Mandy Rhodes interviews First Minister, Alex Salmond, on the day that the wind changed
The First Minister is angry, he is very angry. It’s been a day of simmering rage and then undisguised fury as the true extent of Westminster’s budget allocation for Scotland reveals itself. At a press conference earlier in the day, as the political hack pack scratched its collective head and debated the ins and out of the complicated sums presented, Salmond and his Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth, John Swinney, walked funereal-like into the throng and then, unaided by officials – unusual for politicians - explained the numbers. These men know figures and these ones had them fuming.
Adding it all up, they said that the numbers represented a financial travesty for Scotland. This might have been a briefing about high finance given by politicians who know the lingo and are widely regarded as experts in the field of economics but the First Minister eschewed any attempt to sound like anything other than a Scot standing up for Scotland. This was mince.
In a press conference charged with his emotion, he said that the Chancellor, Alistair Darling was guilty of financial “jiggery pokery” by claiming that Scotland had done well out of the three-year settlement, with the Scottish budget increasing by £1.8 billion in real terms over the three years to 2011. he said it was the worst deal for Scotland since devolution – a 0.5 per cent increase next year - and said of the Scottish Chancellor, “This is a disgraceful stain on his reputation,” and claimed that the real rise in the Scottish budget was actually only £1.1 billion. he also helpfully pointed out to the scribbling scribes, already furnished with Labour’s interpretation of the figures, that Mr Darling had reduced the Scottish Government’s baseline budget by £342m in order to make the percentage rise in the new budget appear greater than it actually was and that the party in Scotland had not taken into account this or indeed inflation when calculating its version of events. And, further, he smarted, the Scottish Chancellor had either not understood the consequences of his actions on his homeland or had misunderstood. Either way; a damning indictment on the financial acumen of the country’s main money man.
I suggest that it’s a fairly convenient argument for him when he can’t meet his manifesto commitments to simply-blame the Labour Party.
“No, the figures will speak for themselves. It’s not a good political thing for the Labour Party to do. If they were offering up a proper increase, then of course we would have to defend ourselves but on this basis there is not going to be enough. Politically, this is near disastrous for the Labour Party. People understand 0.5 per cent and they also understand that we expected 2 per cent in the spring. And even this morning, if you’d asked me, I would have said 1.4 per cent. People understand the difference.”
But people out there, the voters, also understand services being cut and who will they blame for that?
“They will have to make a judgement on who is fighting in Scotland’s interest and who isn’t.
“I think I will be able to allocate responsibility where responsibility lies. But any serious analysis of the figures is going to vindicate the point that we are putting forward and where does that leave the Labour Party in Scotland? Have they actually said that they think 0.5 per cent is a good financial settlement? They are in an impossible position because they will be seen as people who are prepared to argue against their Parliament, against their country, against public services because it suits the interests of the Labour Party. Basically, people like Iain Gray and Wendy Alexander, they can say what they like, such as this is twice as much money as Donald Dewar had, but the fact is 0.5 per cent hasn’t been seen since the days of high Thatcherism. And I remember what Donald Dewar said about the days of high Thatcherism.”
Gone was the cheeky chappie Alex Salmond, the slapstick character that can find a smart Alex retort to anyone and anything. With the dire mood of the First Minister palpable, something shifted on its axis that day and somehow, relations with England were never going to be the same again…
Later that evening in his office at St Andrews house, having asked an official to phone his wife and warn her of his late arrival for his tea – possibly a fairly regular call - he looked weary and still very, very, angry. It had been a long and emotionally charged day. Westminster had nicked his pocket money and he wasn’t happy
It had been a long and emotionally charged day. Westminster had nicked his pocket money and he wasn’t happy 
. He warned cryptically that all gloves were now off and he would use his platform as an MP in the house of Commons to make public things that previously he would have said in private to ministers including the PM. he foretold of a big battle which would ensue in the days to come over things he had learnt about the handling of the Foot and Mouth outbreak and sure enough as the days passed, a great fury was unleashed on the Palace of Westminster. A quotidian exhibition of slings and arrows between north and south – with English ministers like lambs to the slaughter over lambs to the slaughter. Promises broken, calls left unanswered, lies, accusations…it was never a match made in heaven – a Labour Government down south and an SNP one up north - but now a feud, if not a war, had broken out with Scotland’s first SNP First Minister determined to stand his nationalistic ground.
“I have tried to find consensus where I can but I’ve also tried to keep my eyes on the prize, keep a vision of a better society and now I think in the environment we are now going to move into with the extent to which the financial squeeze has been brought down upon Scotland, I think there will be much more of an accent over the next few months on trying to get public perception into the realisation that independence is not simply something desirable or to think about but is really required very quickly if we are to prevent real damage to Scottish society.”
So will he look back on this day – Tuesday October 9 2007 - as the Armageddon, the day that Scotland’s fight for independence became dirty?
“When you have a day such as this when we have the Treasury which has conformed to type, I say there are three great lies in life: ‘Darling, I’ll respect you in the morning’, ‘the cheque’s in the post’, and ‘I’m from the London Treasury and I’m here to help Scotland’ and I think that today we have had ample evidence that that third great lie in life is very much around
It’s not just about today’s events but on a day such as this, when £9 billion a year - £54 billion over the next six years - of Scottish resources are flooding in to the London Treasury and we are facing a 0.5 per cent real term increase in Scottish public spending next year, yeah, I would like independence to come the day before tomorrow.”
This is fighting talk from the most savvy of politicians who understands that patience is a virtue. The last time we spoke, as he took up the reins of First Minister, he never once mentioned the ‘I’ word despite it being his party’s fundamental ambition. This is the man who has played his waiting game faultlessly, who has recognised the basic fears about change that voters have for independence and managed to get his party into power despite this. The man who, by sheer default, has drawn politicians of all colour into his debate about increased powers for Scotland. The man who published a White Paper on independence that was so carefully crafted that there was nothing in there to frighten the horses. The man, who, despite what the critics said, has managed to steer a minority administration into cross-party consensus. The man who has even changed the name of the government and has managed to convince the majority of Scots, according to various opinion polls, that he is doing a good job. And now, the Westminster Government has walked right into his web by offering him the chance to go to the electorate and say, ‘this is about them and us.’
‘Mmmm…’ the voters may be pondering, ‘perhaps independence isn’t such a scary prospect, after all.’
‘Mmmm…’ the cynics may be thinking, ‘this was all part of his plan.’
Does he honestly believe that had Labour continued in power in Scotland it would not have been angry at the budget allocation? He laughs, the first of the day, one suspects. “The more I find out about this job, the more surrenders of the previous administration I find. There is one today, for example, that I just discovered about an arrangement made about council tax. Basically, having made an agreement which would favour Scotland in circumstances of sharp rises south of the Border, in 2005 they (the Labour administration) gave it away in negotiation with the Treasury, all because Gordon had glowered at Jack or something, and they signed it away. That signing away will cost us £100m this year. I knew nothing about that until we got into office but it was in a letter from Des Browne consolidating what happened in
2005. Why they agreed to that, goodness only knows. I mean, it’s something that wouldn’t happen now, we wouldn’t have agreed to it; they surrendered and capitulated for a quiet life and there are many other examples of this.
“Why did they do it? For a quiet life, not to be seen arguing with their big brother, not to be seen to be in a position of disarray with Westminster, frightened to stand up for Scotland even when it was necessary and, of course, in an environment of substantial increases in public spending they had the luxury of being able to delve into other budgets and pretend it didn’t matter. Of course it matters, it’s about Scotland.”
So where does all of this place him on the road to independence?
“Moving forward, I think. In the last 145 days or so, we have managed to do a number of major things. We have managed to establish our administration, we’ve managed to draw up a range of achievements and we have independence on the agenda through the launch of the National Conversation. There have been 175,000 hits on the website so we’ve managed to combine getting on with the job, getting into office, with keeping our eyes on the prize of independence.
“Let’s not underestimate the huge significance of the launch of the White Paper and the National Conversation. We’re talking here about a governmental paper on Scottish independence, and the constitution of Scotland. That’s the most extraordinary thing. We’ve done it quite deliberately, not matter of factly, but [we] did it as part of the furniture of government. A generation ago even a few years ago, people would have questioned this and said, ‘my God, what’s happening now?’ but now it’s just digested as part of the political system, and part of the political furnishings of Scotland.
“What I said in the White Paper was, ‘we’re for independence, this is how you get independence, and this is the advantage of independence.’ Of course other people have other ideas, if they come together with a formulated scheme, then I would be open to having that idea tested alongside independence
“I can see the argument in principle for having a further option on the ballot paper, with the one proviso it has to be a worked-out scheme. Now it’s not for me to work out a devolution scheme, that’s up to people who believe in it. If they want to get together and work out something different, let them do it and test it against independence. I’m for independence; it’s up to me to work out the cost of independence. Helpfully, in the White Paper we try and spell out some of the implications of increased devolution, unlimited devolution, the nature of it and what the implications would be but I am for full independence.”
But before that zenith is achieved, is there a wish list of powers that he would like to see come to Scotland?
“Obviously, I want Scotland to have powers over everything that affects it but in the meantime, I said I would establish a Broadcasting Commission, which is going to look at the current situation. This is a commission that was no sooner established than it achieves a £40m uplift in BBC expenditure in Scotland or at least a promise of it, let’s put it that way. I don’t think the Director General would have come to Scotland and quoted exactly the words I used to launch the Broadcasting Commission, in other words, this should be a floor not a ceiling, if it hadn’t had some impact. And obviously within the Commission, we will look at issues such as powers over broadcasting.
“I have identified further issues which there might well be consensus on like firearms, for example, a matter which is under discussion presently, to allow us to legislate as opposed to devolve it, which is what would prefer.
“I’ve never seen the contradiction right through my political career from wanting a) a parliament and wanting independence and b) wanting more powers for that parliament and wanting independence. I am for independence, I always have been, but I don’t mind independence being achieved in a number of slices.”
What about contentious issues that raise the hackles of even the most fair minded of liberals? Issues of conscience. Issues like abortion which he has already chosen to make comment on?
“On abortion, in particular, there are some anomalies. For example, abortion was the one issue that I can think of that was devolved in ’79 and not in ’97 which was an extraordinary thing to happen. Now abortion is not a party-political issue, for me anyway, and I have never had it as a party policy. I floated the idea, as other people have, of having a commission looking at trying to get agreement on the factual nature of some of the medical science aspects and the reason for that is I have been involved in the last two abortion debates in the house of Commons and neither were particularly edifying, we were totally confused by the end of the debates; no one knew what they were voting for. There were no whips of course, so it was all over the place. I rather like the Warnock Commission and things like that, in terms of how they approached other ethical issues providing a reasonable scientific base before you go to a decision. But the two arguments are quite separate. I have argued for abortion to come to the Scottish Parliament, the same way that I have argued for every issue to come to the Scottish Parliament because I think Scotland is a grown-up country that can decide for itself and the idea of a commission is quite separate from that. I have already said that I am in favour of setting up a commission but because abortion is not devolved, I don’t want to complicate that argument but I think such a commission would be a good idea before any vote takes place in any parliament.”
And where does he stand on the current debate that the time limits for abortion should be reduced to 20 weeks?
“Yes, that would be my personal view.”
With thorny issues such as abortion time limits on his radar, his remaining time as leader of the Scottish Government could prove to be more controversial than his first five months which have been described as an extended honeymoon. Has he enjoyed the time so far?
“The best thing I’ve learned is that being in government is better than being in opposition. I am having a great time
The best thing I’ve learned is that being in government is better than being in opposition. I am having a great time
. Today has been a difficult day but the anger today is just about how people can make decisions without thinking about the consequences. I have no doubt that the cheating on the baseline had nothing to do with Scotland but had everything to do with preparations for the elections south of the Border.”
Is he sorry that there wasn’t a general election called?
“Yeah, I would have liked to fight an election. I think that would have been good. The advantage for Scotland would have been that we could have arrived at a circumstance where Scotland had substantially more influence at Westminster. Now obviously we are going to campaign now, not to change the settlement but to resolve the difficulties of the settlement, get some flexibility into it, so we can smooth the path and be entirely legitimate. And we’ll be in contact with our Welsh and Irish colleagues to see if they want to do the same thing. I’m sure they will.”
Perhaps it’s time anyway to relinquish his own seat in the House of Commons?
“Absolutely not. Having a platform on Prime Minister’s Questions might just be a good idea. There may be questions I want to ask Gordon Brown publicly, which previously, if he had kept to his acknowledgment of having a reasonable approach to things, that I would have wanted to do privately. Now a public forum might be better than a private one.”
So, all gloves are off then?
“Well, I think from their point of view, they must have known this would happen if they understood what they were doing with the budget. If it has all been some oversight, then it can be corrected. If it’s deliberate, then obviously they have taken the gloves off; if they want a political battle, then we’ll have a political battle. I’ve never shirked from a fight with Westminster over Scotland’s interests. I will defend Scotland’s interests to whoever but I have not in my term in five months as First Minister tried to provoke a fight with anyone. The open disagreement with Blair over Lockerbie – I didn’t do that, he did it and if it comes to a debate with Gordon Brown on Scottish public finances and the implications of his spending review for Scotland, then I didn’t provoke that. If we had had a decent settlement, then we could have effectively managed. Now we will effectively manage whatever we get, but 0.5 per cent, that is something for him to explain.
“No one has the right, not Alistair Darling, not Gordon Brown, to put Scottish public finances in an unnecessarily strained condition. If this was part of the general situation, across the public finances of the whole country, and nothing could be done about it, then that we would accept but this profiling is just nonsense, it’s a nonsensical piece of idiocy on the part of the Treasury and no one has the right to do that to Scotland and I think that before this year is out, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor will regret doing that. So, I am not going out to pick fights but don’t underestimate for one minute the extent to which I relish a battle.”
One person has commented on this article. 1. Independent mind
Chris, Unregistered Fine mandy, but do you (or indeed Alex) think that anyone is going to accept his interpretation of the figures any more than they'll accept Alistair Darling's?
Everyone knew that it was going to be a tight settlement, and everyone knew that London would big it up and the Nats would rubbish it. What IS going to happen, is that the cuts that are coming will be made worse because of the commitments to council tax freezes, local income tax at dangerously low levels, and policy commtments that the Nats are tied to. They will be desperate to blame someone else, wonder who that will be!!
Related news items:
|
d.com is the premier destination for the political, public sector and business elite who come to the site for breaking stories and news coverage. Click onto political media watch for a summary and links of the best of the day’s political stories from other news providers or a review of the past weekends papers. 
