Banner

By Alex Robertson
 
It is a modish thing to do, for political leaders to throw out challenges; usually to the thing they call Society, which means us, you and me.
 
What it usually means is that they have thought up some new policy wheeze and want to frame it in the context of a ‘demand’ from the people, now invited to supply the ‘demand’.  The challenge is to set off their whizzy new policy and make it look, well, whizzy.

Either that or they are faced with some problem which they really have not the slightest idea how to tackle and want to shift the responsibility somehow onto the people.  Think of appeals to the “Dunkirk Spirit” which is not meant to mean to withdraw providentially from some unmitigated shambles and defeat, and then call it a victory.  John F Kennedy challenged the American people to “ask not what your country can do for you, but ask rather what you can do for your country”

In Singapore they do things a little differently.  Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, son of the great Lee Kwan Yew, asked his fellow Singaporeans a few days ago to challenge their government.  That is an interesting idea, and it set me wondering how Scots would react to a similar invitation here.

After all, Singapore has a similar sized population to Scotland, and although only an island about the size of Arran, Singapore has built itself into a formidable country which ranks very highly in any measure of wealth or success.  Scotland could do a lot worse than borrow some Singaporean policies and attitudes.

But the idea of getting the population to set its own targets, goals and aspirations is not so very outlandish in the internet age.  For example, Mr Lee asked Singaporeans to judge whether Singapore was a better place to hand on to their children than they had inherited from their parents.

How would that work here? Well, we might set a target of increasing the proportion of our young people in a job and comparing it with the corresponding figure at the beginning of their term of office. Or we might measure the miles of roadways built, or the number of hospital beds provided for the sick, or maybe just the amount of recidivist crime.

Not so difficult to set the targets, and not too difficult either to make the targets public so think tanks and other external bodies can evaluate the performance in some quantitative way, hopefully independently and objectively. 

A new independent country of Scotland will want to have plenty aspirations and ambitions, and whilst Rome wasn’t built in a day, and neither will the Scotland of our dreams, we can at least provide some kind of measure of how we are progressing towards Mr. Lee’s goal of making steady progress in terms of handing on a better country than we inherited.

For too long we Scots have allowed the politicians to set the goals and keep the score, which often involved the moving of the goalposts. But if some independent body were to construct a ‘basket’ of parameters which affect the everyday lives of all of us, and then they and other think tanks were to keep the score, the people would have a good guide of just how well those we elect to govern us have done, or even are doing.

Now who can argue with that?

Comments  

 
# bringiton 2012-08-29 00:22
It all comes down to how much consideration you have for your fellow man and woman.
We have seen policies developed in London and other parts of the world over many years which are designed to enhance self interest at the expense of any sense of community responsibility.
That is the question.
 
 
# sid 2012-08-29 16:49
spot on bringiton, there lies the difference between England & Scotland
the English have swallowed the policy's hook line and sinker. Scotland with the exception of most of our MP's have not .
we have remained true to our socialist roots we still have our share of money grabbing charlatans but on the whole we are still a socialist country. we can no longer be seen as partners as we both stand for completely opposite things.

Sid
 
 
# snowthistle 2012-08-29 02:29
scotland.gov.uk/.../...

Could this be adapted to meet the needs?
 
 
# Davy 2012-08-29 06:48
I like the idea of setting our government(s) goals for our future, something that party politcs can not used against, the basics needs of a nation regarding their health, welfare and general happiness.

But by the same goal do we not also need to set ourselves targets as a people, targets in compassion and understanding of others, in education and responsibilites , and the understanding of freedoms earned not given.

I have said this before and believe it is a worthy goal to aim for :

A Scotland, fair both socially and economically.

A Scotland hounourable in both word and deed.

A Scotland where our children will know their place in their own country, and are proud of it and themselves.
 
 
# davemsc 2012-08-29 08:39
Those goals are very clear and are also quite mature. Those at Westminster could do with a look at them, particularly after a load of Tories bleating on about "the politics of envy" on the Today programme this morning because someone has had the temerity to suggest that the rich should pay more tax. They seem to revel in the fact that the UK is unfair, unequal and honour-less.

Who must carry the can for the failures of Labour and the banking sector? Who those on 'welfare', of course! It makes me sick, and I cannot wait to be part of a smaller independent nation which believes in social justice, rather than the rotten cadaver that is the UK.
 
 
# dundie 2012-08-29 07:01
It's not too revolutionary an idea. After all, Iceland has asked its people to help write the new constitution, and even managed to ask them a whole six questions in one referendum. Of course, they're not as wee, poor and stupid as Scotland...
 
 
# gus1940 2012-08-29 11:09
Slightly O/T

AS regards 'demand from the people' in the latter years of The Great War Criminal's premiership completely out of the blue we were presented with a grand scheme to build Super Casinos and a number of smaller casinos throughout the land.

I recall neither any public demand or media campaign for more casinos nor do I recall any mention of the proposals in any election manifesto.

At the time I had a strong feeling that something deeply corrupt was going on and was amazed that the media, or some sections of it, did not smell a rat.

Since then there has never been any media comment on what precisely was behind this out of the blue scheme.

Fortunately, one of the few good (probably the only one) decisions Brown made when he became premier was to scrap the scheme.

Did nobody else suspect that there was a nasty smell emanating from Blair's proposals.
 
 
# Roll_On_2011 2012-08-29 12:14
gus1940

Naw Gus they carried on with an alternative:

guardian.co.uk/.../...


[Edited] Added the following:

Aye Gus…. Nasty smell indeed!

telegraph.co.uk/.../...

.
 
 
# exel 2012-08-29 11:58
dundie 2012-08-29 07:01
“It's not too revolutionary an idea. After all, Iceland has asked its people to help write the new constitution, and even managed to ask them a whole six questions in one referendum. Of course, they're not as wee, poor and stupid as Scotland.”

I am not surprised that it took until 7am. To use that dirty word, on NNS anyway, CONSTITUTION. Galen10 must be off shift.

I must disagree with you slightly dundie. Iceland has asked its PEOPLE to agree changes to THEIR CONSTITUTION.

Does your use of the last sentence infer that you think Scotland is “too wee, too poor and too stupid?

That term is only used these days by pro independence arguments.
 
 
# Davy 2012-08-29 20:52
"too wee, too poor and too stupid?"
That term is only used these days by pro independence arguments.

Perhaps ? but the substance of the term is widely practiced by the PRO DEPENDENCE parties.
ie "I am not and have never been a unionist" stated by Jim Murphy labour MP on labour-hame site just before he went and campaigned with the tories for the union (too stupid)
or Douglas Fraser BBC Scotland, indicating that Scotland could not produce and run its own oil fund like Norway. (too poor).
 
 
# Mad Jock McMad 2012-08-29 17:02
I think the people of Scotland are good at challenging their politicians - maybe not on a one to one basis - by indicating clearly what it is they wish for their country.

You can look at the 2011 Holyrood result either as a rejection of Westminster's neo-liberal governance (negative) or support for the Scottish Parliament and its social democratic policies which put Scots at the front and centre.

The Scots have clearly challenged the UK political status quo and stated what they actually want out of the Union if it is to survive.

I may, clinically, be depressive but I am optimistic with the conversation I hear going on around me of the sort of Scotland folk want for their descendants' future. That the Westminster political class will not listen is their problem.

That the SNP have sensibly handed the process over to the 'Yes Campaign', which crosses political lines, indicates they are listening, not just to the Scots demands for more autonomy but also to the unstated but clear desire that what we end up with is consensual - as far as possible.

By breaking Dewar's anti SNP voting fix they have demonstrated to Westminster they will decide Scotland's future political direction. I trust my fellow Scots to do what is best for Scotland based on both their hearts and their heads.

Exel - if you bleat one more time about a 'Scottish Constitution' I think I will seek to ensure our first Scottish Government on Independence is totalitarian.

Scots Law and constitutional practice is clear and is based on the core principle that the people of Scotland are sovereign (Lord Cooper, Court of Session 1953 / UK Supreme Court 2010) and the actions of any Scottish Parliament are only sustainable in law and constitutional practice if they reflect the considered will of the Scottish people.

As occurred in McCormack vs the Lord Advocate (1953) the Lord President of the Court of Session made clear the original attempts by the Lord Advocate to have the plaintive's case set aside were unsustainable as the plaintive was challenging the Lord Advocate over an important point of sovereignty, Scots Law and constitutional practice which required an answer. The Lord Advocate withdrew the request to have the plaintive's case set aside and agreed to it being heard as a matter of public interest.

The Scottish Law Courts have their failings but in the matter of protecting the people of Scotland's rights have been inflexible.
 
 
# Breeks 2012-08-29 22:22
I know people keep coming back to Norway, and how the Norwegians do things, but their objective in setting up their oil fund was to share the benefit of that resource across their whole population and future generations who haven't even been born yet, and to last well beyond when the oil runs out.

That's a very fine and commendable vision just to think about, but they actually got up and did it.

I have a very high opinion of Norway these days, and I hope the way we set about rebuilding an independent Scotland will give the Norwegians cause to hold a similarly high opinion of us.
 
 
# velofello 2012-08-30 09:22
I agree substantially with your posting MadJMcM and it does appear that even with MSM bias the Scots are fairly astute in their political deliberations- except Glasgow.
Today in the Herald "Salmon warned". Usually its SNP accused. Politics leading to the referendum certainly are coming into sharper focus. Better together, like sheep penned in sheepdog trials. Who would ever have believed it.
Regards exel, he is making progress. He hasn't mentioned unicameral for some time. I've mused that maybe he has an "I'm agin it" program in his computor and so when an article appears he pauses for the response consensus to develop and the presses his "Agin it" button?
 
 
# exel 2012-08-30 11:54
velofello 2012-08-30 09:22
“Regards exel, he is making progress. He hasn't mentioned unicameral for some time. I've mused that maybe he has an "I'm agin it" program in his computor and so when an article appears he pauses for the response consensus to develop and the presses his "Agin it" button?”

I do not have such a program on my computer. But I do reserve the right to question the opinions of others who post here.

As to the “unicameral” taunt, you are obviously well aware of my opinion on this subject and have obviously recorded it.

Maybe you can dazzle us all here with your opinion for discussion.
 
 
# velofello 2012-08-30 12:30
Hi exel, I've haven't much to contribute for discussion. I'm inclined to the "one game at a time" mentality, and so keeping it simple. I will vote for independence.
Post independence I will consider the views, opinions, and options expressed in an independent Scotland - parliament structure, defense and foreign policy,NHI, and so on. and whichever political party best aligns with my views will get my vote.
A wee tease on "unicameral" that's all. Taunts are unkind and I have no wish or reason to offend - but you do go on a bit!
 
 
# exel 2012-08-30 12:59
velofello 2012-08-30 12:30
“Hi exel, I've haven't much to contribute for discussion. I'm inclined to the "one game at a time" mentality, and so keeping it simple. I will vote for independence.”

That is your prerogative.

“Post independence I will consider the views, opinions, and options expressed in an independent Scotland - parliament structure, defense and foreign policy,NHI, and so on. and whichever political party best aligns with my views will get my vote.”

I note that you do not include “An independent Scotland – parliament structure” in the present “game”. Does that mean you do not have a view or that you are unwilling to discus it before we vote in 2014?
 
 
# velofello 2012-08-30 13:25
exel: I'm not unwilling to discuss many topics but I'm not inclined to be drawn into "what if" debates on what are post-independence issues for the Scottish nation. Others have astutely noted the strategy of the unionists to constantly demand detail and then use the detail provided to attempt to distort and confuse.
Post-independence we will have the opportunity, and arguably be listened to, rather than ignored by as presently with Westminster, to express our views. And I can really then let off steam at the obscenity of our nation's children living in poverty, as one example.
Blair Jenkins with his excellent poser - if Scotland was presently independent would you vote to join in union with England?
One sentence says it all for me.
 
 
# exel 2012-08-30 17:11
velofello 2012-08-30 13:25
“exel: I'm not unwilling to discuss many topics but I'm not inclined to be drawn into "what if" debates on what are post-independence issues for the Scottish nation. Others have astutely noted the strategy of the unionists to constantly demand detail and then use the detail provided to attempt to distort and confuse.”

With all due respect that is the attitude which has brought us to where we are acquiescence.

Indulging in what you dismiss as “what if debates” is a sign of a vibrant interest in where the political parties are trying to take us.

This is not a game of “strategy” among the YES/No lobbies but an attempt to engage an intelligent electorate in debate.

It is your right to disagree with contrary points of view, but not to dismiss them without at least discussion.
 
 
# Jiggsbro 2012-08-30 22:37
It isn't intelligent to engage in debate about whether we want to be independent with constitution A or constitution B, or whether we want to be independent with legislature X or legislature Y, or which party we want to govern our independent nation...while we still haven't even decided whether we want to be independent. Most of the electorate are intelligent enough to recognise that you have to vote for self-determination before you use that self-determination to determine how you want to be governed. I think you're intelligent enough to realise that as well, which is why I believe your constant harping on the post-independence issues are nothing more than an attempt to muddy the waters rather than to engage in intelligent debate.
 
 
# velofello 2012-08-30 22:02
You are heading off tangentially again exel.

I never said nor implied dismissal of the view of others.

Acquiescent - i've never been accused of that, quite the opposite in truth.

Anyway,I respect your sincerity.
 
 
# exel 2012-08-31 00:15
Jiggsbro 2012-08-30 22:37
“It isn't intelligent to engage in debate about whether we want to be independent with constitution A or constitution B, or whether we want to be independent with legislature X or legislature Y, or which party we want to govern our independent nation...while we still haven't even decided whether we want to be independent.”

I have never advocated any such debate.

I do however advocate A CONSTITUTION. Discussed before the referendum and if consensus can be found it can be offered for ratification in that referendum in 2014.

Thus saving time and the expense of a further referendum.
 
 
# tartanfever 2012-09-01 13:24
I remember the last time huge initiatives were taken by a UK govt. to become more accountable - New Labour under Blair and Broon.

They set targets and initiatives in the form of league tables, everyone became accountable (apart from many politicians of course) - but one great example was school league tables and it's disastrous consequences.

Good schools were recognised and a battle royal ensued to get your kids into that catchment area which in turn caused a huge spike in house prices in parts of the country. Average families that may have been renting were turfed out as landlords decided to sell, or at the very least hike up rental prices through the roof. Add to this adjusted council tax rates etc and what did we get - a further division between rich and poor. Schools therefore became extremely divided as did communities.

What else did it bring us ? Well false reporting in the NHS and Police force statistics, a gluttony of people now being fired on the spot and the transformation of politicians into 'managers', little more than civil servants.

I'd much rather that the population actually educated themselves on what was going on and the likes of the BBC became much more openly accountable to proper regulators. Voter apathy can, in large part, be blamed on our tv stations, particularly the BBC which is the only public body that reaches into the heart of every house throughout the UK.

Those regulatory bodies that we have Ofcom, Ofgem etc should be reminded that their remit and sole aim is too serve the needs of the public who pay for them with real power to make changes without the hand of Westminster being required.
 
 
# pictishbeastie 2012-09-04 00:42
To be completely honest I'm not at all sure that I want Scotland to be compared to Singapore in any way,shape or form! en.wikipedia.org/.../...
 

You must be logged-in in order to post a comment.

Banner
Banner

Donate to Newsnet Scotland

Latest Comments