DURING my engagement with constituents – whether through my office or out on doorsteps, doing my street surgeries as the MSP, or chapping up folk to canvass in my activist role – I’ve come across a recurring theme which underpins much of our political discourse.
It centres on the differing of responsibilities among UK, Scottish, and local governments, and a confusion which significantly affects how policies are perceived and how grievances are directed.
Often it is the complexity of cashflow and jurisdiction between these layers of governance which has stood out as an area desperately needing clarity. I’ve listened to constituents rightly voice concerns over local issues from educational adjustments to local social care provisions, not realising the varied areas of decision-making that controls these services even within local devolution.
A stark illustration of this has been complaints to my office regarding the decision by the Conservative/Liberal Democrat-led council in Aberdeenshire, which, in a move marked by a lack of foresight and consultation, chose to deprioritise critical services for some of our most vulnerable citizens. The cutting of speech and language services in educational settings is a devastating blow for some of our additional support needs (ASN) children.
READ MORE: SNP threaten police report in Tory 'racism' row on Scottish council
Such decisions not only display an alarming disconnect from the needs of our communities but also highlight the lack of foresight in decision-making when the leader of the council said she doesn’t understand all the workings of the council. It’s not just damaging, it’s quite frankly dangerous.
The uproar over overnight closures of the minor injuries unit in Peterhead is another prime example. While the Tory MP David Duguid expressed outrage in the press, it was, in fact, Tory councillors who voted for the closure, starkly contrasting with the position of our SNP councillors, one of whom is Westminster SNP candidate Seamus Logan, who stood firmly against it.
Blaming the Scottish Government for his own party colleague’s decision seems disingenuous from Duguid. This disconnect and the lack of transparent communication betray a deeper issue within our political fabric: the advantages some take of an electorate unsure of who is responsible for what.
If we look at the political chess game that governs our public finances, there’s a dissonance between the austerity imposed by Tory politicians at the UK level and then the criticism directed at Scotland when the unavoidable cuts and adjustments are made here.
It’s a bit like being handed a half-empty toolkit and then being criticised for not building the full furniture set!
The truth is, the financial constraints placed on Scotland by decisions made in Westminster have tangible impacts, especially when it comes to public services and welfare provisions.
What we must get across to the electorate is that despite these constraints, Scotland has taken a different approach, focusing on protecting the most vulnerable in our society.
In the face of ongoing austerity, we’ve launched initiatives such as the Scottish Child Payment, increased spending on carers, distributed baby boxes to new parents and mitigated the bedroom tax. We’ve upheld the sanctity of free prescriptions and education, recognising these not as luxuries but as fundamental rights.
These aren’t just policies, they’re lifelines for those on the fringes, a testament to a government that chooses compassion over cuts.
READ MORE: Taymouth Castle developers ditch golf garage plans after outcry
However, maintaining this level of support and protection against a backdrop of tightening budgets is an uphill battle. Each financial year becomes a juggling act of priorities, with the Scottish Government straining to cushion the blow of UK-level decisions.
It’s a precarious position, balancing fiscal responsibility while striving to uphold social welfare commitments.
The prospect of change with a new Labour government at the UK level has been met with a lingering concern as it seems to be more of the same under a different banner.
The rhetoric so far doesn’t promise a radical departure from the status quo and that’s disheartening for those of us in Scotland who see the potential for a different, more equitable path forward.
Another short-sighted – and dare I say cynically vote-grabbing – policy of tax cuts exacerbates the challenges of funding public services. They can lead to a vicious cycle where reduced services necessitate further cuts or privatisation, undermining the quality and accessibility of essential public services.
This approach also shifts the burden disproportionately on to lower- and middle-income families, who rely more on public services. This is being done in full knowledge of the struggle our NHS is facing.
Fourteen years of austerity and the pursuit of tax cuts by the UK Government have significantly affected the Scottish Government’s budget and, by extension, local government budgets.
The direct link between austerity measures, reduced block grant funding and the constrained ability of local governments to provide services highlights a critical challenge. As Scotland handles these fiscal pressures, the emphasis must be on protecting public services, which are vital to the wellbeing of its citizens and the health of its economy.
It’s an election year, mostly filled with debates around Scotland’s constitutional future, but it becomes increasingly vital to shine a light on government spheres and responsibilities and foster a well-informed electorate.
READ MORE: Humza Yousaf backs Police Scotland as Murdo Fraser threatens to sue
The path to empowerment and informed decision-making lies in understanding the structures that shape our daily lives, from local councils to Westminster and Holyrood. Council elections and our councillors are vital to how our services are delivered and prioritised.
Our commitment, then, must be to ensure that when Scots step into the voting booth, they do so armed with the knowledge of not just who they’re voting for but also what. It is through this understanding that we can foster a political landscape led by accountability and transparency.
The stark reality is that if Scotland remains tethered to the fiscal policies and priorities set in Westminster, our ability to chart our own course, especially in areas crucial to social welfare and economic justice, remains limited.
It reinforces the argument that gaining full control over our financial decisions through independence isn’t just a matter of national democracy — it’s becoming increasingly vital for safeguarding the wellbeing of our citizens.
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 hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel