1
Written evidence submitted by Keith Howell [SIR0004]
SUMMARY
BACKGROUND
1.1 I have lived in Scotland for 23 years and have been active across the private, public and voluntary sectors, for the past 14 years as a non-executive Board member/Chairman of a range of organisations. My submission is purely as a private individual and not on behalf of any of the organisations that I have been, or am associated with.
1.2 When the Scottish Independence Referendum campaigning commenced I thought I would remain, like no doubt the great majority of the 4½ million people able to vote in the Referendum, as little more than a bystander. A very interested bystander, but a bystander nonetheless, listening to the politicians arguing it out and considering the commentators’ explanations, and then eventually placing my vote on the 18th September.
1.3 I am not in any political party nor am I an active member of the main campaigning groups. I have been spurred to contribute to the debate because of a concern about the approach taken to the Referendum campaign by the SNP Government, including a belief that in the process they have compromised the impartiality of the Scottish Civil Service.
1.4 In particular, the publication in November 2013 of the Scottish Government’s White Paper on Independence was for me something of a tipping point. Many of the SNP leadership’s statements and tactics to that point had given me some cause for concern, but with the launch of their ‘Scotland’s Future’ document, I believe they took matters to whole new level of misrepresentation. I concluded from that point that I must find a way to speak out and have been working on this as a personal project from then.
1.5 On the 6th March 2014 as a purely personal initiative, I launched a website called www.nupateer.com on which I have published a video and a series of 10 ‘adverts’ highlighting the range of concerns I have about the way that the Scottish Government have sought to mislead and influence the people of Scotland in their Referendum campaign.
1.6 In practice none of the ‘adverts’ have been placed in the press as was my original intention, due amongst other things to difficulties in getting agreement for their publication.
1.7 Deciding to contribute to the debate in this way has not been without some personal consequences. On the 6th March I had to resign as a Board member of a Scottish public agency where I have been active for the last 4 years. Also, while on this matter I have acted throughout in a purely personal capacity and without the involvement of others, where I have sought any advice or support I have come across a pervading sense of unease on the part of many that being seen to take sides against this SNP Government might be bad for them or their organisations. The SNP Government and its more extreme supporters have created a very febrile atmosphere in Scotland. Those who speak out against the Yes campaign have to expect that at the very least their patriotism and belief in Scotland and its people will be questioned. Alternatively, they should expect to be ridiculed for being ‘taken in’ by the arguments of opponents that the Scottish Nationalists like to categorise variously as ‘fear-mongering’ or ‘bullying’, all it seems with a view to avoiding any serious debate.
2.1 I believe that the Scottish Nationalist Government has sought to mislead the people of Scotland by misrepresenting a manifesto and propaganda as an official White Paper, and that this has been exacerbated by the involvement of the Scottish Civil Service in the production and presentation of the SNP Government’s ‘Scotland’s Future’ document.
2.2 The unique circumstances of the run up to the Scottish Independence Referendum have placed the Scottish Nationalist Government and the Scottish Civil Service in a challenging situation, in which their integrity, objectivity and honesty were always going to be tested - but the impartiality of the Scottish Civil Service should have provided fundamental checks and balances that the people of Scotland could have relied upon. In the event we have been let down by both our Scottish Government and the Scottish Civil Service.
2.3 It is my contention that the Scottish Nationalist Government have demonstrably failed to present an honest case to the people of Scotland in their White Paper, being selective in what they include, avoiding proper analysis of alternatives and omitting any reasonable consideration of risks and sensitivities.
2.4 Indeed they have structured their campaign to misdirect the people of Scotland away from focussing on fundamental tests that can be applied when considering if pursuing independence makes sense. Instead the people of Scotland have become embroiled in a largely inconclusive debate about the detailed impacts of Independence, with claim and counter-claim from the opposing sides. This I believe was always the intention of the SNP leadership, to avoid focus on what are arguably more fundamental matters.
2.5 The detail of potential ‘pluses’ and ‘minuses’ of Independence on key issues such as currency choice, European Union membership, pensions, oil revenues, economic forecasts, and social welfare choices, are arguably all part of a final stage of 3 steps of assessment that might be used in considering if Independence from a larger country or group of countries makes sense.
2.6 The first step would be to consider if Scotland and its people are oppressed. Which in terms of access to democracy, freedoms, and equal opportunities we clearly are not.
2.7 The second step would be to consider if Scotland and its people are discriminated against for being Scottish. This test can readily be applied by asking if the people of say, Inverness, Glasgow and Dumfries are worse off, not just financially, but in any and every way, when compared with the people of say, Manchester, Cardiff and Birmingham. Again it seems clear to me the answer is no.
2.8 The relevance of this argument to consideration of the role of the Scottish Civil Service in the Referendum, is that if the Scottish Government could have presented a strong case under either the first or second of these tests they would have had the support of the overwhelming majority of the people of Scotland when going on to consider the detailed issues under the 3rd step, namely the detailed consequences of Independence.
2.9 With determined and overwhelming support from the people the Scottish Government could have presented the options and potential outcomes of each issue with complete honesty and in a balanced way, sure in the knowledge that the people of Scotland would be prepared to overcome all manner of problems, and take all kinds of risks, in order to break free from either oppression or discrimination.
2.10 But of course the people of Scotland know they are neither oppressed or discriminated against, so the Scottish Government have concluded they must present a picture of Independence with unrealistic certainty combined with risk free and invariably positive outcomes.
2.11 As a consequence the Scottish Civil Service have been put in a very difficult position. It is one thing to support the Scottish Government in pursuing its policy of securing a Yes vote in the Referendum but it is another thing altogether to support them in a misleading and divisive approach to presenting their case for the permanent break-up of the United Kingdom.
3.1 The Scottish Civil Service involvement in the White Paper has sadly implicated them in this overall strategy of misleading the people of Scotland. Whether they went against their own professional standards and usual principled impartiality because of being cajoled or bullied into doing so by the SNP leadership, or because senior Scottish Civil Servants got caught up in the excitement of campaigning for a ‘once in a generation opportunity’, is impossible to know from the outside.
3.2 It was perfectly possible for the Scottish Civil Service to have supported the SNP Government in pursuing its policy of seeking independence without compromising Scottish Civil Service integrity in the process.
3.3 In relation to the White Paper this would have involved drawing a very clear delineation between those matters that were about process and for information, and those that were about policy, and therefore, as in an election, requiring the exploration of policy options, as would normally be found in manifesto documents.
3.4 Unfortunately no such careful delineation has occurred in the way the White Paper was prepared and presented, and through its involvement in this the Scottish Civil Service has failed the people of Scotland.
3.5 The evidence of the lack of impartiality and misleading nature of so much of the content of the ‘Scotland’s Future’ White Paper has been covered at length elsewhere by experts and commentators across press and media and the political divide – for my part I give specific examples on my website www.nupateer.com, see particularly ad2 ‘The White Paper’ and ad6 ‘10 things they forgot to tell you’ - but the major shortcomings fall into 3 main categories, namely:
- the inclusion of so many ‘half-truths’ - including only that part of the truth that suits the Nationalist cause
- the inclusion of so many ‘half-promises’ - without care for how they can be afforded or
the risks if they cannot be
- the exclusion throughout of any proper and balanced analysis of risks and sensitivities
3.6 It is important to note that ahead of the Referendum result the Scottish Government has no mandate for Independence. It only has a mandate for the Independence Referendum and so the Scottish Civil Service should have been acting to secure an honest and balanced approach in the preparation for that Referendum, not following a misleading and biased approach dictated by the SNP leadership.
3.7 There were two alternative options for presenting the SNP Government’s case for independence whereby the Scottish Civil Service could have fully and properly supported the SNP Government but ensured an honest and balanced approach.
3.8 Under the first option, the Referendum and Independence processes and related factual matters could have been presented in a White Paper with full Scottish Civil Service involvement, funded by public money. Separately the SNP presentation of policy options and potential outcomes could have been prepared and presented without any Scottish Civil Service involvement or use of public funds, and delivered as a SNP Manifesto. With this the SNP would have been free to simply present their preferences, as is the case with most political manifestos.
3.9 With the second option, something closer to the ‘Scotland’s Future’ document could have been prepared, but in this each policy option and preferred outcome would have had to have been presented in a balanced way, with alternative options and outcomes honestly explained, and very importantly, risks and sensitivities properly set out. Scottish Civil Service input would have been very actively required to have delivered such an impartial and balanced presentation whilst still enabling a highlighting of Scottish Government preferences. Perhaps some partial SNP/Yes campaign funding for this could have been agreed in advance to address the proper use of Public funds issue.
3.10 Either of these options could have enabled the Scottish Civil Service to maintain their own integrity in the process and ensure that their highest responsibility, namely to all of the people of Scotland, was not subsumed in a blinkered delivery of nationalist ideology.
3.11 Figures just published by the Scottish Government reveal that approximately £1.3m of public funds have been spent by the Scottish Government to date in producing and distributing the White Paper and the associated public information campaign. Those funds are not at all disproportionate to the significance of the change that the people of Scotland are being asked to consider. However, for those funds to have been properly spent, the document would have needed to give a demonstrably fair, balanced and honest presentation of the issues to the people of Scotland. I contend that the content of the White Paper means it cannot be claimed to have met that standard. As a result that £1.3m together with the full cost of all Scottish Civil Service involvement in the White Paper represent a misuse of public funds.
THE UNITED KINGDOM CIVIL SERVICE & THE SCOTTISH CIVIL SERVICE APPROACHES TO THE SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE REFERENDUM
3.12 There is a substantial difference in the position of the UK Civil Service as they provide support and advice for the UK Government, compared with the Scottish Civil Service supporting the SNP Government, in the campaign ahead of the Scottish Independence Referendum.
3.13 The SNP Government, and perhaps some senior Scottish Civil Servants, might seek to justify the way the Scottish Civil Service has been used in support of the Nationalist campaign by drawing a false parallel between these two separate relationships between Civil Servants and their respective Governments.
3.14 I am no expert on the operation of the Civil Service but the reality is that like so much of the SNP Government’s approach, their argument on this is specious when considered ahead of the Referendum. The direct parallel between the UK Government and its Civil Service and the Scottish Government and its Civil Service, only exists if and when the SNP Government secures a Yes result in the Referendum.
3.15 Ahead of the Referendum, the Scottish Civil Service should have ensured they maintained a position whereby the rights of all the people of Scotland were respected by the Scottish Civil Service throughout the process, not just those who support the SNP Government’s separatist agenda. Sadly they have failed to do this.
16 March 2014