UK election: Scottish nationalists deserve a tougher audit

Δημοσιεύθηκε: 26 Απριλίου 2015 - 16:17

The Scottish National party has a skilful leader in Nicola Sturgeon. It has an army of members thought to number around 100,000 in a country of 5m. And it has a chance of winning almost every parliamentary seat in Scotland at the general election on May 7.

What it does not have is a spotless record in government. Among the lamentable features of this election - and there are many, from its parochialism to the sketchy fiscal plans on offer - is weak scrutiny of the Edinburgh administration. The nationalists have been allowed to campaign as plucky outsiders, despite running Scotland since 2007. A closer look reveals a mixed record. Scotland has not been run into the ground and unionists will sound hysterical if they pretend it has. Scots were happy enough to re-elect the SNP in 2011, and will probably repeat the act next year. Still, there is a world of difference between Ms Sturgeon's rhetoric and her party's work in office. Two conclusions stand out. The SNP has not governed as progressively as she implies. And in the delivery of public services, it seems to trust the Scottish state more than Scottish people.

The party has made choices at odds with its leftwing pretensions. Spending on the National Health Service has grown more slowly than in England since 2010, which is all the more striking given that the English budget is set by a Conservative-led government. Schools and further education colleges have also suffered financially. As for universities, one of the SNP's proudest achievements is the absence of tuition fees in Scotland. But even this is effectively a taxpayer subsidy for mainly middle-class students who will go on to out-earn the average Scot. It is a strange priority for a progressive party.

The resources devoted to public services are one matter. How those services are organised is another, and says as much about a party's instincts. The SNP has shown a taste for centralisation. Scottish schools and health trusts have little of the autonomy that has become common in England. There has been consolidation of police forces and fire services.

The tabular content relating to this article is not available to view. Apologies in advance for the inconvenience caused.

>Scotland has been largely sealed off from the policy phenomenon of the past 20 years: the trend towards more choice and competition in public services that began with John Major, accelerated under Tony Blair, slowed imperceptibly under Gordon Brown and recovered under David Cameron, the prime minister. The SNP conflate these policies with "privatisation". In fact, at their best, they empower citizens and give the poor some semblance of the consumer choice that rich people take for granted. Although Scottish Labour can be dirigiste too, the SNP seems to see opportunity and social justice as goodies the central state doles out from its bureaucratic nerve centre.

Ms Sturgeon has run Scotland since last year, and may yet govern differently. She is to the left of Alex Salmond, her predecessor, and more interested in policies other than the existential goal of independence. But if her party is to campaign as the unimpeachable conscience of the Scottish people, its achievements and failures should be subject to audit. The SNP should not get away with blaming Westminster for underfunded and underperforming public services. These are devolved matters. Other Scottish leaders - Labour's Jim Murphy, the Conservatives' Ruth Davidson - are trying to draw voters' attention to the SNP record: the optimistic assumptions about the oil price, the teacher-pupil ratio in schools. Their efforts may not prevent an electoral rout but they must continue and intensify beyond May. The SNP has been allowed to thrive on sentiment and rhetoric for too long.

© The Financial Times Limited 2015. All rights reserved.
FT and Financial Times are trademarks of the Financial Times Ltd.
Not to be redistributed, copied or modified in any way.
Euro2day.gr is solely responsible for providing this translation and the Financial Times Limited does not accept any liability for the accuracy or quality of the translation