SARAH BOYACK MSP RICHARD KERLEY MP CATRIONA MUNRO TREVOR DAVIES MAUREEN PARNELL MSP MP CAROL FINLAY MSP MIKE FREUNDENBERG FRANCIS STUART DUNCAN HOTHERSALL KATHERINE TREBECK DANIEL JOHNSON DIARMID WEIR

FOREWORD BY AFTERWORD BY JOHANN LAM ONT MSP MSP   

Scottish Fabians is part of The , Britain’s oldest political think tank. Since 1884 the Society has played a central role in developing political ideas and public policy on the left. Through a wide range of publications and events the society influences political and public thinking, but also provides a space for broad and open-minded debate. The Society is alone among think tanks in being a democratically- constituted membership organisation, with almost 7,000 members. It was one of the original founders of the Labour Party and is constitutionally affiliated to the party. It is however editorially, organisationally and financially independent and works with a wide range of partners of all political persuasions and none. In 2012 Scottish Fabians relaunched with a programme of members- led discussions, events and publications focusing on an exploration of vision, values and policy. It held its inaugural AGM in November 2012 which elected its first Executive Committee to take forward an exciting programme of work.

Join Scottish Fabians today

Every member of the Fabian Society resident in is automatically a member of Scottish Fabians. To join the Fabian Society (standard rate 3 per month / unwaged 1.50 per month) please visit www.fabians.org.uk/members/join.   

Contributors 5 Foreword 7 MSP Common Cause 8 Trevor Davies, Carol Finlay, Mike Freundenberg, Maureen Parnell, Diarmid Weir Enterprise as an act of public service 14 Kezia Dugdale MSP From trickle-down growth to collective prosperity 20 Katherine Trebeck, Francis Stuart (Oxfam Scotland) Changing Scotland requires changing Holyrood 27 Drew Smith MSP Delivering through economic change 33 Anas Sarwar MP as an economic ambition 33 Daniel Johnson, Duncan Hothersall Public services – could we do better? 44 Richard Kerley Double devolution: devo mark two 52 MSP Labour, Europe and Scotland 61 Catriona Munro A choice between and division 66 Margaret Curran MP Afterword 71 Iain Gray MSP Scottish Fabians w www.scottishfabians.org.uk t @scottishfabians Publications & editorial: Duncan Hothersall e [email protected]

This book, like all Fabian Society publications, represents not the collective views of Scottish Fabians or the Fabian Society but only the views of the authors. The responsibility of Scottish Fabians is limited to approving its publications as being worthy of consideration within the .

Scottish Fabians Executive Committee 2012/13 Daniel Johnson, Convener April Cumming Catriona Munro Tom York Ann McKechin MP Duncan Hothersall     

Sarah Boyack MSP is Shadow Cabinet Secretary for Local Government and Planning. Margaret Curran MP is Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland and Labour MP for East; she was previously MSP for Glasgow Baillieston and a Scottish Minister from 2000 to 2007. Professor Trevor Davies is a former TV producer and councillor, now professor at Glasgow University, who writes and speaks about bringing values and narrative back to the heart of politics. Kezia Dugdale MSP is Shadow Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning. Carol Finlay is a former chair of the Scottish Executive Committee of the Labour Party, now Senior Assistant to MP, having previously worked in human resource management. Mike Freundenberg is an artist, writer and musician, social entrepreneur and non-governmental sector professional, active within Labour, the Fabians & Unite since the 1970s. Iain Gray MSP is Shadow Cabinet Secretary for Finance. Duncan Hothersall is on the Scottish Fabians Executive, is a small business owner and is a past director of the Equality Network. Daniel Johnson is Convener of the Scottish Fabians, co-owns an established business and is a community campaigner in the south of the city. Professor Richard Kerley is an academic and consultant who researches, advises and writes on public service and public policy. Johann Lamont MSP is Leader of the Party. Catriona Munro is a lawyer specialising in EU law, previously in Brussels and in London, and now in Scotland.

Scottish Fabians 5 Ambitions for Scotland

Maureen Parnell is a social scientist at Napier University, teaching enthusiastic students from every background, all concerned with the pressing need for political change. Anas Sarwar MP is Deputy Leader of the Scottish Labour Party and co-ordinator of the referendum campaign. Drew Smith MSP is a former member of the Scottish TUC General Council and Labour MSP for Glasgow since 2011. Francis Stuart is Research and Policy Adviser for Oxfam Scotland’s domestic poverty programme and is currently taking forward Oxfam’s work on the Humankind Index and ’Our Economy’. Katherine Trebeck is Global Research Policy Adviser for Oxfam looking at ways to develop a socially sustainable and just economy. Diarmid Weir is a former General Practitioner, now economics researcher, teacher and blogger aiming to expose the reality behind the numbers.

6 Scottish Fabians    Johann Lamont MSP

The debate about Scotland's future is dominating our politics at the moment as we build towards a referendum on independence. My frustration is that that debate is too narrow, too focused on whether we want to remain part of the United Kingdom or not. I believe the debate about Scotland's future could, and should, be so much richer. The nationalists have a single idea. They get to put it to the test next year. But the radical voices of the left have many ideas. These ideas have changed people's lives for the better, and I am confident they will again. Those are the ideas I am interested in hearing. I want Scotland's future to be a battle of these ideas, competing visions about how we transform an education system that creates opportunity for all; build a sustainable health service which delivers the kind of care we would want for our sick, our vulnerable and our elderly; deliver a justice system that ensures our streets are safe; and construct a new economy that allows all of us to share in future prosperity. The Fabian Society has been always been a melting pot for radical ideas and has helped shaped Labour's past. In taking forward this project, I am sure Scottish Fabians will be central to delivering the radical change we aspire to for Scotland.

Scottish Fabians 7    Trevor Davies, Carol Finlay, Mike Freundenberg, Maureen Parnell, Diarmid Weir

We are at a fork in the road. We have been beguiled along this gilded path only now to find, in anger and dismay, that the place at which we stand is where the gap between rich and poor is the greatest for a hundred years, where austerity threatens to rend our social fabric for generations, and where divisions between classes, races, regions and nations are being widened, accidentally and deliberately. We have a choice. We can continue, through timidity, or lack of imagination, or preoccupation with the day-to-day, along the crowded path which may still deny to every citizen the chance of a good life of their own choosing. Or we can take the adventurous path which delves into our core values and, from them, begins to configure a different Scotland. The present is stark. In families everywhere, parents, if they can find work, are working harder than ever before and yet are falling behind in a struggle to provide a decent life for themselves and their children. Their living standards, flat from 2000 but propped up by give-away credit, slumped from 20081 and will do so for the foreseeable future. Those same parents, giving their working lives to a local factory, now find the owners are an anonymous off-shore fund doing deals that for ‘efficiency‘ require the factory to shut. Without work they fall back unwillingly onto state support. But the state, its revenue destroyed by tax scams, is slashing its support. The determined single parent of two schoolgirls studying at home for a specialist science degree so she can better provide for her growing girls, reading at night, writing essays at the kitchen table in school hours, paying her own tuition fees and

1 The Resolution Foundation 2013

8 Scottish Fabians COM M ON CAUSE living on the margin, now faces losing her home and the end of her ambitions, because the girls have the ‘luxury’ of a bedroom each – and the government wants therefore to take 40.00 from her support every month. In our low wage, low skill, low productivity, de-unionised economy, the young face a future less prosperous, less certain and more dangerous than their parents. Despite their efforts to keep up, more people live in poor health, more children grow up in poverty. Many eat anonymous adulterated food. Nearly a quarter are in permanent debt. And most of us fail to properly acknowledge that we all live beyond what the planet can provide. Yet, still, we are nagged by a feeling that what we do buy does little to support its producers, but instead puts yet another pound into the collecting boxes of the corporate rich. In a time of debt and disruption, 6,000 hand bags and 245,000 cars are best-selling products. This is not ‘the politics of envy’, as apologists for the old order claim. If we confront those disconnections, it can become instead ‘the politics of justice’. Because at last the economists, the political theorists, the business ‘experts’, their cheerleaders in our far-from-free press, who have persuaded us all over forty years of the ‘truth’ of feudal dogmas of trickle-down economics and the unfettered free market, have been found out. The ground they believed to be firm is daily shifting under their feet, and ours, to a point of crisis. Yet we fumble for new foundations. At the time of the last Great Depression prior to war, Antonio Gramsci wrote: The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.2 The ‘morbid symptoms’ of our day mean we live in a time of pulling apart. The bad economics which make the many pay for the rampages of the few, the dreamt-of borders and separations of either the UKIP or SNP sort, the blame placed on the young, poor and sick for their youth, poverty or sickness, the demonisation of the foreigner, whether

2 Selections from the Prison Notebooks

Scottish Fabians 9 Ambitions for Scotland refugee or worker – these are divisions of a depth and strength we’ve not seen since the aftermath of the Great War.3 It is time for the new to be built. We already have the foundations laid in our deepest values and sense of right and wrong. Our values con front and resist the fools gold which tells us there is no such thing as society, that the workplace must be ruled by profit alone, that citizens are best treated as consumers, that anyone unlike us is likely to be dangerous and that each community should be bounded according to its wealth. So let us, instead, speak of pulling together, of the relationships we have with each other and of the values we find in them. The doctor in her surgery who, knowing that passive patients don’t get well as fast, instead of simply giving out another pill, chooses instead to help the patient acquire the ‘tools’ to own his own health, taking responsibility for his own healthy living, while she offers medical expertise when needed. The company directors who sustain their worldwide company over decades of boom and bust by knowing that their employees work better when they share in the company, when they are trusted for their knowledge and loyalty, when they have power to decide themselves the best way to do their work. The neighbourhood which turns out in good numbers and of all ages to clean, repair and maintain a canal bank as a wider public resource and a thin green belt for plants and animals. Those values of solidarity, of responsibility, of common cause are the foundations on which we have built and must build again. So we look to a Scotland where our conditions of life are shaped by each of us owning our own work, health, culture and learning; sharing our common well-being, risks and security; and belonging fully to a responsive . The idea of ‘ownership’ has been colonised by the right to mean the simply transactional, like personal vouchers to buy a place in a school, or to frame a justification for vested interests, as in the ‘natural’

3 Danny Dorling Fair Play 2012

10 Scottish Fabians COM M ON CAUSE supremacy of the rights of business owners or land owners over those of customers or workers or tenants or the environment. For us, though, ownership is about responsibility and relationships, about the ability and capacity of individuals, families and groups to determine their own lives. It is about pursuing and owning our own life, liberty and happiness; about resisting those outside forces and vested interests, both economic and political, along with the social stresses of inequality4 that would deny them to us. So to call for conditions where each of us may own our own work, health, culture and learning is far-reaching and challenging. Significant change is needed: corporate governance and work practices to allow everyone to take responsibility for the way in which they work and contribute to the creation of wealth; the income and knowledge and confidence to take charge of our own health and well-being; the skills and leadership to reinvigorate the places we live and work in; the time and freedom to create and share a full cultural life, the life of the soul; and the lifelong capacity to learn, develop skills, enjoy learning for its own sake and what it can bring. Such change will not come from government doing stuff to others. It will come from the state acting as a convener of change, gathering and nurturing the relationships, and providing the powers, to individuals and organisations, to do it for themselves. Individual liberty and well-being do not derive from individualism – certainly not from the dog-eat-dog, beggar-thy-neighbour, free market individualism that portrays poverty as a result of laziness and welfare as akin to free-loading. Rather they derive from equality and commonality. They grow from strengthening our shared well-being and our shared security and managing our shared risks. By sharing the risks of unforeseen illness we lessen its impact on each and on all. By sharing the risks to our security, from external threat, from crime, from unemployment or bereavement, we reduce its cost and increase its

4 The Spirit Level Wilkinson and Pickett 2009

Scottish Fabians 11 Ambitions for Scotland effectiveness for each of us. By sharing our well-being we ensure it is available to all. But that essential sense of sharing has weakened under the pressures of individualism and nationalism. Our shared relationships, whether at local, Scottish, UK, European or global levels, need re-articulation. They also need strengthening. It will be a far-reaching and challenging task. The relationships of shared well-being, shared risk and shared security need gathering and nurturing, re-examining, re-enlivening, reinforcing and re-resourcing if they are to become meaningful again. We pride ourselves on our democracy. Yet few on its receiving end would claim it is responsive; much less that they have a tangible relationship with it and with each other through it. Most would say it is dominated by vested interests and powerful voices. The urgent question for us is how to bring an equality of voice into our institutions and processes, enabling decisions to be reached through reciprocal understandings rather than through the exercise of power or of ‘expert’ status. At the heart of our values we now discover the importance of relationships, of governing through the creation and support of productive relationships.5 It is time to end the price-based, consumer- not-citizen, dependency model of government and the easy kiss-me- quick retail politics of a benefit here, a tax-break there. Our foundation stone of ‘governance as relationships’ is open-ended, complex, uncertain, hard to summarise in official reports, but more enduring and more egalitarian. More important than what we try to do is how we – and others – do it, more about process than objective, more about means than ends, about embedding our values – of owning, sharing and belonging, of solidarity and common cause – into the processes that shape our relationships. For the ends are about providing for every citizen the chance of a good life of their own choosing, not of ours. But notice the word ‘every’. There’s the challenge.

5 see IPPR The Relational State 2013

12 Scottish Fabians COM M ON CAUSE

This is not just a task for government, though government is part of it and we admire the experiments under way in Edinburgh towards a ‘co-operative council’. More than that, it is a task for common actions that step outside or devolve beyond government and yet contribute to our shared well-being. The energy project in which brings consumers together to use the power of their combined purchases to lower their energy bills. The Fife Diet campaign to restore integrity and localism to Fife’s food supply. Devolution for us is not an end in itself. It is certainly not a stepping stone on the path to separate nationhood. Nor is it simply breaking off a bit – or a bit more or a bit less – of Westminster and Whitehall and relocating to Edinburgh. We see devolution as a process, a means. A means of placing power where it properly belongs, whether that is European, UK, Scottish, local or individual; a process which constantly seeks to take social, economic and political power downwards until it settles at its most effective level. So we uphold the values of devolution, which brought significant parliamentary powers to our nation, and seek to extend those values beyond the and government, exploring new forms of common action and government that place responsibilities and powers in the hands of the many, not the few. And, therefore, we seek a Scottish Parliament which reaches up to grasp fully its ambition as a legislature, setting standards and enhancing our rights and freedoms. We also want it to shed its daily ministerial authority over most government services and to disperse them to local levels where the paths of information and control are shorter and where productive alliances between users and suppliers can govern their provision. We want it to encourage and support forms of common action outside and beyond government. Untidy, diverse and uncontrolled it will certainly be, and to accept that is hard, but we believe it to be the right and adventurous path.

Scottish Fabians 13           Kezia Dugdale MSP

“Ask me anything. Anything you like at all. Don’t worry about whether it’s something to do with the Council, or the Westminster Government… Whatever it is I’ll do my best to answer and if I don’t know the answer, I’ll find out for you and get back in touch.”

It was hard work breaking the ice with this group of despondent young people at the youth centre in Central Edinburgh. Aged between 16 and 21, they all had varied experiences of the education system and different outlooks on life. One soul ventured: “When will there be jobs?” and somehow spoke for them all.

Since the crash, unemployment has spiralled and much of the discourse has focused around the monthly rises and dips in the unemployment numbers. When the commentators got bored of that, or struggled to find their own headline in the numbers, they began to explore the growing phenomenon of underemployment. Latest figures suggest that 10.6% of the population in Scotland are underemployed – and by that we mean they are either too qualified for the jobs they are in, or desperately looking for more hours. It’s an issue that predominantly affects women and has a dramatic impact on in-work poverty. It is a problem compounded by welfare cuts and rising living costs. Now the media are rightly obsessed with the notion of “zero hour” contracts. Companies recruit staff on contracts of employment that don’t guarantee any actual work. In consequence, people of all ages

14 Scottish Fabians ENTERPRISE AS AN ACT OF PUBLIC SERVICE disappear from the unemployment statistics without gaining the benefit of secure paid employment. Newspapers carry stories of employees arriving at huge warehouses in the early hours of the morning only to be told they have to wait in the canteen until there’s work to be done – clocking on only when the conveyor belt starts moving. In our desperate attempt to make the statistics better we've confused this type of exploitation as employment. In fact our governments have encouraged it. The story of unemployment, underemployment and poor terms and conditions paints a very clear picture for me of a job market that it is broken. The response from governments of all hues is to invest more in attracting big multinational companies to set up in areas of high unemployment. Huge public sums subsidise the building of warehouses and factories housing poor quality jobs and feed the tax avoiding habits of the multinationals running them. It doesn’t have to be like this, and Labour politicians have long argued the case for a good, responsible . A number of Scottish MSPs and MPs also make a compelling case for using the power of public procurement to drive up employment standards which I fully support – tying public cash to a limited list of the “decent thing to do.” Pay your tax and a living wage, abandon zero hour contracts and commit to hiring young people and the public cash will be yours. But must we always barter with the big guys? Or can we imagine a different economy, built on home grown businesses that pride themselves on being decent employers, rooted in the communities that they employ as well as buy and sell from. To drive such a dramatic shift in how our economy develops requires a change of culture, and I would argue that our working culture is perhaps our biggest obstacle as a nation. Our shared history and identity provides substantial evidence of the pride we take in public service, but our disdain for, and distrust of, those who choose to make their own money.

Scottish Fabians 15 Ambitions for Scotland

There is something about our culture which tells us that to make any substantial money of your own is avarice. That such an aspiration is for the already well heeled and those of a right wing persuasion. Perhaps that’s because for too long we’ve witnessed governments incentivise business growth with combinations of tax cuts, golden handshakes and deregulation. All sit ill at ease with our shared values, but need it be the only way? Could we aspire to be a more enterprising nation built on our values of public service? A place where wealth is created by the toil of those in secure, well paid work. A place where wealth is shared by those who built it. A place where running a successful business is not something you do for yourself, but for your community? This has to start with the next generation, people young enough to strain against the prevailing culture in order to drive its development. What they need is a combination of practical skills and the confidence to jump. The statistics show there are reasons to be optimistic about the future of entrepreneurship within young people. In 2012 the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) for Scotland reported that plans for new-start businesses are at their highest level in a decade and up 6% on 2010. The reasons attributed to this growth include a jump in start- up activity by graduates. It sounds like good progress until you realise that just 0.5% of those who graduated in 2011/2012 started out employing themselves. So how do we change this? The Practicalities As we all know, it begins in education. Our colleges and universities are centres of academic excellence. Our identity places a high value on education as the great equalizer. A good education always remains a pathway out of poverty. Yet a good education in this global market hasn’t always equalled work, as the unemployment statistics demonstrate. This leads some to

16 Scottish Fabians ENTERPRISE AS AN ACT OF PUBLIC SERVICE a debate about “work-readiness”. Do our institutions equip our young people with the skills for the workplace? We obsess about the degree to which industry should design education and all the time we seek to perfect a supply chain for someone else’s business. Should schools, colleges and universities devote more time to the practicalities of setting up your own business? What are rates and how do you pay them? How do you keep yourself on the right side of the HMRC? How do you digitize, market, pitch? Turnover vs profit? Recruit to grow? Balance risk? These are just the fundamentals, which are no doubt found in every business course. But if we can embed them into all courses and not just as a modular element, we can begin to really shift attitudes to entrepreneurship. It simply can’t be just "today’s the day we’ll learn how to set up a business." It has to be inherent in the course design and structure, and demonstrated consistently that an entrepreneurial career is a real option for students. Students like them. Our colleges know this, having turned out generations of mechanics, joiners, hairdressers, fitness instructors. College principals know that it is here that the future lies, and they are committed to that journey knowing they are many obstacles along the way. It would be wrong, however, to assume these skills can simply be taught. It’s not about textbook application leading to success. It is knowledge applied with attitude. An attitude of confidence, self-belief and ambition. The GEM study has called on universities to work to nurture the entrepreneurial spark that is developing in graduates by enhancing their provision of enterprise activities for their alumni. Suggestions include coaching facilities for alumni; opportunities to meet high quality potential investors, customers or suppliers; and honours for those who try to create international businesses.

Scottish Fabians 17 Ambitions for Scotland

The Confidence Again we lack any substantial quantitative data to evidence the trends in young business start-ups coming out of the education system. In its absence, we have to presume that those limited instances - those 0.5% who did set up a business - come from families with SME experience or a degree of private wealth. It's just what we know to be true. To liberate the possibility of the many, rather than the few, embarking on business, we have to de-risk the process. The practicalities are the first part – but the second is purely financial. We need to provide the finance which instils a sense of responsibility but without the fear of debt. Perhaps that could be done in the form of college or university based investment banks. But this needs to be more than a bank; it is an incubator that’s a helping hand, a holding hand. The institution could bring a whole new meaning to the term “corporate parent.” Institutions could provide start up finance for materials or equipment, perhaps even benefiting from a degree of collective bargaining. They could deliver payroll functions, tax advice, even IT infrastructure. All of these tend to exist already within an institution's structures. They could also provide encouragement to collaborate, to bring together the web designer and the fitness instructor, and think what might be. They could provide loans on reasonable rates where the profit is recycled to liberate further lending, much like a credit union. The institution becomes a shareholder in the truest sense – carrying the risk in the early days so that the benefits can be shared by the “community" of both place and interest. In the last three years, Scotland has gone from being in the fourth quartile of Total Early-Stage Entrepreneurial Activity (TEA) rates up to the second quartile. And yet we are still falling behind the rest of the UK whose TEA rate sits at 9.8% to our 6.9%. This growth came from

18 Scottish Fabians ENTERPRISE AS AN ACT OF PUBLIC SERVICE graduates, and whilst it is small at the moment, there is so much more we can do to nurture it and really push Scotland into becoming that innovation nation again. Much of this progress has come through necessity rather than by design. Now is the time to provide the architecture under which all Scots, regardless of background or private wealth, are supported to start out with a start up. It will be a significant act of public service to make that change, but one which will create the decent employers, wealth creators and indeed distributors of the future. “We will start with no traditions. We will start with ideals.” These words were spoken almost a century ago by the great James Maxton MP. Perhaps we must leave our traditional view of public service behind and embrace a more entrepreneurial Scotland, one that benefits the many not the few. This article was inspired by the writings of Carol Craig.

Scottish Fabians 19            Katherine Trebeck, Francis Stuart (Oxfam Scotland)

‘By building a more dynamic and faster growing economy we will increase prosperity, be better placed to tackle Scotland’s health and social challenges, and establish a fairer and more equal society.’

Scottish Government, 2011

This presumption is false. It ignores the failure of decades of economic growth to change the lives of too many Scots who still face premature mortality, economic inactivity, mental and physical ill-health, and poor educational attainment. In some parts of Scotland more than one in five adults are being prescribed drugs for anxiety and depression. In these communities – the communities where Oxfam works – the economic and social policies pursued in recent years have largely been ineffective in reducing deprivation, while unquestioningly prioritising economic growth has produced social and environmental damage. Glasgow, where most of Oxfam’s work in Scotland is undertaken, demonstrates how the imposition of a narrow model of economic development impacts upon communities and individuals. It illustrates how pursuit of money - a very partial type of financial asset – undermines social and human assets: our friends, our family relationships and our health. This is most manifestly evident in Glasgow’s growing health inequalities. Up until 1981 the gradient of poor health in Glasgow mirrored that of similarly-sized UK and European regions. Since then, however, health inequalities have deepened for reasons beyond material deprivation. Glasgow’s level and variation of income deprivation is the same as in Liverpool and Manchester. Yet Glasgow’s poor health manifests itself

20 Scottish Fabians FROM TRICKLE DOW N GROW TH TO COLLECTIVE PROSPERITY in premature male mortality with a rate 30% higher than in these comparable cities; suicide is 70% higher; there are 32% more violent deaths; and 225% more alcohol-related deaths. These excesses only emerged in the last two or three decades – a time when the Scottish economy grew by almost 2% each year and when spending on social problems and social welfare doubled. Asking why this is the case, rather than blaming individuals involved, reveals the uncomfortable path Glasgow pursued over the last few decades. The mode of economic development (premised on a trickle down from wealth creation) pursued from the 1980s onwards seemed to intensify anxiety over image and status, compelling people into materialistic pursuits that damaged wellbeing and led to harmful behaviours (such as alcohol and drug misuse). Whereas deindustrialisation has been somewhat managed and mitigated in other old industrial areas, the West of Scotland lost the greatest number of jobs as a proportion of its total employment. And while regeneration models in comparable cities also incorporated ‘lifestyle’ and consumption, Glasgow’s economic development appears to be particularly service-based and consumerist. Once one of the world’s leading industrial cities, Glasgow is now the UK’s largest shopping destination outside of London. Glasgow shows how the transition to a narrow model of economic growth and reliance on trickle down fails to reduce inequalities – or to revive communities rendered redundant by the prioritisation of finance over people and of pounds over participation. The experience of Oxfam’s partners in Glasgow is that development of shops, business parks and infrastructure under the ambit of regeneration has not equated to a reduction in local unemployment – jobs created are often taken by people from outside the area and displace jobs in other local businesses. Physical improvements have focused on business development and consumption-based activities but, despite decades of considerable investment, these have not significantly reversed the comparative fortunes of disadvantaged communities.

Scottish Fabians 21 Ambitions for Scotland

Of course Glasgow is but a case study for the wider economic focus of Scotland and the UK over the past 30 years. Inherent in the dominant, but inadequate, economic model were the assumptions that:

 Wealth creation will ‘trickle down’ to benefit all.

 Wealth creation is more important than wealth distribution.

 Market freedom is more important than community wellbeing or individual security.

 Local economic development premised on retail and services is sustainable (economically, environmentally and socially).

 Money spent on bricks and mortar, rather than on enhancing communities themselves, will improve the socio-economic circumstances of vulnerable neighbourhoods.

 Any jobs are better than none, regardless of quality; work in and of itself explicitly makes a good society; and paid work makes the most valuable contribution to society. How and what wealth is created and distributed has been ignored in the drive to simply increase it. When the economy grinds to a halt, the communities Oxfam works with are left high and dry by forces beyond their control. The debate about public service reform - through the work of the Christie Commission - has rightly come round to the idea that building individual and community control is crucial to good public services and positive outcomes for people. Yet when it comes to the economy, the only consideration seems to be how we promote economic growth and inward investment. The wider purpose of economic activity, and the level of community and individual control in dictating that direction, is not considered. This has led to a position where over the past 25 years

 The wages of the top 1% of earners has risen at more than twice the rate for the poorest 10%.

22 Scottish Fabians FROM TRICKLE DOW N GROW TH TO COLLECTIVE PROSPERITY

 Scotland’s richest households are now 273 times wealthier than Scotland’s poorest households.

 40% of Scots in poverty are now in work.

 Increasing labour-market flexibility has foisted increased risks onto individuals to the detriment of family and community life.

 Many community assets such as parks and green space have been lost or devalued.

 Increased materialism and consumerism has resulted in debt and environmental damage whilst singularly failing to increase true satisfaction.

 Only 22% of Scots feel they can influence local decisions.

 Poor people are stigmatised and scapegoated through social and political discourse, particularly from the UK Government and sections of the media, which labels people as ‘scroungers’, ‘cheats’ and ‘undeserving’. Reflecting on these injustices, it is perhaps unsurprising that people experiencing poverty are more likely to die early and spend more of their shorter lives unwell. Measuring the New prosperity ‘Most of us would define genuine wealth in terms of the conditions of our relationships…the social cohesion of our neighbourhoods and the quality of our children’s play. We wouldn’t tend to measure wealth in terms of our military spending, war, the development of prisons, the cutting down of ancient forests, or increases in the [stock market]’

Mark Anielski, 2003

So how do we move towards a society and an economy where we don’t simply seek to increase economic growth without any concern for who benefits and instead measure and share genuine wealth?

Scottish Fabians 23 Ambitions for Scotland

In order to achieve this sustainable and socially-just Scotland, there needs to be a re-framing of politics so that we nurture what matters to the people of Scotland. We must develop a better way of measuring our collective prosperity, beyond just narrow economic growth, in order to re-conceptualise what constitutes the ‘success’ of our economy and the ‘success’ of communities and individuals. None of this is to say that economic growth is or isn’t important. To be honest an academic debate about economic growth is of little interest. The key debate – or at least the key starting point for any debate– is to ask what should be the primary purpose of government and the economy? In Oxfam’s view the answer is not to promote economic growth. Given the increasing evidence that poverty is both a key societal cost and a driver of government spending, combined with the fact that more equal societies do better, reducing poverty and inequality would be a better focus. That is why Oxfam believes we need a Poverty Commissioner to put poverty reduction at the heart of government, to ensure spending decisions are poverty proofed, and to support communities to challenge government policies and private sector actions that do not contribute to socio-economic equality. We also need better measures of success. In fairness to the , the National Performance Framework is a reasonable starting point – setting out the government’s overarching purpose and encompassing a range of high-level targets, strategic objectives, national outcomes, and indicators. Yet economic growth, measured by Gross Domestic Product, still sits at the top of the framework and dictates much of the subsequent policy. This is clearly evident in recent policy and legislation including the Better Regulation Bill with its duty on regulators ‘to contribute to economic growth’ as well as proposed changes to Scotland’s planning system which seeks to put ‘growth at the forefront’. Pursuing real prosperity, encapsulated by a consensual measure that captures what is important to people, would help shift the focus of our attention and the efforts of our policy-makers so that they sustain our society, and do not simply kowtow to the economy. It would lead to

24 Scottish Fabians FROM TRICKLE DOW N GROW TH TO COLLECTIVE PROSPERITY the prioritisation and reward of social goods (relationships, recycling, mutuality, play, healthy spaces and so on) as opposed to short-term economic gain for the fortunate few. Developed through widespread public consultation with almost 3,000 people in Scotland, the Oxfam Humankind Index enables Scotland to measure itself by those aspects of life that make a real difference to people. The Index is an attempt to support a move away from an economy and society based on inequalities of wealth and pursuit of relative status, and towards an economy and society which promotes health (mental and physical) and equality, and reduces poverty, inequalities and overconsumption. Importantly, because Scotland’s poorest communities are so often excluded from mainstream decision making, we made particular effort to involve ‘seldom heard’ groups when constructing the Index. Oxfam Humankind Index – sub-domains and weightings Sub-domainWeight Affordable, decent home / a safe and secure home to live in11 Being physically and mentally healthy11 Living in a neighbourhood where you can enjoy going outside and having a clean and healthy environment9 Having satisfying work to do (paid or unpaid)7 Having good relationships with family and friends7 Feeling that you and those you care about are safe6 Access to green spaces / wild spaces / social / play areas6 Work / secure work / suitable work6 Having enough money to pay the bills and buy what you need6 Having a secure source of money5 Access to arts, culture, interest, stimulation, learning, hobbies, leisure activities5 Having the facilities you need locally4

Scottish Fabians 25 Ambitions for Scotland

Sub-domainWeight Getting enough skills and education to live a good life4 Being part of a community4 Having good transport to get to where you need to go4 Being able to access high-quality services3 Human rights / freedom from discrimination / acceptance / respect3 Feeling good2

It is clear that Scots don’t want huge pots of cash. They want good health, a secure home, a pleasant environment in which to live, satisfying work, and a stable, secure income that allows them to care for their families and to take part in society. We believe the results of the Index offer a platform for policy makers showing what is important to the people of Scotland. Of course such a measurement will only be of help if it actually affects policy change. That is why Oxfam has developed a Humankind Index Policy Assessment Tool to help monitor and evaluate the impact of government policies and private sector activity on the Humankind Index. We hope policy makers and others will engage with this tool and move towards more holistic assessments of proposed policies and their net contribution to society. Whether it be forthcoming legislation, the Scottish Government's Budget or debates about Scotland's constitutional future, the Humankind Index - as a reflection of the priorities of the people of Scotland - is more important than ever. We hope the Labour party, and others, build on this work to put community control at the heart of Scotland’s economic development policies.

Some of the content for this article is taken from the recent Oxfam report Our Economy: Towards a New Prosperity setting out Oxfam Scotland’s vision for the economy: policy-practice.oxfam.org.uk/publications/our-economy-towards-a- new-prosperity-294239

26 Scottish Fabians           Drew Smith MSP

Parliamentary have evolved all over the world according to the national contexts in which their institutions have been forged. Their procedures reflect the circumstances of their creation and, in most, their legislatures act to check and balance the power of executive authority. Parliaments are places of ministerial scrutiny, for legislative deliberation, and for national debate. Each of these functions are reflected in the foundation of the Scottish Parliament, but in the case of Holyrood, other hopes for its function and form were also entwined at its beginning, and these reflected the desires of Scotland's people for a new politics. The devolution ideal was for a Parliament which was not a re-convention of the old Scots Parliament, not a mini- Westminster and not a super-council. The ambition of Holyrood's founders was for a Parliament which was easy to access, which reflected the people it serves and which was participative, with clear mechanisms which allowed the public to influence its business and its considerations. Laudable and still relevant aims, but it is also true that many of the processes which were created for and by the Scottish Parliament were almost as much a reaction against the practices of others as a vision of a different way of doing things based on new ideas. Its electoral system, for example, was famously a compromise which remains little-loved by anyone, and the rhetoric of Parliament exercising power in partnership with the executive has fallen by the way to an unfortunately considerable degree. The Scottish Labour Party is within its rights to point to the Scotland Act of the 1997 Labour government as Holyrood's founding document and it is because of this statute that Scottish Ministers exercise their

Scottish Fabians 27 Ambitions for Scotland power on behalf of the Crown, which remains the constitutional source of government's authority across Britain. Indeed even an independent Scotland would, according to the , retain the Crown and therefore inherit the concept of the Crown as the source of legitimate power in the land. Yet Holyrood has other antecedents too. The cross-party and beyond-party Constitutional Convention, itself a culmination of earlier campaigns and ideas, produced the key reports which influenced the shape, feel and voice of the Scottish Parliament we now have. Their deliberations, their ideals and their mistakes, are as much part of Holyrood's founding as the Scotland Act, or the plans of the Consultative Steering Group which draw up many of the rules which the Parliament adopted for itself in 1999. A thread running through the fabric woven by the Constitutional Convention also reflected even older ideas about from where sovereignty really stems, and the decision of 's government to put the question of a Scottish Parliament to the people gives it an added legitimacy beyond that of local government or many other Scottish institutions. The Scottish Parliament's relationship with some of these other institutions remains unresolved, and indeed its tendency to exercise primacy over these bodies betrays the contradictions in some of its principles put into practice, such as the goal of subsidiarity and devolution beyond Edinburgh rather than simply to it. While Scotland will welcome a verdict in her current preoccupation with the national question on 18 September 2014, a resolution to her local question will inevitably need to be found too, regardless of the outcome in 2014. I have, for example, my own views about how sustainable it is for the Scottish Parliament to deny local government the debate on their powers which it so jealously takes for itself. While local government continues to fight a rear-guard action to hang on to what it has, it must also struggle with the bulk of the cuts in public spending on the services for which it is responsible. In contrast, the Scottish Parliament confidently demands more for itself while seeking to avoid implication in the reality of what is happening in public

28 Scottish Fabians CHANGING SCOTLAND REQUIRES CHANGING HOLYROOD services, or to face scrutiny about the decisions taken in and around its own precincts, and those of the Scottish Government. Complaining about power abuses and lamenting lack of partnership in decision-making are, of course, the hardy perennials of those who have proximity to power but do not themselves wield it. Meanwhile those who wish to pull local levers will always be resentful of central control. Labour's history has largely been a centralising one, reflecting the left's lust for change which is, at its most simple, class-based rather than geographically motivated. That said, what used to be called municipal remains remarkable, more for the extent of its achievements, rather than the limitations of towns halls as places of radicalism. The Glasgow Guarantee, which the Scottish Government itself has admitted is Scotland's biggest policy commitment to tackling youth unemployment, is just one example of how ideas and principle can be developed and put into practice by politicians who are not parliamentarians. Devolution itself is, of course, an example of Labour's intermittent enthusiasm for decentralisation; as is Johann Lamont's clear call for Scottish Labour's Devolution Commission to move beyond and away from consideration of Holyrood reform through the increasingly facile 'more powers' prism. Regardless of the powers which Holyrood exercises, or watches Ministers exercise, it is increasingly clear that the way the Scottish Parliament goes about its business will have to change. The Committees once lauded as the jewel in devolution's crown are simply failing to set an agenda of their own at present; their law-proposing power remains almost unique but rarely used. Some will, understandably enough, say that this has always been the case and that Labour and Liberal MSPs did not scrutinise the previous Scottish Executive any more closely than SNP backbenchers currently do their own Ministers. If this is true, then perhaps they did a better job of pretending. Whatever the policy debate to be had now, it is worth remembering that, for example, free personal care, before it was subsequently adopted by the Executive, was originally a policy promoted by a Holyrood committee at a time when relevant Ministers were not in support. Compare and contrast this with the Justice

Scottish Fabians 29 Ambitions for Scotland

Committee's recent scrutiny of Kenny McAskill's local court closures programme where SNP Members of the Committee voted in favour of closures after hearing evidence from campaigns to keep the courts open which some of them were themselves actively involved in supporting. For an example of the partisan behaviour of the Conveners, the shameless spectacle of the Education Committee Convener who, when faced with a scandal over the Education Secretary's behaviour in wishing to sack the chair of a college board, toured the TV studios – not to explain how his Committee would examine the issue, but to defend the Education Secretary in advance of hearing any of the actual evidence. Beyond how individuals choose to use their positions there does, of course, remain a problem that the role of Conveners has still not properly emerged as an alternate route to promotion for MSPs. Media interest in the work that is done by cross-party committees continues to fall, caught in a vicious cycle whereby less scrutiny of the government results in less scrutiny of the committee and thus declining influence of Parliament as a whole, and no-doubt poorer policy choices overall. Scrutiny of the current government is, categorically, being held back by some of the Parliament's more optimistic procedures. For example, the lack of recourse available to the Presiding Officer, or any other MSP, when a Minister makes a statement to the Scottish Parliament which is demonstrably, or later shown to be, simply untrue. This is a situation which would not and could not be tolerated by a Speaker of the Commons, or the rules that House has evolved. A longer running problem, and one which recent changes to Parliament's sitting times haven't noticeably helped, is the ludicrously short time which MSPs take to consider final amendments to legislation which then results in effectively incidental debates about the overall principle behind the final bills passed. Likewise, real post-legislative scrutiny, mostly considered to be essential in a unicameral assembly, remains a far off, if not far out, aspiration.

30 Scottish Fabians CHANGING SCOTLAND REQUIRES CHANGING HOLYROOD

The answer for MSPs, of whatever party, interested in trying to restore greater integrity to the Parliament's systems, cannot simply be to complain or even just to blame the current party of government. Scottish Labour and the Scottish National Party are different beasts and our terms of internal debate come from different traditions. When Labour next return to government in Edinburgh it is inconceivable that a Labour parliamentary group could continue to support an executive in office without a single back-bench rebellion on any issue ever voted upon. Such a scenario is as unlikely as the current SNP group speaking out about matters of domestic policy when they are themselves faced with their own leadership continually changing their views about key constitutional issues such as the monarchy, defence or the currency. The answer, for Labour, is neither to ape the SNP's discipline or to pretend that no 'patsy' questions were ever asked by Labour MSPs at First Ministers Questions or elsewhere. A much better approach, in my view, would be for Labour to commit to follow reviews of the Parliament's powers with a serious, and independent, look at how Parliament itself is reformed. How can it become a more attractive spectacle, and a place where power is more genuinely shared between those who are members of the executive and those who are not? How can it become a place where the influence of those it represents is felt more keenly throughout its terms of session and across its work? The current Presiding Officer has made a number of changes, the most welcome of which is the addition of more topicality in questions to the government, but both general and portfolio questions continue to fail as opportunities for genuine scrutiny. Unlike Westminster, Holyrood has no official opposition and those who have responsibility, to the public as well their parties, to shadow Minsters may not even be called by the system of lottery questions to challenge those who do hold power. In the absence of a liaison committee, the head of government is not subjected to the kind of detailed questioning that could add to the small, and unavoidably partisan, opportunity offered by FMQs. The Parliament's petitions committee remains a vitally important, if underused, means of access but what may have been seen as revolutionary in the 1990s might now be considered fairly minimal in

Scottish Fabians 31 Ambitions for Scotland terms of a genuinely empowering route to decision-makers. Associated institutions such as the Parliament's early 'Civic Forum' - conceived as something almost akin to a sounding chamber - quickly passed by and no consideration seems to have been given to whether it had at its heart a kernel of an idea worth trying in other ways. Members of the Scottish Youth Parliament continue to have some routine access to aspects of business, including attending as regular Committee witnesses, but potentially more formal connections which could have been made between Parliament and other groups, which hold democratic mandates, such as local government, Scottish MPs or MEPs have not been created, and only limited joint-working arrangements exist. Before even considering how reform could encompass groups further away from day-to-day politics it cannot be right that in a small country so little is done together. The aftermath of a referendum, which has the potential to resolve Scotland's current constitutional uncertainty and which may lead to a further discussion of the Parliament’s powers, may well represent an opportune moment to consider whether partnership, if not co-decision, on certain areas might be a possibility worthy of exploration. Any commitment to review Holyrood's inadequacies - or more optimistically its further potential - should be made in advance of an election, and should not be tied to specific reforms before they can be properly considered. Nor indeed should it be linked to any particular constitutional outcome, be it independence or further reform of devolution. Instead Labour should commit to broad principles of better government and ask for cross-party support for these to be examined and recommendation made. No incoming government will be keen to deliver an easier time for their opposition, or often the public, or to to give away the upper hand they have just fought an election to win. But, Labour's experience of opposition at Holyrood should be a salutary one, and one which we resolve to being part of putting right, not just for the sake of frustrated opposition politicians, but because of the value we could still place on the prize of a new politics in Scotland.

32 Scottish Fabians           Anas Sarwar MP

Today in Scotland it appears that the only change on offer is constitutional change. Not change to the way the economy is run so that it serves everyone equally; not change to the banking system so that businesses get the support they need to grow and develop; not change in social security so that it helps those in need and gives a genuine hand up to those looking for support. Rather, we have two governments putting their own obsessions before the needs of the country; one government slavishly following an economic programme which is clearly not working and another determined to put their own minority obsession ahead of the country’s priorities. Across the UK both governments are led by parties that put the politics of division ahead of the real challenges. One government which is controlled by those who seek to divide over the issue of Europe, and in Scotland a government determined to divide by which part of the United Kingdom you come from. That is why Scottish Labour has to offer more than just constitutional change. We must offer real social and economic change and I believe there is a real desire for it. In Scotland today growth is down and unemployment is up, household incomes are being squeezed while household costs are on the rise. If ever there was a time for a change in direction this is it and that is why Labour must rise to the challenge of delivering social, economic and environmental justice at a time of austerity. And I believe we can best do that by following a simple course and base the political decisions we make on the values we hold as Labour members, the

Scottish Fabians 33 Ambitions for Scotland same ones we signed up to when we joined and that hold as true today as they have ever done. And while two years out from the General Election it is not possible to set out what the Labour manifesto will look like in detail, we can set out the framework of values and principles around which we should build our manifesto offer. After 13 years in government it is more important, now we are in opposition, to define now the values and principles under which we will govern in future. The principles of equality, community, fairness, solidarity and social justice are not remnants of the past but forces of good for the future. I believe we can best deliver for the communities we seek to represent by using these as our guiding principles. Labour must stand up to and challenge the notion that Labour can only deliver in times of plenty but that in times of austerity and economic downturn only a Tory government will work. Clearly the evidence of today’s economy proves that wrong, but it also has to be Labour’s job to set out why, now more than ever, you need a Labour government working for all. For Labour that means setting out why the best way to promote social justice in times of austerity is to deliver economic justice. But there is not much economic justice to shout about under the current UK and Scottish governments. Today we see global companies making billions of pounds in profit but paying not a penny in tax. And yet we see those companies rewarded, not with public scorn and condemnation but millions of pounds in government grants. That’s not just economic immorality on the part of the company, it’s political immorality on the part of government for rewarding such behaviour. But government does have the power to act, even when money is tight. Every year the Scottish public sector spends approximately 10 billion on procurement. What I want to see is the use of that spending power

34 Scottish Fabians DELIVERING SOCIAL JUSTICE THROUGH ECONOM IC CHANGE to drive, not just growth in the economy, but changed behaviour in the private sector. Procurement should be more than just achieving value for money for the taxpayer but adding value to the tax money we spend. Government should be using procurement to support wider outcomes. Rather than just thinking about the end product, the school, the road, the railway or the bridge, government should raise its ambitions and think about its wider role. And there are three areas in which I believe we could focus procurement to support behavioural change: Firstly, to take action on tax dodging and the use of tax havens. I believe there is strong public support for banning companies who are involved in avoiding their fair share of tax from accessing public sector contracts, bringing tax justice to public procurement. Secondly, to extend the payment of the living wage into the private sector for employees working on public contracts and using the powers of procurement to deliver a positive employment agenda. For a start this means a public apology and compensation for those whose working lives have been scarred by blacklisting. But we also have to address the wider issue of tax-payer funded contracts being used to perpetuate the practices of low pay employers. Thirdly, using procurement of public projects to deliver other government priorities. Government could support SMEs to access very large contracts by not bundling up contracts into multi-million or nationwide delivery models, support skills development by building in proportionate apprentice and skills development expectations, supporting local economies and environment by ensuring products are sourced as locally as possible. All of the above is possible if government has the will. It’s simple, the requirement to lock into the procurement system a duty to ensure that procurement promotes sustainable economic, social and environmental well-being; the holy grail of the triple bottom line, what I would call the common good principle.

Scottish Fabians 35 Ambitions for Scotland

But procurement is just one vehicle to change the economy and change the country. We must go further to reform the economy. In today’s global economy it is inevitable that over time labour jobs will go where labour costs are cheapest. That is why government must act now to shape our education system, align our further and higher education establishments, develop our skills and apprentice programmes to prepare today’s generation for tomorrow’s economy. The recognition that someone out there is always going to seek to undercut our jobs market on cost means we must rebuild and reshape our economy. We mustn’t just focus on what we do best but also on what we can do better. And that means investing in a skills based economy and equipping the country and its people with the right tools to flourish. And alongside people development, government must also invest now to put in place the infrastructure to support and sustain a modern economy. But government will have to do so with much tighter financial constraints, perhaps over as long a period of 10 years, and this requires a fundamental rebalancing of our economy so that, yes, it creates wealth, but the wealth is used for a purpose. This will not only require tough choices from today’s political leaders, it will require different choices, ignoring the short term for the benefit of the long term, changing spending priorities today as a way of boosting growth for tomorrow. Such rebalancing must be based on our values and must recognise the need for economic justice. In my constituency today people are being handed food parcels. Just a short trip away millionaires are being handed a tax cut. There’s no fairness in that. In some global companies who operate in Scotland, the cleaner on the shop floor is paying more in tax on their income than the company itself, despite multi-billion pound turnovers. Where is the economic justice in that?

36 Scottish Fabians DELIVERING SOCIAL JUSTICE THROUGH ECONOM IC CHANGE

It’s not enough just for politicians to call for corporate responsibility. If corporations are unwilling to fulfil their obligations, to recognise they have a public duty to pay their fair share, then politicians must be prepared to act to address this behaviour. I have already mentioned procurement as one ‘carrot’ to entice behavioural change. A ’stick’ approach might well be required and exploration of country by country reporting or reform of the tax system to reflect in-country transactions are also worth considering. And because our values don’t stop at borders, because we don’t just want corporate responsibility at home but right across the world, we should be taking action to ensure global responsibilities are met. Today, developing countries lose three times more from tax evasion than they receive in aid. Sadly, economic immorality isn’t just practised here in the UK and that is why we need to work in partnership with others, not stand in isolation, to secure real change. But those of us on the left also have to look at rebalancing the economy in other ways. Firstly, by taking a principled and values based stance against George Osborne and the Tory right’s plans to shrink the size of the state to a level below that of the post-war average. We need to do more on making the case for intervention in times of austerity rather than relying solely on public sector cuts as a way of balancing the books and by evidencing how intervention can deliver on our values. Both Ed’s recognise the value of supporting short term borrowing to support investment in infrastructure. Indeed, Labour has placed capital investment as one of its key economic planks to restore growth to the economy. Secondly, the left could make a robust argument, again based on our values, for substituting tax rises for some of the planned cuts. The millionaires tax cut should be reversed and the bankers bonus

Scottish Fabians 37 Ambitions for Scotland repeated, both measures focussed on ensuring those with the broadest shoulders bear the biggest burden. Thirdly, government could do more to ensure it was not stripping out demand and consumption from the market. Supporting the Living Wage and driving up the household incomes of lower and middle income households will help deliver greater equality but also mean greater spending to help to promote economic growth. Yet lower and middle income households are the two groups who appear to have been targeted by this government, with all the evidence showing that the most affluent households have come off lightest under the government’s austerity measures. All of the above measures cut right to the heart of the Labour movement and our political values. We don’t just believe in building new schools or railways because they are good things to have (although they are) and we don’t just believe in re-balancing tax revenues more fairly because it’s the right thing to do (which it is) but because by carrying out these types of government interventions we are supporting people into work, we are driving up living standards, cutting down on wasted talent and giving hope to future generations. All aspirations that sit comfortably with our values. The last few years have not been easy. It’s also pretty clear that the next few years are going to be just as tough as the global economy shows no signs of recovering to pre-slump levels. These demonstrate the need for real change now. Despite the prism of constitutional politics Labour must continue to focus on the real battles and not solely about which politicians have which powers in which building. Because that is why Labour exists, to fight for equality and social justice but crucially to put our principles and values into practice.

38 Scottish Fabians          Daniel Johnson, Duncan Hothersall

Scottish political debate is dominated by the twin policy Goliaths of the constitution and the economy, to the point where the two often merge. The question which both sides of the independence debate seem to be answering is: in what constitutional arrangement would Scotland be better off? But surely the real question is this: how do we make our economy work better for Scots? The priority of economic issues is not in doubt. But simply redrawing borders does nothing to tackle the economic issues and challenges faced by Scotland. What is needed is a radical reworking and realignment of our economy, focusing on the people that work in it and the relationship the economy has with society. It is this radical idea of driving power to people, empowering them and organising around their needs and abilities which lies at the heart of successful economies, and also lies at the heart of devolution. What’s Wrong? Scottish economic policy is stuck in a laissez-fair rut. While the misguided monetarist policies of Margaret Thatcher may have triggered the economic collapse of once dominant industries, subsequent governments have done little to correct them. Through the 1990s and 2000s governments, both SNP and Labour, pursued a strategy of deregulation and non-intervention. While this clearly brought rewards for the white collar, service sector workers in Scotland’s cities, it did little for those living in former steel towns or in the shadow of dockyard cranes. Oil is the other dominant feature of the Scottish economy, to the point where discussion of the constitution invariably leads to discussion

Scottish Fabians 39 Ambitions for Scotland of oil. Its role and what it could provide for Scotland are constantly replayed. But this role is also troubling. Without oil receipts, Scotland would have a deficit of around 14%1, and fluctuations in either the price of oil or the supply from North Sea fields has a dramatic impact on the health of the Scottish tax receipt. Surely we want an economy that works on its own merits rather than relying on geological good fortune? Our national economic well-being requires a reinvention of our economic architecture. Relying on banks and oil is neither the basis for a secure economy nor the route to an inclusive one. The Labour traditions of equity, solidarity and mutual industry should form a new and radical ambition to transform the Scottish economy. This ambition is a radical rejection of the neo-liberal insistence that the role of the state in economic matters must be confined to the macro level - that government must confine itself to being an arch- regulator and nothing more. Nor do we seek to turn the clock back to a corporatist model where the state seeks to take control and ownership of the economy. The focus of this new perspective must be on the relationships within the economy and the mode of action must be that of facilitator rather than either bystander or owner. This is why the principle of devolution is key; it is a focus on the relationship of the individual and power. It is also why it is correct for the devolved Scottish government to champion this new economic perspective – it is best placed to facilitate and influence within the wider economic framework of the UK. What kind of economy do we want? What does a devolved economy look like? Undoubtedly it would have a well-supported and active entrepreneurial element, underpinning indigenous enterprise and measuring success by not only economic output but popular involvement. Elsewhere in this publication Kezia Dugdale sets out some stark statistics on the lack of entrepreneurship

1 Average budget deficit including capital expenditure, excluding Revenue, between 2007-2008 and 2011-2012, Table 2a, Government Expenditure and Revenue, The Scottish Government March 2013

40 Scottish Fabians DEVOLUTION AS AN ECONOM IC AMBITION in Scotland and some excellent ideas about how to lift the level of this activity. A key plank of economic empowerment is building the capacity for self-employment. We also need to drive up the quality of work and the quality of companies. Too often economic success for an employed individual is measured solely by wage levels. As Francis Stuart and Katherine Trebeck tell us in their contribution, there are many more, and more important, measures of success. Job security for individuals, and with it the economic security of families and communities, needs to be brought to the fore. Sustainability of economic activity, and its rooting in communities, can give better long-term economic outcomes than the corporatism we see taking root in many parts of Scotland today. And security, health and job satisfaction are the real goals many are trying to reach through their employment – not profit generation. Better companies means, at the very least, breaking the cycle of “it’s aye been” and embracing change. The Kaizen principle – a Japanese approach which involves every employee being encouraged to come up with small improvement suggestions on a regular basis – has the potential to drive major improvement if it can be instilled into the Scottish economic psyche. We are not short of ideas for improvement, as many of us will know from our daily work. But how many feel powerless to instigate the changes they see necessary? Kaizen means a commitment to improvement from the whole company. It involves setting standards and then continually improving those standards. It is a cultural shift to which Scottish industry should aspire. A devolved economy is also one in which vocational learning is world class, with a flexible college sector which recognises the need for part- time and full-time courses alongside self-led and online education. Local specialism can not only create centres of excellence but also contribute to community cohesiveness and a sense of economic identity which has been eroded in recent years. And while allowing large industry to dictate vocational training can be unhealthy, partnership working with employers, large and small, can help colleges to continuously improve their offerings.

Scottish Fabians 41 Ambitions for Scotland

How do we build it? A critical element of any economic plan is an investment architecture. The devolved economy needs a new Scottish investment bank providing capital and expertise, but more significantly it requires a framework for regional lending. A regional approach not only allows for local understanding to drive investment decisions, but enables the sort of smaller-scale and lower-barrier contributions which are critical for start-up and self-led businesses. Too much of today’s available small-scale debt funding is locked behind barriers designed to reduce risk, while the risk-taking investment funds restrict themselves to large investments which benefit only the already successful business. The closer the decision-makers are to the communities in which companies are being formed, the better able they will be to assess risk more effectively. Too many potentially successful, if small-scale, businesses are denied the investment they need as a result of this structural imbalance. The Scottish Government must revitalise how it engages with enterprise. To effect the change we want to see in our companies, the Scottish Government needs to do more than hold drinks receptions with corporate executives and training courses for small businesses. This lazy and platidunal approach perpetuates a “Great Divide” between the private and public sectors which serves neither particularly well. Programmes are needed to ensure that knowledge, practices, people and resources are shared and exchanged. Government must actively seek out opportunities to work with the private sector to their mutual benefit. Likewise effort must be put into ensuring that people and skills flow freely between public and private sectors. This would seek to promote innovation, spread best practice and deliver an economy that integrates private and public sector activity. Key to devolution as an economic principle is a renewed focus on the relationship between the individual and the organisations within which they work. A new emphasis on workplace learning and people development must be pursued. Successful companies and vibrant

42 Scottish Fabians DEVOLUTION AS AN ECONOM IC AMBITION economies are underpinned by constant renewal of skills and capability at work. If we are to break the low-wage, low-opportunity cycle in which much of post industrial Scotland is stuck, we need a step change in how our companies support and develop their people. Scotland must aim to have the best vocational education system in the world. We must have apprenticeships that are rigorous and demanding. We must ensure that university courses are relevant and develop useful skills. Too much of our education system has a mindset of “Academic=best, vocational=second best”. In France and Germany, the brightest and best go to engineering school. In Scandinavia, apprenticeships are competitive and understood to be hard work. We must aim to do nothing short of matching and bettering these systems. Radical change The economy is a vitally important aspect of public policy in Scotland. Scottish industry has a both proud and tragic history. The key to building a vibrant, dynamic economy cannot be about shifting where national state power lies. It has to be about changing the relationship that individuals have with the organisations within which they work, and changing the relationship that enterprise has with government. That is why the principle of devolution can be applied as much to the economy as it can to government: in both instances it is about empowering people and changing the relationship between power and people. This essay, in keeping with the themes of this pamphlet, has deliberately sought to set out aspirations rather than policy. Much of what we seek will not be easy to achieve and requires radical change in the way government thinks and behaves. But if Scotland is to be an economic power house once again, we are convinced that these are the ambitions we must have.

Scottish Fabians 43        Richard Kerley

We’re recognising the 65th birthday of the NHS this year. 65 years old – the age at which we used to assume all males would all start to receive the state pension; another of the ‘pillars’ of the . Both the NHS and social protection are changing, of course. Many people will now wait longer for a state pension, just as many of us find the NHS very different from what we can remember from when we first came into contact with it. We can also be certain that there is more change to come, in these two key features as in so many other aspects of the Welfare State. Such changes will happen whatever party is in government; whatever the constitutional status of the country we live in; and whatever government – in London or in Edinburgh – takes these decisions. What we need to focus on is why such changes might be needed, and how they can be best effected to make better provision for those currently not particularly well served by our public services. The manner in which those aspects of public service provision that we casually label the ‘Welfare State’ are sometimes discussed is often very unhelpful, and reflects badly on the assumptions that political parties make about the citizens whom they hope will elect them to office and power. It sometimes appears that politicians seeking to gain and hold office often treat the people who elect them as susceptible to wild claims, to be easily swayed and unable to assess practical options and choices themselves. Broadly speaking the terms of such political exchange can be categorised as parties in opposition condemning the party, or parties, in government for either irreparably destroying the fabric of a central part of the Welfare State, or not doing enough to sustain it and develop it in the manner self-evidently needed. The key characteristic

44 Scottish Fabians PUBLIC SERVICES – COULD WE DO BETTER? of this discussion – if we can call it that – is an assumption that the scale, shape and form of the components of the Welfare State are mutually reinforcing, consistent in their features and successfully fulfil their assumed objectives. This phenomenon is particularly marked in Scotland as, in effect, what we created in 1997-1999 was a Parliament for public services. Reinforcing that emphasis on public services was an almost total reliance on financing through an appropriation from Westminster – ‘the Scottish block’ – and a surge post-1999 on the volumes of such revenues available. Holyrood was launched on a wave of increased public spending that is now being reined back and is unlikely to grow again at the rate it did in the 00s. Broadly speaking the mark of achievement in the new Parliament was to propose spending more, with limited consideration on whether we might actually spend very differently from the historic trajectory inherited as part of the UK driven Welfare State. None of this helps us as a society think about what extent, form and shape we might expect, and want, such provision to take in future: the level of taxes we pay; whether we pay fees or charges for some services and at what level; and what services are provided through some form of local discretionary decision making and others determined by central government. Such discussion also needs to take account of the broader changes in social values and behaviours that have emerged over time and continue to transform society and all of us as members of that society. It also needs to take account of how we have seen an expanding sense of what is assumed to be part of the array of public service provision that we now take to be an essential part of a network of state provided or sponsored services. Whether that array of public services is now properly referred to as The Welfare State might also be part of any such discussion. Is unquestioned access regardless of income or circumstances to emergency hospital care in the same category as free bus travel for older people? Are discounted tickets to theatre and concerts for unemployed people and those on other benefits of equivalence in priority as adequate housing for all? The gradual development and emergence of this network of public services

Scottish Fabians 45 Ambitions for Scotland intended to create social solidarity, address market failure and help those disadvantaged by such failures is a confused tangle of provision and assumption, often unexamined for years. I want to argue and try to explain why – in a number of respects – what we now have, and what has emerged over the best part of a century under governments (in Westminster and also now Holyrood) of different political parties has been far more tangled, and sometimes mutually contradictory, despite the best efforts of many of those involved. I’ll do so by examining two often unexamined and different aspects of how various forms of public services are provided to us and try and suggest a general approach we might apply to help us think about how we better prepare for change in the future. My focus here does not address any of the direct cash transfer payments of The Welfare State as these are discussed elsewhere in this publication. Free at the point of use? There are various of our public services where our consumption of them is (broadly) free at the point of use, and the contribution we make is in whatever form we are able to make a contribution as a citizen – that is through the range of taxes we pay in various forms, whether these are direct or indirect. Such complex arrangements are not unique to the United Kingdom because in many societies the public service resource mix is a blend of taxes, insurance, fees and charges in varied proportions. Our particular blend of these is not often publicly debated or discussed, except in the highly partisan terms of party conflict referred to above. The consequence of such a failure to examine and discuss such things is that we find change emerging by default, rather than debate and design, in a way that is considered by citizens in a studied way and some general preferred direction arrived at. Take the example of what we can broadly label as culture and leisure; not in the sense of a local authority department, but what we all do for entertainment, self-education and enlightenment. As it happens,

46 Scottish Fabians PUBLIC SERVICES – COULD WE DO BETTER? many aspects of these activities are organised or supported in the not for profit sector by local authority departments, but often on a basis that is itself confused and owes a great deal to historical legacy. If we want to use a library anywhere we can borrow books and use other services, simply through use of a library card – at no charge. If we want to use a gym or swimming pool owned by the same council we generally have to pay, perhaps discounted for age, or for a variety of other circumstances. Go to a council or other public art gallery or museum, and for the general collection our access will be free; however if we want to go to the theatre, or attend a concert (also often in council owned or supported facilities) we shall have to pay. We just take such legacy arrangements as a given, whether long standing (library book borrowing) or more recently re-established, such as free access to the general collections of national galleries and museums. Partly as a consequence of not publicly discussing or reviewing such arrangements, the social outcomes of those arrangements are rarely considered either. The argument for free access to libraries, galleries and museums is based on arguments for open and equal access to our cultural assets in a way that is available to all; an excellent aspiration. Yet current arrangements are far from achieving this. Entry to and usage of galleries, museums, concerts and theatre is demographically skewed toward the financially and socially privileged. In addition there are the mystified and gratified overseas visitors, most of whom are used to paying an entry fee, even in countries where social provision is in some respects more extensive than in the UK. In addition, one of the perverse consequence of the current regime for access to galleries and museums is a direct function of governments making free access available for the general public collection. In galleries across the UK the outcome of this has been a growth in special exhibitions that can legitimately be charged for (an example of what economists would call a perverse organisational incentive). In some public galleries a large portion of the year (and of the galleries) is now dedicated to such special exhibitions. In some cases, although I have not yet observed

Scottish Fabians 47 Ambitions for Scotland this in Scotland, the special exhibitions give some appearance of being contrived, presumably to enable charges to be levied. Similarly, in the far more life critical health services of various kinds experience and evidence shows us that there is social gradient to usage and uptake, despite the provision of services free at the point of use. The introduction of widespread age differentiated screening opportunities – whether it be bowels or eye health has increased screening and increased the earlier diagnosis of various conditions, but it has done so on a basis that reaches a higher proportion of those in higher social classes. Time after time and programme after programme we introduce interventions labelled as universal which in reality benefit the already privileged. Access for all? One of the foundation myths of the Welfare State as it emerged was that of equal and open access to all. I use the term ‘myth’ because it was just that, and in some cases the myth was sustained by deliberate governmental deceit. When selective education was widespread, we know that secondary entry test scores – in parts of for example – were manipulated to ensure a lower proportion of girls passed because there were fewer places in selective girls’ schools. In health provision, specialist services have always been concentrated in the larger conurbations, initially because of the social dynamic of wealth and philanthropy that led to the creation of voluntary hospitals and influenced by the location preferences of key decision makers. More recently, we have come to recognise that health interventions tend to be more successful when medical teams deal with lots of patients so constantly develop their expertise and achieve better outcomes for a greater proportion of the patients they see. The provision consequences of that are clear and unsurprising. The best neuro and cardiac surgeons tend to be found in the specialist centres; these are concentrated to maximise use of facilities and expertise and so not found in every district hospital. The positive results of concentration of stroke treatment response in

48 Scottish Fabians PUBLIC SERVICES – COULD WE DO BETTER?

Greater London shows the advantages of that, but there is a message here that does not go down well in areas that feel they may suffer a perceived loss. One of the worrying examples of this is in the provision of higher , where in various shapes and forms we have had alternatives to the fee regime that applies in a manner that means, in effect students in Scotland (and those from other EU countries outside the UK) can study at undergraduate level with no fee. In effect, over almost 13 years, students here have had a fee-free regime when compared to undergraduate degree education in . The results – to date – have been interesting, and somewhat inconvenient for all those who argue that ‘free’ higher education alone is self-evidently attractive to and beneficial for young people from poorer backgrounds and households with limited or no experience of higher education. Our figures for admission of students from such backgrounds does not show that result. Indeed, two recent separate studies seem to show that our record of encouraging entry into HE from such households has hardly budged over a decade and a half and more, and is worse than can be found in England, although he impact there of much higher fees has not yet fully permeated through to intake figures. Fees alone are not the answer to increasing access into HE from lower income households. If we want to look at a more everyday example we can consider the disadvantages of the current arrangement we have for free bus travel for older people. Country wide free bus travel was introduced by the Lab–Lib Dem administration to support a better and improved social life amongst older people through mobility, partly as a means of sustaining good health and ‘well-being’ into later years. It may do this, though the evidence is ambiguous and the outcome has not been fully researched over time. If it is beneficial, and I suspect it is for ‘younger’ older people, it really only achieves this impact for people who actually have a bus service near them going to where they want to go. Even in close proximity to our major cities, access to bus services varies widely. Elsewhere, in many rural areas of Scotland and even parts of some urban and mixed areas bus services are limited and infrequent. The

Scottish Fabians 49 Ambitions for Scotland concessionary pass is in effect, a bus ‘voucher’ – of the kind Sir Keith Joseph favoured for school education – that cannot be used for free travel in other forms of transport, whether taxis or voluntary community transport; let alone fare-free travel by rail. Such an arrangement, which I estimate to have equivalent to a purchasing parity value of between 900 and 1200 per year, might be equivalent to about 3 months basic state pension for some tax payers and is therefore of very limited use to many notional beneficiaries. What can we do? First we have to be clear that there is considerable difference between what we can do and what we should do. I will always argue that if we explore and tease out the ‘can do’ possibilities then that sometimes helps us form some collective and shared views on what we should do. However, can & should are always interlinked in a complex manner that enables opponents to leap on any suggestion of open debate and any questioning of current norms of provision. Perhaps there is a greater tendency to this form of defensive attack in a Parliament where in many issues there is a remarkable degree of tacit consensus across most of the major parties. What we see has been described as a preference for ‘consensus over evidence’ in Scottish public policy decisions. The debate is not an easy one to take on, and the Labour Party has sometimes avoided it, sometimes mishandled it. However we do need to have the courage to continue to promote such debate, not least because as public awareness grows – and it will – those parties that refuse to address such matters publicly will be seen as evasive and weak. We should firmly opt for the stance that the citizens of this country, and the electorate, are more thoughtful than we sometimes give them credit for. At the core of any debate that we might promote is a proposition that this is not simply a means of arguing for better controls on expenditure, but also because, as I have instanced above, much of that expenditure does not reach the parts of society it is claimed and assumed to reach – and we all have a shared interest in that.

50 Scottish Fabians PUBLIC SERVICES – COULD WE DO BETTER?

Our representatives in Parliament should be taking every chance to question, explore and challenge on which policy decisions and legislative change is introduced. This kind of forensic policy analysis can attract fewer headlines and shorter coverage than the ‘shock horror’ splash but over time it impacts on governments, partially because it leads them to become doubtful of their prescriptions. MSPs could also pay far more attention to those instances where campaigning organisations probe government policy and propose alternative solutions, even where it has developed as part of a broader cross party consensual climate. So, for example, Age Scotland is running such a campaign on free bus transport, arguing for the concessionary travel pass to incorporate community transport rather than just service buses, and meeting potential cost consequences through considering an increase in the age of eligibility to a common age of 65 rather than 60 for new beneficiaries. In the medium term and at a broader policy level we could plan for a future Scottish Government to introduce and implement ‘policy impact audits‘ for all future policy developments and legislative initiatives. Current protocols – even legislation – mandate or encourage various assessments of proposed changes, yet rarely attempt to probe policy effectiveness in the wider sense in prospective legislation. The office of the Auditor General for Scotland is limited in the extent to which it can assess policy effectiveness in so there are gaps in both prospect and retrospect. Change in understanding and exploring whether what government says it intends might actually be achieved is needed, and it can be introduced. Our public services – our Welfare State – have much complexity and often address hard to reconcile, even if desirable, objectives. Change here is not simply about cost and affordability – though both are important – but whether what we think we are achieving is actually being achieved. It is often not; and we could do better.

Scottish Fabians 51        Sarah Boyack MSP

Last year, across Scotland, Labour councillors were elected in greater numbers. They set out what they would do to use power – whether in government or in opposition. Across the country Labour candidates put forward positive practical ideas that chimed with people’s experiences and aspirations for their communities. It was the first local election since the 1990s to be held separately from another election. For Labour our ambition was not to see the elections as a stepping stone to another agenda, but as an opportunity to win people’s support for practical, forward-looking policies to invest in local services and to use scarce resources to best effect. Local issues were to the fore with a Labour manifesto written locally in every council seat where we stood candidates. Ours was not a top down process, it was about connecting Labour values of equality, fairness, social justice and solidarity with the needs and aspirations of local communities across Scotland. We didn’t just see more Labour councillors elected – we saw a more representative range of councillors elected, from different walks of life. We saw many first time candidates, significantly more women councillors and a modest increase in black and ethnic minority communities elected. That didn’t happen by accident. It was the result of a determined effort to modernise and open out our selection processes following the Review of Labour in Scotland. Councillors are direct community representatives taking the voice of local people to determine the priorities for delivering services and setting the strategic direction for council officials. That’s why it matters to Labour that our councillors reflect the make-up of our communities.

52 Scottish Fabians DOUBLE DEVOLUTION: DEVO MARK TWO

Those Labour councillors have been busy implementing their election pledges – whether in power as majority groups, as coalition partners, or as opposition councillors working constructively to improve people’s quality of life across the country. Their pledges were not issued from on high as a one-size-fits-all solution, but were developed by our local teams as a result of listening to local communities and consulting with interest groups. They were built on Labour values of equality and fairness and were designed to support communities through tough economic times, with a focus on training and job creation to get local economies going again. There are some fantastic initiatives, radical ideas and new ways of delivering services to make the most of the resources available. Just to take training for example – there’s the Edinburgh Guarantee; Falkirk’s work with employers to give young people real opportunities; and Glasgow’s regeneration built on the opportunities created by the Commonwealth Games. Labour is doing politics differently by involving communities in policy development. In Edinburgh for example, “Moving Edinburgh Forward”, our manifesto for the local elections, was developed through consulting with local people. This has now been followed up by public consultation on the draft budget both this year and last year and by the establishment of Edinburgh’s Transport Forum which is designed to give stakeholders a real say in transport priorities. Labour groups are also thinking how they deliver services in ways that maximise community involvement, such as the co-operative councils movement. But there are challenges. First and foremost a financial settlement which does not meet existing service cost pressures. Then there are the demographic and social justice challenges highlighted by the Christie Commission, and the need to address urgently the infrastructure and service investment required to mitigate the impact of climate change. Those challenges are compounded by the fact that our civic leaderships have fewer staff who are doing more with less and

Scottish Fabians 53 Ambitions for Scotland responding to a pace of change stretching human and technological resources. The SNP government have put local services in a financial straitjacket, and the combination of SNP centralisation and Tory spending cuts have put local government in financial difficulties not seen since the Thatcher era. Meanwhile councils are rightly diverting scarce resources into proactive support for people whose family budgets are being turned upside down by new, punitive Tory policies. The combination of an underfunded council tax freeze, rising demand for services and Tory welfare reforms threatens the financial viability of services that we all take for granted. There has already been a price paid for this perfect storm. Thousands of council staff have lost their jobs, services are under severe pressure and the cost of the SNP’s council tax freeze is being paid by those on lowest incomes. The social impact will wipe out progress made in tackling poverty and is reinforcing disadvantage in communities which are already excluded from the mainstream. Women are particularly affected as nearly two thirds of public sector workers are female and they are more likely to be front-line users of our squeezed services. Local government is now more dependent than ever on the Scottish Government for its funding, with council tax now representing only 11% of the money required to run local services. What an irony – the government which spends every press release telling us we need to devolve more financial powers to the Scottish Parliament has actually been the most centralising government in history. It has used the powers it has to put a stranglehold on local government. Early promises of a new equal partnership between Scottish Government and local authorities have been set aside as SNP ministers exercise tighter and tighter central controls. We need to understand how we got here. Repairing this assault on local democracy will not be fixed by a piece of paper promising local government general competence status. Councils have had the power – which Labour enacted – to promote

54 Scottish Fabians DOUBLE DEVOLUTION: DEVO MARK TWO community well-being for a decade, but the SNP have robbed them of the capacity to use that power. Labour’s support for devolution throughout the 20th century was never about wresting power from the British state only to centralise it in our newly established Scottish Parliament. Labour politicians such as JP Mackintosh, John Smith and didn’t envisage a model which simply transplanted a cut down centralised British state being installed in Edinburgh, nor was it part of the vision supported by the Constitutional Convention. Indeed in early debates in the Scottish Parliament, the importance of a partnership relationship was a clear vision shared across the Parliament and local government. The referendum on independence should therefore not just be a debate about what the Scottish Parliament does; it should be a debate about what powers our local authorities need to meet the aspirations of communities across Scotland, and how we ensure that local decision making promotes new opportunities to regenerate and improve our communities. Labour’s Devolution Commission has proposed that we should go further and consider what decisions and powers should be devolved to individual communities to enable them to make the most of the energies and resources of local people working together to improve their lives. Powers for a Purpose sets out the clear objective of reversing the centralisation of the SNP years and calls for a reinvigoration of our local democracy and empowerment of our communities. Our Island Councils have responded to the constitutional debate by issuing their call for specific powers in Our Islands Our Future. We need to build on the strengths and opportunities across Scotland, not pretend that one size fits all when it comes to the range of challenges that are shaped by our geography and community aspirations. Devolution must not and should not end at the Scottish Parliament. We should be looking at what responsibilities we believe could be devolved to local or community levels, how councils can be supported to have the capacity to meet the needs and aspirations of local

Scottish Fabians 55 Ambitions for Scotland communities, and how we empower those communities to act - for example in developing projects that make use of buildings and land. Over the coming months Scottish Labour will be setting out our ideas in more detail. Here are my demands for tackling the big issues that we know have to be addressed. 1.We must make local government finance sustainable in the long run and give local authorities a range of options so that they can respond to local demands and circumstances. We need to fix the SNP’s underfunded Council Tax freeze. By the next local elections it will be 25 years since the last local revaluation and 9 years since the council tax freeze. We need to be more creative. What about looking at Edinburgh City Council’s proposals for a locally set tourist tax? The SNP have rejected the proposal, but similar local levies are used in other European countries. 2.We must identify the fiscal levers that could be devolved from the Scottish or UK governments to our local authorities. For example what about the potential benefits of devolving the Crown Estate Commission’s powers, or are there other measures currently dealt with at the Scottish Parliament level which could be devolved? 3.We must increase the level of participation in local government elections and encourage a broader range of people to stand as councillors. When PR for local government was mooted it was suggested that because every vote counted we’d see an increase in the number of people voting. Yet turn out for local government elections continues to drop, and the most recent elections last year saw a reduced number of candidates. 4.We must encourage more interest from and engagement by young people in the decisions made which directly affect their lives. With 16 and 17 year-olds being given the chance to vote in next year’s referendum surely this is a chance to reflect on the impact of the Scottish Youth Parliament. What about a local focus on civic education and linking young people’s

56 Scottish Fabians DOUBLE DEVOLUTION: DEVO MARK TWO

organisations into local decisions? With the emphasis on the legacy of London’s Olympics and Glasgow’s Commonwealth Games being discussed in terms of new sports investment, this is an opportunity to debate with young people what sort of facilities and support could open up opportunities for them. 5.Then there are challenges for young people who are already organised, for example, as young trade unionists or student activists. How many of them ever stand for, never mind vote in, council elections? Are there opportunities to engage such people and groups in the day-to-day decisions which affect them, such as housing, community safety and transport? 6.And what about groups historically under-represented such as women and people from BME communities? Last year Labour’s proportion of women councillors increased across Scotland. That wasn’t an electoral accident but the result of encouraging community activists and women with an interest in improving their communities to stand. While we also increased the numbers of council candidates we stood from BME communities, we need to do much more between elections to build links and encourage people to come forward. That process of engaging communities must also shape policy delivery. For BME communities in particular there are huge challenges developing appropriate support for older people which is simply not present in mainstream services for members of our diverse ethnic minority communities. 7.Councils must be encouraged and supported to enable local communities to determine service priorities in their own areas. Local area committees with budgets could be one way to empower communities to set their own mark on what’s needed. Other countries have much more locally driven community decision making processes. What can we learn from them and how do we generate the resources to make this possible given the current and projected financial resources which are likely to be available?

Scottish Fabians 57 Ambitions for Scotland

8.Across Scotland there are community groups using the powers which Labour championed in the first term of the Scottish Parliament and legislated for through the Act to own and manage land and resources for the benefit of the wider community. A decade on from that ground-breaking act we should be debating where we go next. We must extend those powers to urban communities and incentivise communities to work together to regenerate areas which have been pushed further into the vicious cycle of disinvestment in these tough economic times. We could be looking at transfer of land to communities for community growing projects such as allotments or community orchards, or the transfer of buildings which have no economic use and are surplus to requirement. We should give communities the opportunity to develop social enterprises or co- ops which generate income locally. As our town centres struggle to deal with the pressures of changing consumer habits, what about giving local start-up businesses the chance to make something of locations which need vitality? And what opportunities could be created by devolving Crown Estate powers not just to the Scottish Parliament, but to local government and or local communities? 9.This autumn the Scottish Parliament debates the Procurement Bill. We must maximise the opportunities for spending our money for local services in ways which will stimulate local purchasing and give local companies, voluntary sector providers or co-operatives the chance to provide locally-driven services which help regenerate and reinvest in communities rather than seeing money disappearing from our local economies. 10.We must learn from the community renewables movement which has developed in the last decade and extend those lessons to urban areas. There has been a raft of community projects across our rural communities but there’s heat and power potential still untapped in many places. City under Labour leadership established an arms length community heat and power company which has rolled out projects tackling fuel

58 Scottish Fabians DOUBLE DEVOLUTION: DEVO MARK TWO

poverty and reducing CO2 emissions across the city. Glasgow has just established its own energy services company and Edinburgh is promoting a co-operative model with its first community cooperative, the Harlaw Hydro scheme, under way. That’s only a starter for 10. And they involve many challenges. One person’s postcode lottery is another’s local diversity. We need a debate about where the balance should lie between the different levels of governance which is open and transparent. Scotland is a country where one size doesn’t fit all because of our geography, our local identities and our different cultures. The Christie Commission highlighted the need to invest in solutions to the deep seated social inequalities and problems which scar too many of our communities. We need to debate the implications of changing demographics and develop new ways to support people throughout longer lives. Our changing climate will see us needing to spend more and differently to ensure that our infrastructure is made more robust and is modernised. Communication and manufacturing technologies will open new opportunities most of us can’t even imagine. But we need to make sure that those social and economic opportunities are made real across the country. The key is that those decisions should be driven by a desire to make Scotland a more equal, fairer country. For us in Labour we need to learn from our own time in government. I remember one of our mantras at the time was “what matters is what works”. On one level that makes complete sense. It was an obvious statement not to let dogma get in the way of intelligent decisions. The recent determination of the Tory government to privatise the East Coast Main Line despite its success is testament to that. But we need more than that. Looking back I think we should have asked for more out of the money we spent on public contracts. I’m absolutely not calling for politicians to be more managerial – but to make sure we’re better at following through an implementation to check for example that training opportunities for young people do actually happen. That

Scottish Fabians 59 Ambitions for Scotland means being clear about our political values, it means being creative and innovative as we implement policies to deliver economic regeneration and stronger communities. In a paper for the Centre for Public Policy in 2003 I argued for overarching policy objectives to ensure government policies worked in concert not in opposition. So when we set the objective of reducing our carbon emissions we need to factor in social justice impact and maximise economic opportunities too. Crucially we need to go back to those policies and ask if they have delivered on our ambitions over time. When the Scottish Parliament was established, Labour’s ambition was to ensure that decisions were taken closer to home, that those decisions were more transparent and that equalities and social justice drove policies so that historic injustice and disadvantage in our communities could be tackled. The first years of the Scottish Parliament have focused on getting things right at the national level. If we are to meet the challenges of the next decades, and stay true to the principles which drove us to establish our Parliament, we now need to turn more attention towards local decision making and empowering our communities. We need to set out a vision for local decision making that sees opportunities for local leadership across public and private institutions; that mobilises to build the infrastructure and human resilience to cope with and rise to the challenges we face; and that does it together in solidarity. That would be a positive legacy to follow on from the era of SNP centralisation.

60 Scottish Fabians         Catriona Munro

Labour has long sought to be the party of positive engagement in the European Union. The SNP – despite facing serious questions about whether, and if so the terms on which, Scotland might even continue as a member were there to be a Yes vote in next year’s referendum – has tried to go one better than that by asserting that Scotland would have greater influence in the European Union as an independent state. The Tories have promised to look at “repatriating” powers prior to a referendum yet their “balance of competences review” has concluded that the current position is largely appropriate and that the UK stands to benefit from further single market measures in a range of sectors. The Lib Dems, notionally a pro European party, have no doubt been severely damaged by their association with the Tories over the last three years. As we approach a general election and Holyrood elections, where should Labour position itself on the EU and what could Scotland's role be in this? Today, the reasons for the establishment of the EU are in history books rather than in memories. The EU, scarcely covered by the media and, when it is, portrayed as an enormous bureaucracy remote from our daily lives, had a poor reputation even before the current economic crisis. The tensions in the Euro zone that have been exposed have had enormous human costs in an attempt to salvage the single currency. Yet overall, weighing the pluses against the minuses, we are surely better off in the EU. Over the piece, the UK has benefited from EU membership through growth, competitiveness and access to markets, not to mention the freedom to travel, work and study abroad. Open and competitive telecoms, energy and infrastructure markets deliver a more competitive economy that can hold its own on the world stage. Perhaps most importantly from a historical perspective not only has the EU delivered the longest peace these countries have known, but has

Scottish Fabians 61 Ambitions for Scotland integrated and bolstered the democracies of many of the former communist bloc countries in a remarkably short period of time. The economic and social arguments in favour of the EU are perhaps more powerful than ever before. With the rise of major competing economies such as China, there is all the more reason to tackle trade issues in the WTO as an EU bloc. A single market in goods and services across the EU is surely good for businesses and consumers both because they can buy and sell throughout and because it ensures keener competition with the best surviving. And a single market supported by social measures, ensuring equal pay, fair working hours and health and safety at work is surely something which all on the left would support. On climate change and other environmental measures, for instance, the EU as a whole can potentially achieve much more than could its parts. It is a given that the future is a more international one, one where issues need to be resolved by countries working together, where, if we did not have the EU, we would be desperately trying to invent it. We need access to markets and influence on the international stage. Of course, the EU is not without flaws. The Euro remains in crisis and recovery is still a hope rather than a certainty, with austerity crippling many in the Euro zone. The common agricultural policy remains a vast cost to EU members, an historic hangover from times when a command economy in food was justified; today the protection of the environment, health and with the developing world should be the guiding principles in food policy. The anti-dumping rules, which impose duties on cheap goods imported principally from China, involve long, tortuous and opaque procedures and are perceived as a tit for tat battle between the EU and China based on protectionism and political shenanigans rather than competitiveness. Migration within the EU presents real economic challenges which to date have not been faced up to. And despite the significant legislative powers that the European Parliament does now have, few bother to go out to vote in its elections. Perhaps most importantly, the EU remains a lumbering enigma to most people, its activities and working understood by lobbyists and policy wonks alone.

62 Scottish Fabians LABOUR, EUROPE AND SCOTLAND

Some claim that as an independent country Scotland would sit at the top table in the EU with real clout. On the whole, the evidence suggests that small states suffer disadvantages not just by having fewer votes in the Council but also in the lower shaping capacity in the agenda setting and decision making stages of EU policy making. Granted, some research suggests that EU legislation tends to be more in line with small states' positions than not, but it has been suggested that this is because they tend to line up with the most agreeable position put forward by a large member state at the negotiation stage. Of course, there are strategies to seek to address this such as regional alliances and alliances with large member states but the level of influence these can deliver is at best uncertain. In practice significant EU measures are seldom adopted in the face of opposition from the large EU member states. Even leaving aside the problem that an independent Scotland is unlikely to be automatically allowed to join the EU or if allowed that this may be on less good terms, going it alone as a small state is surely a risk not worth taking. Would it not then be far preferable for Scotland to have a louder voice within the UK to articulate its concerns and assert its position? At the moment, Scotland expresses itself through various channels. Representation by MEPs and through the Committee of the Regions are long established means of influence. In addition, since the establishment of the Scottish Parliament, a memorandum of understanding provides for the Scottish Government to be kept informed of relevant EU developments, to feed into the policy making process in relation to matters touching on devolved areas and to play a role in Council meetings “ at which substantive discussion is expected of matters likely to have a significant impact on their devolved responsibilities”. Other member states, by contrast, such as Austria and Germany, oblige the federal level government to give responsibility for matters within the exclusive competence of a sub- state minister to that sub-state minister; and in Germany the Länder can challenge the federal government for acting or taking decisions more appropriate to the Länder. Of course, there are real challenges involved in identifying which of the regions should send a

Scottish Fabians 63 Ambitions for Scotland representative and in identifying what position that representative should adopt when speaking on behalf of the member state as a whole. Particular difficulties arise in the UK because of the asymmetrical nature of our devolved settlement. Nonetheless, other countries have met these challenges so it is worth looking at our arrangements afresh to see whether they are fit for purpose. Procedural tweaks which help Scotland’s position to be given the weight it deserves are all well and good; but more important still is to become a nation engaged with the EU, knowledgeable about what it is up to and therefore able to influence its workings and outcomes. As the Euro zone powers ahead towards greater integration, the UK’s influence on EU policy is inevitably reduced, at least in those areas where the UK is in the slow lane. For the UK, the decision to stay out of the Euro means taking a back seat as the Euro zone integrates its financial systems. Should joining the Euro still be a long term aim? Perhaps, but saying so could be electoral suicide. We need to reject the Tories' position on “repatriating” (for which read “repealing”) social and employment law, and justice and home affairs, robustly and without equivocation. Let's not forget that a social dimension was not always a given but that without it free movement and fair competition could not be a reality. Just as Labour believes that the UK together constitutes more than the sum of its parts, so too the EU together can achieve more than each state alone. There will of course always be areas of compelling national interest where a position which diverges from those of our EU partners must be put forward, but how much more persuasive is that position when this is the exception rather than norm. But there is a stark difference between the Tories’ handbagging approach and one which builds alliances with other EU members so as to be heard as a credible voice of reason in the negotiation of EU budgets and policies. We need to stop being defensive about the EU. We need to be clear about what the EU can do for us, and what we can do for it. We need to state clearly and unequivocally that there is no question of the UK leaving the EU under a Labour government. Our movement is an

64 Scottish Fabians LABOUR, EUROPE AND SCOTLAND internationalist one, and an EU which embraces cultural difference and couples social cohesion with economic advancement is exactly what we should be all about. Furthermore a belief that the EU has an important role to play in our legislative and democratic make-up does not conflict with a belief in devolving power to the lowest level where that is the appropriate level for its exercise.

Scottish Fabians 65         Margaret Curran MP

In the midst of the referendum debate, two unhelpful cleavages have emerged that are damaging our national conversation. The first is the idea that the primary choice of political identity for people involved in Scottish politics is between nationalism and unionism. The second is the manufactured conflict between a fictional “London” and “Edinburgh”, between the UK and Scottish Parliaments, where one institution is cast as the permanent enemy of Scotland, and the other as our saviour. At the expense of all other political divisions, this is the one that has been cast as the central dividing line in Scottish politics. For those of us who care deeply about Scotland and our country’s future, this should be deeply worrying. And for those of us on the progressive side of politics, it should concern us that the political discourse in Scotland is dominated by a division that, logically, can lead to us closing our eyes and ears to the real causes of and solutions to the social wrongs that still blight our society. My argument is this: that the pursuit of independence and nationalism itself blinds the SNP to both the true causes of inequality and their solutions. And in the pursuit of their goal they are willing to accommodate ideas that are no longer appropriate for a society struggling out of recession after the greatest crisis of capitalism in our lifetimes. In tackling the SNP, we have to not only clearly define our own goals, but also be clear about what the SNP represents and not shirk in calling out nationalism as a concept in itself.

66 Scottish Fabians A CHOICE BETWEEN PROGRESS AND DIVISION

The Nationalist Cul-de-Sac In June of this year, made the accurate point that there are more wealthy people in the South East of England than the rest of the UK. It’s a valid point, and one that has much to do with high house prices and the presence of one of the largest city economies in the world in that part of Britain. It’s a point that had also made several times before, when trying to show how the whole of the UK needed to be rebalanced away from the south east. For the SNP, however, the crude point being made was that “rich” people in the South East of England were exploiting “poor” people in Scotland. It was a point supported on the front page of a national newspaper on the same weekend, which declared that London was “bleeding Scotland dry.” It was a crude portrayal of the balance of power and wealth across the UK. It was also characteristic of the tactics of nationalist movements the world over: establish the ‘other’, instil resentment and then wait for people to make the connection you’re trying to lead them to. It’s the same type of politics that gave Michael Howard’s Conservatives the “are you thinking what we’re thinking?” election slogan of 2005. And what this does to Scotland is to close down debate. If you believe that your Scottish identity defines everything right through to your political beliefs, and if you believe that being ‘Scottish’ is enough to secure positive social and economic outcomes, you inevitably close your eyes and ears to the real problems affecting our nation. If you believe the roots of all our economic, social and political ills come from a force beyond our borders, we will never find the real answers to how we build a better society. So while the SNP frequently talk of inequalities between England and Scotland, between London and Edinburgh, we hear little of the hard reality of inequality inside Scotland’s borders.

Scottish Fabians 67 Ambitions for Scotland

Facing the Reality Around the same time that the ONS published the data Nicola Sturgeon pointed to in order to make her point about inequality, the well-respected Fraser of Allander institute published the first overview of economic inequality in Scotland’s regions between 1997 and 2010.1 The conclusions were stark. While the Scottish economy grew by 24.2% in real terms over this period, performance across Scotland’s regions varied significantly. Five of Scotland’s sub-regions performed more than 10% worse than Scotland as a whole. The worst performing group – Inverclyde, East Renfrewshire and Renfrewshire was nearly 23% below the Scottish average over that period (representing only 2% growth), while the best was more than 23% higher. In the period between 2002 and 2010, Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen grew and accounted for half of all Scottish output. In the UK as a whole, similar results from economic surveys of this period are keeping politicians and economists awake at night as they try to work out how they solve this public policy challenge and build a balanced economy. But in the world of Scottish politics and public policy – where the key challenge set by the Nationalists is always to compare ourselves with England – these important nuances are completely lost. Narrow Nationalism vs But should this surprise us? Ask yourself when you last heard a senior SNP politician really address inequality inside Scotland, and you’ll be left wanting. Nationalism is a narrow creed and as Ian McWhirter has pointed out, the SNP can try to call it something else, or dress their politics up differently, but there is no getting away from the fact that they are still Nationalists and they believe that being Scottish is enough in itself to guarantee a better future. Compare ’s Nationalist vision to Ed Miliband’s vision for a One Nation Britain and

1 G J Allan, The Spatial Pattern of Growth and Economic Equality in Scotland, 1997 2010 , Fraser of Allander Economic Commentary, March 2013

68 Scottish Fabians A CHOICE BETWEEN PROGRESS AND DIVISION the differences between Labour’s values and those of the SNP are stark. At the root of One Nation is the idea that all of us, wherever we are in the UK, have a contribution to make to rebuild our economy, our society and our politics. It’s a vision that asks everyone to play their part and doesn’t see the borders between the UK’s nations as an obstacle to that. And when you think about how our world is changing – with people, goods and ideas moving across borders more now than ever before – it makes sense. This is an approach that’s solidly grounded in the reality of our world. Each day $4 trillion moves across international borders.2 The number of people not living in the country in which they were born increased by close to 40% over the past twenty years.3 And in 2012, 6 billion people – 87% of the world’s population – carried a mobile phone in their pocket.4 This isn’t a world crying out for more borders – it’s a world looking to work together, not break apart. In our approach to the economy, One Nation Labour is also grounded in the experiences of people the length and breadth of the UK who can see from their own lives and their own communities that the economy is not working in the way it should be. As Ed Miliband said in February, the answer is not to believe in the ideal that wealth “trickles down” and that “a more unequal economy where a few people take the proceeds can be a successful economy”, but to grow an economy made by the many, not just the few at the top. It’s an idea that most Scots would agree with, but not one that Alex Salmond and the SNP are keen to adopt. Instead, cutting tax for the biggest companies is still their preferred route to growing Scotland’s economy.

2 Bank for International Settlements: Statistical Report (2011), http://www.bis.org/publ/rpfxf10t.htm

3 UN estimates

4 World Bank Development Indicators Database / International Telecommunications Union Indicators Database

Scottish Fabians 69 Ambitions for Scotland

Finally, devolution is an integral part of Labour’s One Nation approach. Having everyone play their part means pushing power down to the level that is most appropriate – it’s only in that way that our communities, towns and cities will be able to make change happen around them. Unlike the SNP, our discussion is about power and not powers; about how people can take control of their lives and their communities, not which levers politicians at Westminster or Holyrood will be able to pull. One Nation Labour’s approach to devolution is about building on the strong foundation we have inherited from the original devolution settlement, looking forward to the new powers in 2016 and asking what more we need to do. It’s a discussion that starts with ends, not means and addresses the fundamental question of how we make Scotland’s people more prosperous. What is clear, however, is that a One Nation approach which puts collaboration and contribution at its core will see both our governments at Westminster and Holyrood working hand in hand, bringing to bear the full power of each institution in the best interests of people in Scotland. Over the next year, plenty of ink will be spilled and airtime exhausted on the intricacies of our referendum. As progressives, interested and engaged in debates about how we improve Scotland and the rest of the world, we need to keep at the front of our minds that the battle we fight is not just about the values and ideas in the independence debate, but at the heart of our entire political cause. This isn’t just a debate between the SNP and Labour, between those who would see us break apart and those of us who want the UK to remain intact. It is an argument at a crucial time in our history – when the world is changing around us – about whether the values we think will see us through are progressive or nationalist. The stakes couldn’t be any higher.

70 Scottish Fabians    Iain Gray MSP

In a Scotland whose politics are dominated by the independence question, sloppy clichés abound, and most of them are not true. On the pro-independence side it is a given that those who do not share their view have, ipso facto, no vision for Scotland or ambition for what Scotland can be. In fact the Labour movement has been driven precisely by the belief that we can make our society better, and the determination that we will do so, from its very inception. That is as true today as it ever was. On our side of the independence debate, we accuse our opponents of making the clearly absurd argument that removing Scotland from the United kingdom will allow us not only to resolve all the difficult social, political and economic questions of our time at a stroke, but to be the only country in the developed world to avoid their challenge altogether. If we are honest though, there are those in the “Yes” camp, from the Scottish Green party to the Jimmy Reid Foundation, who have taken the opportunity of the constitutional debate to ask questions about the kind of Scotland they would like to see. How much more important then, that Scottish Labour and the wider movement of the Left demonstrate our vision and ambition for our country by thrashing out our ideas for how that country should be transformed. How urgent that the Fabians, whose role has always been to challenge and drive forward the thinking of the movement should play their part. How timely, then, this pamphlet and the contributions it contains. Trevor Davies et al describe graphically the “morbid symptoms” of our time, a legacy of decades of politics and economics which has increased division, fuelled alienation and damaged the relationships which hold society together. They conclude with a challenge to the

Scottish Fabians 71 Ambitions for Scotland

Scottish parliament to reach for its original ambition to turn this around. This is a common theme of these essays, that the Scottish parliament has lost its own sense of direction. No one makes that case better than Drew Smith who does not pull his punches in either allocating blame, or suggesting how that institution, and those us privileged enough to sit in it, can get ourselves back on track. Richard Kerley makes the point that the Scottish parliament was created as a “Parliament for public services” and that this is a mind-set we need to change. Above all we need to be much more rigorous about asking what the real, rather than imagined effects are of the decisions that parliament takes, a difficult debate Johann Lamont has already started. Catriona Munro reminds us that the devolved parliament was meant to provide Scotland with a new and more productive relationship with the European union, another aspiration of its early days which we would do well to revisit. Kezia Dugdale goes to the heart of the economic question which defines our future, the disconnection between economic growth and the opportunity it provides to the next generation to make a full and fulfilling life for themselves and their families. She argues that it is not enough to raise levels of skills in an economy increasingly built on exploitative models of “employment”. We need to raise levels of confidence, self belief and ambition, and support that with the means to turn it into new forms of enterprise. Kezia reflects another common thread in these essays. We need to look for solutions in the strengths and potentials we already have, and find ways to support them. Oxfam Scotland have done exactly that in the development of their widely praised Humankind Index, developing a powerful decision making tool through direct consultation with those at the “sharp end” of economic decisions. Katherine Trebeck and Francis Stuart’s essay describes this important initiative, and having participated recently in a public application of the process I can testify to its power.

72 Scottish Fabians AFTERWORD

Sarah Boyack’s essay also takes us to the “sharp end”, where local authorities struggle with shrinking resources to support their communities without the luxury of distance parliamentarians enjoy. This is a powerfully positive contribution because it provides examples of how many local councils have fashioned highly imaginative and successful responses to their communities’ needs in the most difficult of circumstances. Sarah’s argument that we should therefore support local authorities to do more rather than constantly reduce their powers and resources is a compelling one. It is supported by Margaret Curran’s case, with stark statistical evidence to back it up, that the SNP government’s focus on Scotland and our relationship to the other nations of the UK has blinded them to the corrosive inequalities between the different parts of Scotland. These essays add up to a telling account of the urgent need to transform society, but also provide clear pointers as to the path we should be advocating. They make the case that separation is not only a distraction from this challenge of our generation, but an impediment to turning division and alienation around. They show that our devolved parliament can play a positive role in this transformation, but to do so must rediscover its own ambitions and aspirations and transform itself in order to change Scotland for the better. Finally, every one of these essays is clear that we can find the strength from within ourselves and our movement to escape this Gramscian “interregnum” to the new and better beyond. Anas Sarwar eloquently sums this up in his essay on our need to rediscover and apply our own core values of equality, community, fairness, solidarity and social justice and use these as our guiding principles. This is the route out of what Margaret Curran calls the “nationalist cul- de-sac” for Scottish Labour, and, more to the point, for Scotland.

Scottish Fabians 73

 !"#$% &'()*( +" ,+ #"

We have an exciting programme of work planned for the coming year, including:

 The 19|09 seminar series A series of evening seminars with expert speakers and encouraging open debate, looking beyond the referendum, at three key fundamentals for Scots: wellbeing • community • opportunity

 Scottish Fabians spring conference Including contributions from a range of Labour affiliated organisations and socialist societies.

 Scottish Fabians Fringe at Scottish Labour conference Always a thought-provoking and lively debate.

 Local groups, student groups and lawyers network Work will continue to support and develop our network of groups across Scotland.

 Another essay compilation and more publications Continuing our facilitation of policy debate within the Labour movement in Scotland.

Join Scottish Fabians today

Every member of the Fabian Society resident in Scotland is automatically a member of Scottish Fabians. To join the Fabian Society (standard rate 3 per month / unwaged 1.50 per month) please visit www.fabians.org.uk/members/join.              

                                                                                                                                          

                 ! "#"  $ "# #  %  & '( & "#$    "    &  )  & *  #   + ' $   " "   # ,   "# & "#  '   %   &