100 Days

This Friday marks the first 100 days of the first SNP Government. It has been a remarkable period in Scotland’s political history and all credit must be given to Alex Salmond and his talented ministerial team for their sure-footed performance to date. Even many of those who voted for unionist parties in the General Election express their surprise and delight in the step-change that has occurred in  Scottish politics.

Devolution, however, is not the same thing as independence and huge obstacles remain in the path of the Scotttish Government in its efforts to achieve a more prosperous, socially just and self-confident nation. While the new management team may have transformed the image and effectiveness of the Scottish Parliament the institution remains powerless in the key areas of economic management, poverty eradication and foreign policy. No matter how talented the governing party these basic weaknesses remain.

There is a paradox at the heart of the devolution project: the more people are pleased with the performance of a devolved administration the lower the priority given to the independence option. In one sense a successful SNP Government might even be seen as reconciling Scots to continued Westminster overlordship.

Personally I am less gloomy about this seemingly inescapable CATCH 22 than I was some years ago, not because I accept the gradualist scenario of step-by-step acquisition of ever-increasing powers to the point where independence arrives almost by accident but because the UK state is already fractured and may shatter at any time as a result of events not yet foreseen. In these circumstances having a political force and leadership of proven competence and visibility may prove crucial.

With such polls as exist showing contradictory findings (even in the same poll), depending on the context and wording of the questions asked, the main message coming across is that while the electorate are pleased with their new Government they are also rather confused. If they have just told the pollsters they are delighted with the new political order how can they also logically demand something radically different?

The Government’s “National Conversation” initiative may help to resolve this confusion, provided it can avoid being sabotaged by unionist trolls (a phenomenon which has already rendered most of the readers’ comments forums on newspaper web sites virtually unreadable). To transcend the entrenched positions which stifle political debate in Scotland will require exceptional skill. On the evidence to date Alex Salmond and his team may be up to the challenge.
 

Scotland`s place in world science

One of the more curious episodes in the recent election campaign was the intervention, at a late stage, of a group of scientists at Scottish universities declaring their fears that independence would harm cross-border science co-operation. Unfortunately this stunt came too late to be debated in any depth. This is a pity not only because the claims are a complete travesty of the actual situation but also because they reveal that even some of our most eminent scientific minds are hopelessly naive when asked to comment on subjects outside their primary area of excellence.

The truth is that Scottish scientists are deeply disadvantaged by our lack of independence. Because Scotland is not regarded as a nation we are excluded from most of the key international bodies which coordinate and finance international research.

 Scientific knowledge, particularly as it relates to cutting-edge basic research, is an international commodity, with most research results published in the open literature. Prestige in the international scientific community (and it is one of the world's most developed international communities) depends not only on the number of papers published but in the international prestige of the journals in which these papers appear.

In other words "little Scotlandism" in scientific research is a total non-starter, laughably so; but so too is "little Englandism", which seems to be the core philosophy of the scientists opposed to independence. That there are Scottish scientists - even some quite eminent Scottish scientists - who hold the view that England is the centre of all excellence in matters scientific is saddening because it illustrates the extent to which Scottish science has been sidelined by its lack of direct contact with the wider world.

If we take the example of EU research and development (but this could equally apply to R&D sponsored by the OECD, International Energy Agency, WHO or a host of other international bodies) Scotland's exclusion from every aspect of the decision process, from identification of priorities, through choice and definition of particular projects to designation of lead contractors, construction of multi-national research consortia and funding arrangements, means that we are essentially out of the loop. Switzerland and Norway have vastly more influence than Scotland in shaping the EU's science programmes, despite the fact that they are not even members of the European Union.

Because the EU tries to achieve cross-national balance in the research consortia chosen to implement its research programmes the passive disadvantage that Scottish researchers suffer as a result of not being involved in the decision process can be compounded by active discrimination. If a research consortium in the process of construction already has an English partner then the chances of a Scottish institution being also involved are diminished in relation to groups from other EU countries. For example, faced with the choiceof a Scottish or Irish partner the latter have the advantage (in addition to the assiduous support of their government) of being an additional country, as opposed to a second partner from a country already represented. At best the Scots may be awarded some crumbs in the form of a sub-contract.

Scotland remains a country which punches well above her weight in academic research. But, as in so much else, she could do so much better. Scientific relations with England will continue after independence; there is no earthly reason why they should be diminished. At the same time direct Scottish participation in international science programmes will lead to a flowering of our links with the wider  (and ever widening) world science community.
 

Malcolm Slesser

Malcolm Slesser, who died last month, was one Scottish scientist who could never be accused of accepting a North British provincial status. Although most obituaries I have read concentrate on his remarkable life as an explorer and mountaineer his international status as a scientist was immense, even if inadequately recognized in his home country. His contributions to path-breaking research in environmental economics and energy analysis were several decades in advance of their time.

Such was his international reputation that he was appointed Head of Systems Analysis at the European Commission's Joint Research Centre almost by acclamation, in contrast to the political "division of spoils" which then accompanied many appointments at this level. It is pretty safe to discount any idea that HMG lobbied for Malcolm's appointment.

On taking up the post Malcolm was confronted by reams of official forms to be filled up. It was the early days of UK membership of the (then) European Communities and much of the bureaucratic system still operated almost entirely in French. Numerous of the forms asked for the new recruit's nationality in a multiple choice format. To the dismay of the administrative machine Malcolm ticked "autres" rather than the anticipated "anglais". When they remonstrated with him he gave a rather brilliant lecture (in French) explaining the differences between "les écossais" and "les anglais" going back as far as Joan of Arc and possibly Charlemagne.

Unusually the Administration conceded they were wrong and offered their deepest apologies. Matters had to be referred back to Brussels; consultative papers were drafted;

working parties were set up; a consultative opinion was obtained from th European Court of Justice in Strasbourg. Finally, some considerable time later, the Administration presented Malcolm with the revised version of the official forms. "Anglais" had now been replaced by "brittanique".

Malcolm ticked "autres".