THE Scottish Government has defended its use of civil servants in developing the case for independence after a former cabinet member insisted ministers should be “wary” of them.
Alex Neil, a former health secretary, claimed it was not a “good idea” to allow civil servants who have a “vested interest” in the Union to work on papers presenting what Scotland would do in areas such as the economy and constitution in the event of a Yes vote.
The ex-SNP MSP said the prospectus – called Building a New Scotland – should have been prepared by the independence movement.
He said: “The civil service is not even a devolved service. It is entirely controlled, in terms of the legalities of it, by Westminster.
“Why would you get these people to write the case for independence when their bosses are in London? My view is that we should be wary.”
READ MORE: Stephen Flynn brands Keir Starmer’s visit to Scotland a 'washout'
But the Scottish Government has said it is the job of the civil service to support the Government.
Asked to respond to Neil’s comments, a Government spokesperson said: “It is the role of the civil service to support the elected government of the day in developing and implementing its policies.”
There have been five papers released in the Building a New Scotland series so far on the economy, citizenship, independence in the modern world, renewing democracy and the constitution – which together illustrate the Scottish Government’s vision for the country in the event of independence.
The Scottish Government’s defence of using the civil service reflects comments made by John-Paul Marks, Scotland’s most senior civil servant, after the UK Government criticised Humza Yousaf’s decision to appoint a minister for independence.
“It is for the first minister to appoint his ministerial team, and then it is for the civil service to serve that team with impartiality,” Marks said.
Allan Sampson, national officer for the FDA civil service union, said Neil’s comments were disrespectful.
“It is legitimate for Alex Neil to call for party affiliates and supporters to develop party policy, but to accuse the Scottish Government’s own civil servants of having a vested interest and acting in contravention of the civil service code is deeply disrespectful and insulting,” he said.
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