THE report into civil service impartiality during the referendum campaign by the Public Administration Select Committee is welcome for two reasons. Firstly it will start a clarification of the rules surrounding what civil servants, special advisers and ministers can and cannot do around a referendum.
Secondly, it confirms what many of us have thought for the last year: Sir Nicholas Macpherson, Permanent Secretary at the Treasury, crossed a line when he published his letter about the currency union in February last year.
That letter, in which he said that a currency union would be fraught with difficulties, was political. The contents of that letter and its timing were political. Its release was not the action of an impartial public employee.
Advice between civil servants and ministers is supposed to be highly confidential. These letters are exempt from freedom of information requests. The decision to make this advice public was unquestionably political.
The committee’s report rightly calls on the Government to make sure that this does not happen again.
It is a damning report, and let us not forget where it came from – a committee made up of Tory, Labour and LibDem MPs. The two Scottish members of the committee are both
Labour MPs. Sir Nicholas might have expected an easy ride.
It’s also worth remembering that this report comes on the back of Treasury officials being told to cost Scottish Government policies based on the assumption of Tory and LibDem spin doctors. It comes after email trails showed concerted planning between Better Together and civil servants at the Treasury.
Every civil servant has to sign up to the civil service code. Every civil servant has to agree to not “act in a way that is determined by party political considerations”. Every civil servant must not “use official resources for party political purposes”.
Absolutely, the civil service should work for the government of the day, but the Treasury, and indeed the Scottish Government, need to remember that they are not directly employed by the Tories, the SNP, the Labour Party or the LibDems.
All-women shortlists are regrettably needed
ALL-WOMEN shortlists should not be necessary in 2015. We should be able to select candidates purely on merit. The best person should get the job.
But that means, unless you think women are not capable, that 52 per cent of candidates for election should be women.
Clearly, that is not the case.
We can understand why local parties are resistant to all-women shortlists. It feels like a little bit of the decision making, a little bit of the power, is being taken away from local branches and more control is being given to the centre.
But there simply aren’t enough women attempting to stand for parliament. The system is broken.
One effective way to address that is through all-women shortlists. That the Labour Party, who have all-women shortlists, have twice as many women MPs as the Conservative Party, who do not, is proof of that.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here