buggin’s Turn' also plays its role in business is living in a dream world. Incompetence and ineptitude need be no barrier to advancement in any walk of life. The idea that none-too-bright sooks, timeservers, 'yes' men or the smiley and vacuous are only rewarded for their behaviour in the realm of politics and government is, therefore, at best misguided and at worst downright malicious.

Its often overlooked that the skills that you need to succeed in business are also not necessarily the same as those to be a successful politician. For one thing, a politician has to be able to persuade a whole range of people to go along with their point of view. Under the benign dictatorship of management, however, a businessman often need do nothing more tiresome than announce what their strategy is going to be, which staff then fall in behind under pain of disciplinary action if they dissent.

Any elected politician also has to be able to relate to and deal with people from all backgrounds, otherwise they risk not remaining elected for very long. While many businesspeople will also have the breadth of life experience to do this, it is not necessary by any means and is certainly not called upon in the same way or as frequently as it is for a politician.

There are also huge differences in the working environment. If you fall out with your colleagues in business, you can always take a job elsewhere or start another venture. In contrast, political involvement, unless you jump ship to another party, is a little like spending your entire life working for the same company with no prospect of ever being able to start afresh somewhere else. In that context, perhaps the self-preservation instincts of some politicians and those seeking their gold watches in the corporate world are not too dissimilar.

Which brings us back round to the public relationship between parties and business. The megaphone diplomacy which exists currently saddens me, because our parties need members from a range of ages, backgrounds, upbringings and employment histories if they are to truly represent Scotland. However, in the final analysis, any party can only select to represent it those members who decide to put themselves forward.  If we are to enjoy greater diversity in those who would govern, it requires more people to get involved in parties or if they feel entirely unrepresented, to start their own. Let’s make a start by recognizing the unique but equally valuable contributions made by both business and government. Anything less will continue to do little to encourage greater participation or crossover, perpetuating the impression that public service is only for the plodder or the busybody. This current impasse is one which damages not just our policy making, but also ultimately our ability to create the kind of society which is able to meet the needs of all its people.