DO you know your NSET from your ESJTP? How about the JTC to the FWC? Or the difference between your Verity House to Bute House agreements? No – nothing?
You can see a theme developing here. The above are acronyms or titles for various government policy initiatives which, to all extents and purposes, have involved hundreds (if not thousands) of hours of work.
To us, those involved in the drafting, designing or consultation processes of any of these strategies, they take up a considerable amount of our time. Whatever their outcomes, they speak about issues we are passionate about.
READ MORE: John Swinney to demand 'more action and less strategies' from ministers in growth vow
Whether, like me, you want Scotland to be a world-leading, Fair Work nation, or if you’re the leader of a community group on one of the Scottish Parliament’s many cross-party groups, lobbying MSPs behind the scenes to make your voices heard, policy doesn’t just miraculously appear after the ink is dry on political manifestos or parliamentary votes.
It takes time. It also takes explanation. I’d wager a substantial sum that the majority of the public doesn’t have a scooby what the National Strategy for Economic Transformation (NSET) is nor, in all honesty, would they be too engrossed in the minutiae of it even if they did. The electorate just wants to see a competent government that keeps its promises, delivers on its mandates, and can demonstrably show a positive change in our communities. Simple stuff.
Not quite. I’m not here to knock policy design or its strategy. Far from it. It’s incredibly important to hear from voices around the room, consider different points of view then, crucially, make a decision. This doesn’t just apply to decisions made within the chambers of Parliament or thrashed out across different rooms of St Andrew’s House, it’s how trade union policy and decisions are made too.
Whether we are talking about government policy, trade union policy or any other organisation, moving from progressive intention to practical delivery takes work.
It is also far from unusual to find that the final outcome is very different from the original intention or from what the affected stakeholders intended.
For every legislative success, the Scottish Government has enacted: the Scottish Child Payment, abolishing prescription charges, the Social Security (Scotland) Act and more, there has been an equal and opposite swathe of policy failures. An Education Act shelved, missed climate targets, a ditched deposit return scheme and more besides.
A plea to readers; don’t misinterpret my words as condemnation of the principles of these initiatives themselves. No government, I hope, sets out to deliberately fail. What must be highlighted is the spotted record of the Scottish Government in delivering on their objectives, even if some of those objectives may have been pure of heart and done for the right reasons.
We cannot allow the strategy of Fair Work – the Scottish Government’s plan to make Scotland’s workplaces a leading light in delivering success, wellbeing a prosperity for workers – to follow a similar path. The strategy says that, by 2025, Scotland will be a Fair Work nation. What does that mean?
It means workers having an underpinning of decency and fairness within their working lives, and receive at least a real living wage; it means having access to trade unions in their workplace; to be covered by collective bargaining agreements; and it means addressing the gender, disability and race employment gaps.
READ MORE: Lorna Slater: Some SNP MSPs 'are active climate deniers'
It means much more besides. In the round, it means building an economic model focused on worker wellbeing and driving up living standards, not simply driving up profits. It means living in a nation that values the effective voice of workers in their workplace and the role of trade unions in amplifying those voices.
It means embedding, in so far as possible and within the scope of devolution, the principles of fairness, equity and social justice within workplaces from Caithness to Cumbernauld.
We’re seven months away from 2025 and we’ve still got plenty of work to do. We’ve made progress. No doubt about that. But again, we return to the values of the Scottish Government and its ability to consult, design and then, crucially more than anything, deliver policy that makes a difference to those who need it most.
It’s all very well and good talking a good game, especially at election time. Delivering on your promises, particularly when that requires taking on people in positions of power, is another thing entirely.
The Fair Work Convention (FWC), of which I am a member, is the non-governmental body that makes recommendations to the Scottish Government. From hospitality to construction to social care, there is no shortage of evidence for the Scottish Government to draw upon on how we need them to step up their game in making Fair Work a reality.
Similarly, the Just Transition Commission has set out a plethora of recommendations to government to deliver a Just Transition to net zero which haven’t been acted upon – this includes a publicly owned energy company and a trial of free public transport.
The First Minister has been insistent that economic growth will be central to realise his vision of a more socially just Scotland.
Naturally, of course, we would agree. But a strong economy is only as good as the vision and principles that underpin it.
It’s misguided in the extreme to assume that raising GDP and adding a few more zeros to the bank balances of hedge funds and international corporations will somehow trickle down into the pockets of those in the lowest rungs of our society. We need public intervention, public ownership of our infrastructure and public equity stakes in areas such as energy.
I took that message to the First Minister this week. Unless there are such commitments for the future, these strategies – NSET, Energy Strategy and Just Transition Plan (ESJTP) plus more – we are doomed to fail before a ball is even kicked.
We don’t want a policy failure on our record. We’ll stick to our word in building a fairer, more equal nation with workers’ voices at the heart of the future economic model we wish to see. We look forward to delivering on that promise in partnership with the First Minister.
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