and we know there are some small-scale examples of where they have changed public services but we’ve been talking about public service for the past 13 years and we’re not seeing anything of the scale and pace that is going to help the Scottish Government that are going to help them bridge the £1 billion gap in public spending.
By Professor John Robertson OBA
Above and headlining BBC Scotland today, the Auditor General, Stephen Boyle, criticises the Scottish Government again, in a sequence of such high profile media appearances.
This is a uniquely Scottish experience as a public official, funded by all of us, enters the public sphere to deliberately harm the electoral prospects on one party, in the run up to san election, the 2026 Scottish election.
What’s my evidence?
From February 2024:
Above the Auditor General for Scotland. Below his website:
Note the negativity and the politicisation to undermine the image of the SNP Government in Scotland, ringed.
Now watch this:
Gareth Davies, the Auditor General for England and his website:
No negativity and no politicising to undermine the image of the Conservative Government.
And now, today, the Auditor General for Wales, Adrian Crompton:
His website:
All good in NHS Wales then, Adrian?
What about this?
Adrian?
Support Scots Independent, Scotland’s oldest pro-independence newspaper and host of the OBA (Oliver Brown Award) at: https://scotsindependent.scot/FWShop/shop/
The Oliver Brown Award for advancing the cause of Scotland’s self respect, previously awarded to Dr Philippa Whitford, Alex Salmond and Sean Connery: https://scotsindependent.scot/?page_id=116
About Oliver Brown, the first Scottish National Party candidate to save his deposit in a Parliamentary election: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Brown_(Scottish_activis
Talking-up Scotland 'Albatraz' 
[we’re not seeing anything of the scale and pace that is going to help the Scottish Government that are going to help them bridge the £1 billion gap in public spending.]
Should someone explain the elephant in the room that he avoids?
LikeLiked by 2 people
He,s a stooge in the camp helping england with their propaganda used to trick Scottish people into thinking england help us
LikeLiked by 3 people
Granted that the AG Scotland’s office has a very much more critical style, but I don’t believe that warrants labelling as a “political stooge”, when it is BBC Scotland where that label rightfully belongs with the addition of “and blatant propagandist”.
Even were Boyle and Davies to swap places taking their respective reporting styles with them, nothing would change for James Cook et al, they’d be trawling for negativity and framing interviews with and reports by Davies in the same manner.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I suspect that he is actually Kay with an ‘E’ in disguise !
LikeLike
This kind of behaviour will not stop but it’s good that you are highlighting it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Auditor General’s criticisms of the Scottish Government, the BBC and mainstream media’s amplification of these criticisms, and opposition politicians’ expressions of ‘outrage’ ALWAYS lack context!
They fail to acknowledge the reality that Scotland is NOT an independent nation state. Its public finances and the strategic management of these finances and of the devolved public services they support are hugely influenced by what is done in Westminster and the state of the UK’s public finances.
The following insights into Westminster practices from diverse sources paint a consistent picture: And they highlight just how tough strategic development and implementation of public policies and associated services within a devolved settlement must be – something the Auditor General must surely know!
Source: Bartrum, O. (February 23, 2024) Fiscal fantasies reveal deep problems in the UK’s fiscal framework – A flawed set of loose fiscal rules are no substitute for a fiscal strategy. Institute for Government.
‘Government should set out longer-term spending plans on a more regular basis and slow down the pace of fiscal decision-making by having only one fiscal event a year to reduce incentives for gimmickry (Rachel Reeves recently made a welcome commitment to this).’ (my emphasis)
The IFS article also concludes: ’Neither of the UK’s main political parties has a clear fiscal strategy. Both use a flawed set of loose fiscal rules to fill the vacuum. But a broken framework allows them to meet those rules through fantasies. This nonsensical approach to fiscal policy-making will not enable us to tackle the urgent issues that need addressing in public finances and public services: it’s time for change.’
Source: Pope, T and Hourston, P. (March 16, 2022) Fiscal rules in the UK since 1997 – Fiscal rules are restrictions on fiscal policy set by a government to constrain its own decisions on spending and taxes. Institute for Government.
‘The first fiscal rules in the UK were adopted by the New Labour government in 1997. Those rules applied for over a decade, but since then the UK’s rules have changed more regularly. The current iteration of fiscal rules (set in November 2022) is the ninth set the UK has had. These nine sets of rules between them comprised 26 different rules in total, ..’
‘All the sets of rules that have existed since 2008 have been abandoned because at least one could not be met – only eight of the 22 rules before the current set were met or on course to be met when they were abandoned …’
Source: Hoddinott, S et al (November 8, 2024) Austerity postponed? The impact of Labour’s first budget on public services – Rachel Reeves’ budget will see spending increase faster than demand for every public service bar police until 2025/26. Institute for Government.
‘The outgoing Conservative government left public services in a precarious state. Waiting lists in the NHS are stubbornly high, councils are on the verge of bankruptcy, backlogs in the criminal courts are at record levels and prisons are at bursting point. The spending plans inherited by Labour would likely have left most services performing worse at the next election in 2028/29 than they were at the 2019 election – and substantially worse than in 2010.‘
On Labour’s current plans: ’Spending is heavily front-loaded. Current plans beyond 2025/26 once again imply cuts to unprotected departments, which will make it difficult for some services – local government and the criminal justice system in particular – to improve before the next election.’
Source: Hoddinott, S (October 30, 2023) Short-term policy making has trapped public services in a ‘doom loop’ – Chronic short-termism is harming service performance in key public services. Institute for Government
On Westminster policies: ‘Policy makers have repeatedly prioritised short-term issues in public services at the expense of difficult decisions that would benefit services in the long run. Public services, and the public they serve, are now experiencing the consequences of that short-term thinking.
‘Nowhere is this more evident than in capital spending. The UK government has underinvested in public services’ capital for decades, prioritising day-to-day spending over investment that would now be contributing to higher service productivity. But even by the low standard of previous governments, the 2010s were particularly bad. No department we cover in Performance Tracker exceeded 2007/08 capital spending in the years between 2011/12 and 2017/18. The result is crumbling schools, NHS computers that don’t turn on, and not enough prison cells to house prisoners.’
‘It isn’t just spending where short-termism reigns. Government policy making is erratic and unpredictable. In the last few years, the government has: announced and then delayed adult social care reform; put NHS integrated care systems (ICSs) on a statutory footing before cutting their management budgets by 30% eight months later; and launched a schools white paper in March 2022 before dropping the subsequent Schools Bill in December that year. This uncertainty makes it impossible for public service leaders to plan or implement performance-enhancing reforms.’
‘For years, the government has prioritised short-term decisions and pushed problems into the future. The result is a ‘doom loop’ where perpetual crises in public services put more pressure on staff and focus government attention on getting through the next news cycle, rather than prudent longer term thinking.’
Source: Johnson, Paul (October 31, 2024) There are big risks lurking in this budget. Institute for Fiscal Studies
‘… the most remarkable thing about this budget was just how front-loaded the spending commitments are. Loads of extra money this year and next. But after 2025-26 we have day-to-day public service spending rising by a miserable 1.3 per cent a year. That may not even be enough to avoid cuts to some departmental budgets. Of course, spending will start off higher but, frankly, I would be astonished if these plans are kept to.’
‘This looks horribly like a repeat of the silly games played by the last government. Make it look like the fiscal numbers add up by being generous this year and pencilling in implausibly tight spending plans later on.’
Source: Financial Times (March 11, 2024) Time to fix Britain’s fiscal fiction – The UK’s spending rules and procedures are not working.
The FT article argues that Britain’s fiscal rules need to be better designed. They need to ensure sustainable public finances and they should support long-term growth. The FT states: ‘They need to be hard to game, and they ought to be long-lasting. Regular fiddling undermines their credibility. Since 1985, the average lifespan of a UK fiscal rule has been below four years — the shortest across the OECD, according to the Institute for Government’.
Source: Begg, I (October 25, 2024) Reforming the fiscal framework – ten lessons from elsewhere from elsewhere for Rachel Reeves. UK in a Changing Europe
‘Spending reviews are crucial for the medium- and long-term planning of the public finances, but they tend not to be systematic in the UK where they rely on an ad hoc decision by the Chancellor.’
‘The UK has too many fiscal ‘events’ (Institute for Government) and is too prone to short-term fixes. Although the OBR produces regular reports on the long-term fiscal outlook, the government should look at how Denmark and Sweden incorporate long-term influences, such as ageing, in strategic fiscal plans.’
What does the Auditor General consider is the impact – the consequences – of all the above for the strategic management and planning of the Scottish Government’s budget and policy development/implementation? How on earth can the ‘dependent’ governments in Belfast, Cardiff and Edinburgh operate anywhere near optimally in such a UK context?
LikeLike