The largely unsung engine of the quiet competence of this Scottish Government is John Swinney – and his work is unsung because he stays offstage as much as possible. A walking embodiment of the work ethic and with obvious probity, John Swinney’s mastery of his brief has underpinned the general public confidence that defines this Government.
Swinney has made hard but clearly defensible choices. It is vacuous to describe as ‘anti-Glasgow’ the decision to scrap the rail link to Glasgow Airport. Desirable as this is, it is simply not affordable in the current situation in which Scotland faces a £500 million budget cut on the tail of recession-driven economic contraction.
With the SNP overtly aiming to take Michael Martin’s former Westminster seat from Labour at the forthcoming November by-election in Glasgow North East, only a politician with real integrity would have taken this decision.
Compare this with the lard with which Patricia Hewitt cynically cloaked the lost cause of MG Rover immediately before the last General Election. Swinney does not do pork-barrell politics.
It is well understood by competent economists that it has been Swinnney’s decision to accelerate capital spending this year that has kept Scotland free of an even worse recessionary economic impact.
As well as dropping the Glasgow Airport rail link, Housing and Enterprise (down £76 million) are to see decreased investment. The Government insists that housing and regeneration (down £253 million) will see the £1.65 billion projected top line spend on affordable housing remain the case.
Health (£263 million), Higher Education (£22 million) and the Police Service ( £6million) will see rises which, in the case of health, is shelter for one year only. Swinney has unspent funds left over from last year which he is exercising his latitude to apply to the Scottish Health Service. This is a one-off cushion from overall spending cuts imposed on health by the UK Government.
Saying that: ‘I have been determined to act in a way that protects jobs, supports families and communities and keeps our investment in skills, innovation and our industries of the future’, Mr Swinney announced £4.5m for farmers in vulnerable rural areas, another £7.9m in a new facility for the University of Aberdeen Rowett Institute of Nutrition and Health and an additional £700,000 for the growing Scottish food industry.
The Government is to cut £14 million from its own administration budget and to reduce its advertising spend by 50%.
There have been press reports that local authorities were to see their budgets cut – and that Argyll’s budget was to drop by £50 million. From what we can see from the detail currently available, the Government has pledged itself to fund the standstill in Council Tax which has been a feature of its fiscal management since it came into government in 2007.
We asked Argyll’s MSP, Enterprise, Energy and Tourism Minister Jim Mather, for clarification of Argyll and Bute Council’s budgetary situation for 2010-2011 and understand that this will be agreed between Mr Swinney and the Council.
In a way, the general competence of this Scottish Government has cut a rod for itself. The public have got used to genuine government – a new post-devolution experience for the country. This means though that the public expect government across the board, including areas where the Scottish Government have no power to deliver it.
This country has a government that has outperformed the UK Government on all fronts from long term strategic financial planning to unequivocal support for renewable energy development to transparency and political courage over the decision to release the plainly dying Lockerbie bomber on compassionate grounds.
It has achieved this performance in a context of severely restricted authority and in a parliamentary culture in Holyrood that has not yet evolved beyond the jungle precedent of Westminster. We can only hope that the opposition parties perform with greater responsibiity in the interests of the country than they did this time last year when they downed the budget at the first time of asking.
Well said
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Not a balanced article tho’, is it? Very pro SNP.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For Lowry and to clarify – creating an artificial balance is misleading because, in many cases, it suggests that there are viable alternatives where in fact there are none.
We are pro serious and capable government, rather than pro any party. In terms of our stance on the SNP: we have criticised Alex Salmond unequivocally for his Westminster expenses claims; we have continually focused on the serious shortcomings of Transport Minister, Stewart Stevenson; and we have been serially critical of VisistScotland, which lies within the brief of Argyll’s MSP, Jim Mather, Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism. We say as we see and we say why.
In the case of our article on John Swinney’s budget statement: in our evidenced view, the current Scottish Government is governing with serious intent and significant capability for the good of Scotland, managed through a respectable number of skilfull and successful Ministers.
And at the moment we see no alternative to it. Why do we say that? Look at the options.
If such a contradiction in terms is possible, Iain Gray is a leaden lightweight and the Scottish Labour group are fatally compromised by being a junior partner of the party of the Blair/Brown continuum in London. This, arguably, has been the most profoundly damaging sequence of UK administrations – constitutionally; fiscally; in civil rights abuses; in generating new anti-UK terrorism through the unjustified war against Iraq; in the production and promotion of machine politicians; and in widespread debasement of the political coinage. The Scottish Labour group has been unconscionably humiliated by London time after time, which has left it demoralised and directionless. It has had good people in the past – like Susan Deacon, Sarah Boyack, Malcolm Chisholm – but not good administrations. Donald Dewar was an attractive personality but he made some decisions that damaged Scots’ perception of devolution – the undemocratic and unmanaged parliament building project; and some that damaged his party – grossly favouring the untried, over-valued and over-promoted Wendy Alexander and exercising indefensible pettiness over Denis Canavan and Sean Connery.
Tavish Scott’s grasp of issues is slender and his statements are usually, in sailing parlance, all sheets to the wind. The Liberal Democrats, in their previous coalition with Labour in post-devolution administrations in Scotland made some solid contributions via Ross Finnie in particular. But since Nicol Stephen made a bad judgment call for his party in abandoning a relationship with the SNP minority administration and then retired to obscurity leaving his party group’s marginalisation to be picked up by his successor, this party has been unfocused and under-informed. Its manifesto on the European Parliamentary elections is a case in point. As we showed in an analysis of the main party groups’ manifestos at the time, the Lib Dems’ effort demonstrated either a signal failure to understand the EC system of governance or a conscious attempt to mislead the electorate. The Scottish Liberal Democrats are also hampered by their anglo-centric party, most of its MPs (but not Argyll’s Alan Reid) voting, for example, to increase the fuel duty that crushes business and communications in the Scottish Highlands and Islands.
Annabel Goldie’s leadership of the Scottish Conservatives started well, driven by commonsense decisions made in the obvious interests of Scotland – for example, the party’s responsible support for last year’s Scottish budget and introducing the constructive town centre regeneration programme. It has recently become more erratic, lapsing into traditional autopilot positions in which Goldie seems to have little interest. Is this too being steered from London in compliance with the strategies of an anticipated Conservative administration at Westminster? While former leader, David McLetchie, was an interesting politician he was too pragmatic to commit himself to the regeneration of his party, preferring to look to his parallel professional career in law. In terms of an alternative administration, the Conservative rump is too small and too lacking in breadth of talent to be credible.
It is important too to recognise the fact that the current Holyrood administration’s performance is enabled by its independence. It is the only major party not to be a junior member of a Westminster-based party and this gives it latitude both to develop focused strategies for Scotland and to speak unequivocally in defence of those strategies This is a huge political advantage.
So – Lowry – yes, we’re not balanced and this is why. There is no serious alternative to the current Scottish Government.
We are content that the objective basis for the independence of our judgment will stand scrutiny. But we have no truck with synthetic balancing acts. Politics – and the way we interrogate it, has changed irrevocably with the universal enfranchisement of the internet and that is where we are.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
forargyll are in danger of losing all credibility with articles like this .to suggest the snp have a chance of winning jim murphys seat is to fall completely for nationalist propaganda
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For Kintyre 1: Sorry. Our mistake. Too many hours at the screen – added the sentence on Jim Murphy’s seat and didn’t notice in time that the sequence ascribed it to the wrong party. Of course this seat is a Conservative target.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The SNP have not much chance chance of winning Jim Murphy’s seat. The Tories almost certainly will. Either way good riddance to a career politician whose only responsibility is too formulate attacks on the Scottish Government.
I know nobody who even has an opinion of the proposed fast rail link to Glasgow Airport. The “furore” is entirely synthetic.
A masterly performance form John Swinney.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Even so, should ForArgyll publish such an obviously biased article rather than one expressing more balanced views?
In my opinion this one looks as if it’s been submitted by an aspiring politician!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Excellent defence piece newsroom,
I don’t get why respondents on this forum attack the newsroom with claims of bias when they present no argument or debate on the story above. What’s that about? It’s like being in a primary school play ground.
There’s no mention of the budget or where your analysis is flawed. Simply a mud throwing “you’re biased” because you happen to report it was a well thought and measured budget.
I can only imagine as we have all spent so many years bitching about labour and tory budgets, when a measured and thought out budget comes along kintyre1 and Lowry immediately assume that all news services should be jumping up and down picking holes in it. That’s what newsrooms do, don’t they!
Your piece was well written and your main points well argued, unlike some of the respondents above. I appreciate that the internet has given us all a voice but surely if you have nothing relevant to add to the debate why waste valuable screen real estate with silly unsubstantiated allegations of bias and let’s talk about the budget or where newsroom got it wrong with the analysis above.
Personally I thought it was a great piece and loved the retort newsroom. Don’t let these mudslinging bullies influence your objective and honest reporting. I know it won’t. Everybody that reads these responses will realise they have a political agenda of their own.
Thought: what a coup for you if the SNP win Jim Murphy’s seat and you were the only newsroom that called it, even if it was down to screen hypnosis. Will kintyre1 and Lowry accept then that you’re not biased but enlightened and objective. Probably not, eh.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Defence it certainly is. However, my point comes from the assumption that ForArgyll is a charity – of course I may be wrong. But if correct, there are a couple of things that may question whether it is meeting the “Charity Test”.
Firstly, “The body must have only charitable purposes”.
Well, in my opinion, the article above is trying to campaign and sell the SNP to its readers for the next election.
Secondly, “The body must not be a political party and must not have as its purpose the advancement of a political party”.
Again, in my view, the above article is trying to persuade its readers that the SNP is the best party.
Of course other readers will disagree with me. I hope this brings about some interesting responses.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For Lowry: We’re a CIC – Community Interest Company.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Yes, however you also state:
“We are currently in the process of submitting a new application to OSCR, now approved, to incorporate as Fyneside Media Ltd, a company limited by guarantee and with charitable status.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For information, Lowry – that’s history. We were offered charitable status and decided not to take that route.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Thanks for that. It may help your readers if you could update the information provided.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For Lowry – absolutely agree. Trouble is number of hours in the day and news is cannibalistic. We’ll be having a site spring clean shortly so it will happen as part of that.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Well done forargyll. By your critics you will be known!
Most of your correspondents and your growing band of readers recognise and welcome a contributor to Argyll media that is not afraid to tackle real issues in a realistic way. Where criticism is due it states its view and it gives space to those who disagree with it to come back.I do not always agree with your take but I welcome your comment and the range of your informed interest.
With one exception the local A&B newspapers avoid political debate and political reportage like the plague working on the quaint notion, that Lowry appears to support, that balance is important. Obviously Lowry is not someone who accepts much information from the Scottish press then? One of our local newspapers works on the principle that “balance” is so important that if one political party is moribund in Argyll they cannot report any political news. As one party -no prizes – is permanently in that condition until about three weeks prior to any election this influential and widely read newspaper has no political news or views.Then the party who takes no part in politics within the constituency gets equal treatment and the same space as the rest.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The fact of the matter is so entrenched are the views of some people in Scotland that if you are not attacking the SNP you are judged to be biased.
If you highlight the SNP Government for doing something well for no other reason that they have done something well this is judged by bigots to be bias.
John Swinney’s work on the Scottish budgets since the SNP came to power has been exemplary.
Np prizes for guessing which paper Colin (above) refers to.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
i suspect most of the budget work is done by civil servants not by the failed exleader of the snp mr swinney
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
So the failings of the budget are not Mr Swinney’s then? That’s good to know.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Is there any point to kintyre 1s frequent aimless comments? It is the case that insults only soil those who make them and it is a pity that For Argyll is being spoiled by this sort of childish insult.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
having been verbally abused umpteen times and even sworn at by nationalists on these pages i find it a bit rich for them to attack my observations . there appears to be a fascist tone to many of their contributions. their unpleasentness and intolerance won’t be a surprise to anyone who has been involved in argyll politics over the years .
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
kintyre1
Give us all some examples of the verbal abuses you complain about.
I think you will find they are contained exclusively in your own posts (ie “fascist tones” etc etc etc)
Everybody else debates in a serious and adult manner.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
look them up for yourself
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
So you can’t find them. I thought so.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0