The Problem(s) with our Parliament

The Problem(s) with our Parliament…

Since the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989, countries across Europe have had to adapt their structures and functions due to global and regional pressures. Indeed, nation states have had to move away from the traditional nation state model, with sovereign and legislative powers being devolved to local, regional and European levels.

Amongst this back drop of structural change, minority national parties across Europe have campaigned for their respective regions to have some form of political and financial autonomy. This challenge to the centralist notion of power has resulted in regions across Europe being given substantial powers concerning domestic matters.

And indeed, we in Scotland have recently celebrated the tenth anniversary of our very own devolved parliament. However, instead of this moment being generally one of celebration there has been a dispute over the benefits of the parliament and a debate about the future of the Scottish parliament.

Firstly, it has to be conceded that the parliament did have considerable teething problems, however the parliament has delivered some significant policies such as free personal care for the elderly, the banning of smoking in public places and the abolishment of tuition fees just to name a few. Furthermore, the parliament has made considerable progress in allowing the parliament to be as accessible and open to the Scottish public.

So, yes, the parliament has had, and I am sure will continue having a positive impact on Scotland. However, the future impact it will have is directly linked to the constitutional future in Scotland. Should the Scottish parliament have more powers? Indeed should it have full fiscal powers?

Well, yes, the Scottish parliament needs more powers, especially fiscal powers. Currently, the Scottish parliament is one of the few, if not the only parliament in the world which doesn’t raise the money it spends. The potential of the parliament is being limited due to the absence of fiscal powers.

When one considers the potential of renewable energy supplies in Scotland, one has to realise that for Scotland to reach its potential in this field, the parliament needs full fiscal powers. It needs to be allowed to set competitive rates for businesses to come and develop and harness our renewable energies. Indeed, if the parliament had the ability to raise a public debt, the government in Scotland could invest in an industry which needs large amounts of capital to establish and build the structures needed. This money would create jobs and create the biggest renewable energy industry in all of Europe.

However, even if the parliament does get more powers, this will not be solely enough to improve it. For too long many of the political parties have hindered the development of the parliament. Partisanship too often dominates debate after debate. Instead of debating the actual detail of the policies, the politicians at times have refused to move towards a common consensus due to the hard work of party whips and the impact of the political culture.

What needs to happen is for politicians to break away from the old political culture of Westminster. Parties need to encourage bills from committees and individuals. Indeed, all parties in opposition need to use the committees to influence and enhance the legislative programme of the parliament.

With more powers and resources, along with a change of political culture at Holyrood, the Scottish parliament can only then try and work towards its full potential.

Independence anyone?

Iain Gray's Ecnomik ill-iterasee

Poor, poor Iain Gray. You have to feel sorry a man whose economic illiteracy has been so painfully exposed twice in less than a week. On Thursday, First Minister Alex Salmond laid bare Gray’s apparant failure to know the difference between cash injections into banks and support for the general money system, having moments earlier shown up Gray’s total ignorance of the structure of Norway’s economy. If Iain Gray is serious about becoming Scotland’s First Minister next year, he’s going to have do some serious clueing up regarding basic economics. It is worrying that the man who wants to lead a country with significant oil and banking revenues if flummoxed by simple facts about the operation of those industries in countries of similar size and economic structures to Scoland. How can Iain Gray stand and oppose the establishment of a Scottish Oil Fund (against the opinion of Nobel Prize winning economist Josef Stiglitz http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LnPL96D72M&feature=player_embedded ) when he doesn’t even know how the Oil Fund in Norway is structured? How can Iain Gray make any judgement about the level of state support for Scottish banks if he cannot tell the difference between money given to individual banks and the support given to the financial system in general?
Here is Iain Gray being given a basic lesson in economics: http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/scotland/default.stm

And it gets worse for the leader of the Labour Group in the Scottish Parliament. Gray, and his party might well expect to be attacked by Mr. Salmond - he is, after all, the leader of a different political party. His criticisms, however valid, will doubtless be ignored by them (if not by the general public). But it’s a different matter when Marc Coleman, one of Ireland’s leading economists and the economics editor of Newstalk, weighs in and lays bare just how poor Gray’s understanding of the Irish economy is (http://newsnetscotland.com/economy/728-ireland-economy-defended-after-attack-by-labours-iain-gray?awesm=fbshare.me_AUPAL ).

With regard to Labour’s oft repeated rhetoric about the “arc of insolvency”, by the way, just how well do they think Unionist Great Britian is going to emerge from the upcoming Tory cuts? And just how well would Scotland fare under those cuts if a man with Gray’s poor economic understanding was at the helm?