LGBT HUMAN RIGHTS IN UGANDA AND NIGERIA

The last seven days have seen events unfolding around the world which present a challenge and stiff test for the LGBT community and activists.  Nowhere more so is this the case than in Uganda.

The tragic death of teacher and LGBT activist David Kato in 2011 shocked the world and finally drew attention to the unacceptable discrimination and persecution of LGBT people in that country.  A country where the state is often happy to overlook gang beatings, “corrective” rape and even murder of individuals on the basis of not only their sexuality but also their perceived sexuality and gender identity.

The pressure that was brought to bear by the global community at that time was sufficient to supress the initial attempts to pass an Anti-Homosexuality bill through Uganda’s parliament.

Sadly, on the 24th February 2014, Uganda’s president Museveni signed a new Anti-Homosexuality bill into law having been satisfied by “experts” that being LGBT was unnatural.  This further stiffens the level of punishment in Uganda to a level just short of death.

The STUC LGBT Workers’ Committee strongly condemns this further infringement of individual human rights and is equally concerned with similar developments in Nigeria and Zimbabwe.  We would urge all our affiliates to lobby the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to express our opposition to developments in Uganda and would also encourage individuals to write to their local MPs.

As a show of support to LGBT in Uganda and all around the world where they face discrimination, violence and imprisonment, the Equality Network is holding a rally on The Mound in Edinburgh on Friday 7th March between 12.00 pm and 1.30pm.  We would urge trade union activists to show their support by attending this rally and send a clear message that Human Rights are to be protected.

Craig Cameron

Chair

STUC LGBT Workers' Committee

A Just Scotland Deserves Just Reporting

On Thursday the STUC launched its second A Just Scotland paper (AJS2). It is the product of extensive consultation with our members: a detailed, thoughtful piece of work which we hope will be a constructive contribution to the debate on Scotland’s Constitutional future.   

It addresses serious issues in a serious way, and reflects as far as is possible the questions that union members want answered before September - questions for the Scottish and  UK Government’s; the Labour Party; and the official Yes and No campaigns and their constituent parts.

The paper does not reach a conclusive view on whether the STUC should recommend a ‘yes, or ‘no’ vote and recognises that whilst individual unions may reasonably take a view based on their own priorities, it is entirely possible that STUC will not.  

It also recognises that for many, including a significant number of trade unionists, the answer to the questions posed by the referendum ‘isn’t obvious’.  They are in the process of balancing the pros and cons of Independence and the maintenance of the Union.  Presenting a binary view in which there are no positive aspects to the alternative position or weaknesses within one’s own is neither helpful to those who are still undecided or to the quality of debate generally.

When we launched AJS in September 2012 our hope was that we could create a space to have an open and honest debate, where the issues can be explored and the evidence examined, so that individuals and organisations can make up their own minds, and where people can ask questions and express views without fear of being labeled as a lackey of one campaign or political party.

And I said at that time, that the Scottish media have a responsibility not to report everything in relation to the Referendum with reference to the views of one or another political party or Government, the BBC and others having reported the STUC’s response to UK Government’s consultation on the Referendum in early 2012 under the headline ‘STUC supports SNP’.

Unfortunately, it appears that my plea to the media has fallen on deaf ears.

Having launched AJS2 on Thursday I was astonished to discover that the Scotsman online reported our paper and my comments at its launch under the headline ‘STUC backs Independence’. When it was pointed out how ridiculous this was the headline was changed. Unfortunately the article remained as a partial (and by that I mean incomplete rather than biased  - I would never accuse a journalist of bias-) report of both our paper and my press conference comments.  

What was reported as my claim that union members were 'more attracted’ to the campaign for Independence was a comparison I said was being made by our members of the respective vision for social justice presented at this point by both sides of the debate. 

What I said (and I know this is what I said as I wrote my remarks beforehand and presented them word for word) and what wasn’t reported, was that: 'while attracted to some of the vision presented by Yes and the Scottish Government some questions remain about it credibility - how it can be delivery - is it consistent with the broader economic model presented by the Scottish Government of low corporate and personal taxation and deregulation?'. 

What I also went on to say ( and again not reported) was that: 'there also remain concerns that the Scottish Government's proposed macroeconomic approach will make it more difficult for that vision to be achieved' and that 'the Scottish Government needs to be more convincing that as a junior partner in any currency union with rUK it will not be subject to the sort of fiscal and monetary constraints that would make the public spending that our members see as necessary to reduce inequality, provide a fair welfare system and quality public services impossible. Monetary union may well be the best option for an Independent Scotland, it will have consequences and more frankness on these consequences from the Scottish Government would be welcome as it would be for these in the Yes camp who advocate a separate Scottish currency’.

When asked directly by the journalist in question whether the STUC was leaning more towards Yes I said ‘No!’. 

AJS2 in intended to raise questions for both sides and not to favour one over another.

On the No campaign I said that many of our members ‘have been largely disappointed at the lack of vision presented by the devolutionist/unionist parties. It is not enough for them to say we will present our vision for social justice if indeed they have one in their manifestos for the 2015 UK Election or the 2016 Scottish Election – the Referendum is in 2014’.

I went on to say that ‘if George Osborne, Ed Balls and Danny Alexander can be definitive that an Independent Scotland will not be allowed to use the Pound, the unionist/devolutionist parties should be able to give a definitive commitment that any block grant funding formula would not would not place Scotland in a worse position relative to rUK if we vote No and should make firm commitments on the further powers that will be devolved to Scotland in that event’.  

At least the Scotsman journalist attended our press conference. The Daily Record reported what I was supposed to have said without the journalist having been in attendance or without having spoken to me either before or after! .By a strange coincidence, the Record’s report contained the same quotes attributed to me and presented the same misrepresentation of my remarks and the STUC’s position as did the Scotsman!   

It is little wonder that few in civil society and in industry are willing to put their heads above the parapet and engage in the debate on Independence when the media persist in reporting (or indeed misreporting) what is said within a binary (yes/no) paradigm.  

The STUC will continue to be open about our position. We will take on the debate and any criticism that comes with it.

However, when we are all seeking a higher quality debate, higher quality reporting would certainly help.

Grahame Smith
STUC General Secretary

Challenging Russian homophobia as the world prepares for the Sochi Olympics

It’s been a momentous and historic week for equality in Scotland.  The passing of the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Bill represents a significant landmark in Scottish legislation and mirrors changes in social attitudes which have been on an upward curve since the early 1980’s.

Within a few short decades we have moved away from the criminalisation of homosexuality to accepting LGBT people as being rightfully able to express their love in marriage just as other couples have long taken for granted.

Quite rightly it is a time for celebration. 

Yet, whilst we reflect on a victory, in many parts of the world Human and Equal rights for LGBT people are not advancing and in many worrying developments gains that had been made are being rescinded with devastating consequences.

The eyes of the world are now focused on Russia as it gears up for the winter Olympics in Sochi and with this come the added scrutiny of Russia’s duplicitous human rights record.

The introduction of a federal law banning the “propaganda of non-traditional sexual relationships” to minors has made it virtually illegal to place same-sex relationships on a level footing with heterosexual ones or to even promote  LGBT rights.

The affect has been to further isolate the LGBT community whilst reinforcing an underlying intolerance towards homosexuality, a trend which has been on the rise.  This coupled with reports of increased arrests of activists and a stark rise in hate crime motivated by homophobia has served to make an already deteriorating situation worse for LGBT people in Russia.

The STUC LGBT Workers Committee shares the concerns of civil rights groups and campaigners in expressing our disgust at the scenes of violence, reports of torture and ultimately deaths of LGBT individuals and activists.

We cannot allow Sochi and the winter Olympics to be used as a mechanism for the Russian authorities to attempt to sanitise its human rights record.  It is vital that we show support during and after the games to enable the LGBT community in Russia to fight this legislation whilst encouraging the Government to refrain from propagating a hostile public perception based on prejudice.  To this end we support the actions of activists and those athletes who are openly questioning this repressive legislation and ask that supporters in the UK contact their MP to lobby the Russian ambassador.

 

Craig Cameron

Chair of the STUC LGBT Workers Committee.

 

Economics of the White Paper Pt 2: Industrial Strategy

The White Paper (and the Economic PolicyChoices paper publication which preceded it by a week) is heavy with references to ‘industrial strategy’. This is, in general terms, a good thing.

After all, until the latter part of the last decade uttering the words ‘industrial strategy’ risked banishment from mainstream policy debate. It was widely accepted that Government’s role was limited to horizontal supply side measures; to ‘creating the best business environment’. Active intervention of any shape or size was scorned. Now it seems everyone – even George Osborne - is cheerfully riding the industrial strategy bandwagon.

But what does it mean? Is the phrase consonant with ‘manufacturing strategy’? It often appears so at UK level. But manufacturing policy is addressed separately in the White Paper though the distinction isn't clarified. Maybe active support for manufacturing is part of a wider industrial policy? Or is industrial strategy simply another way of framing the Scottish Government’s current key sector led model of economic development? Reading the papers it looks like the latter to me but let’s take a step back…

In a recent paper the consistently provocative and really rather brilliant Centre for Socio-Cultural Change (CRESC) at Manchester University attacked the thinking behind what they call ‘new industrial strategy’:

“…debates about the new industrial strategy’ are structured so that there are commonalities or motifs and important absences in the collective conversation about what to include in an industrial policy. The preoccupation with adding new high tech sectors (without rejecting neoliberal structural reform) makes new industrial strategy a politically and intellectually non-disruptive form of policy innovation”. (my emphasis)

By focusing on the external restraints on production, CRESC argues that new industrial strategy suffers from two key problems:

1. Assumption that problems of business models and supply chain dynamics don’t’ matter/exist: “business problems are largely assumed to be exogenous, stemming from environmental conditions”, and;
2. An absence of geography: “new industrial strategy policy proposals are for the UK economy as a national entity, and there is an unwillingness or inability to explain how these policies relate to the differing needs and capabilities of the UK’s regions”.

I think the Scottish Government’s thinking as expressed in the White Paper and Economic Policy Choices certainly reflects the first problem and until a couple of weeks ago I would‘ve had little hesitation in accusing them of the second.

However, Economic Policy Choices includes a paragraph with fascinating and potentially far reaching consequences:

“8.48 Other parts of the country face different challenges with some less well placed to immediately take advantage of growth sectors – and areas of Scottish comparative advantage – identified throughout this report. In these cases, a broader approach is required. For example some areas are particularly well placed to benefit from sectors such as health, education and utilities (for example foundational economies) and appropriate policies to support the spatial concentration of such activities can lead to more sustainable and balanced levels of growth at the national level”.

Two things stand out here: a welcome if belated recognition that some areas simply don’t have the assets to grow activity in the Scottish Government’s key sectors and a commitment to the foundational economy. This commitment maybe poorly expressed and based on a misunderstanding of what is meant by the term but it would be churlish to doubt its sincerity at this stage. So what is the foundationaleconomy?

CRESC again:

“The UK has lost much of its manufacturing. But it retains its 'Foundational Economy'. This is the network of institutions and employees that work in health, education and welfare; and in 'mundane' but essential activities such as infrastructures, utilities, food processing and retailing, and distribution. The 'foundational economy' is often unglamorous but necessary to everyday life. It's used by everyone, regardless of income or social status. On a broad definition it employs around 10 million. It's often neglected or underemphasised by the policy makers. But this is a mistake. As part of …industrial policy there's a strong case for supporting and developing it”.

This might all seem very mundane but it's potentially transformational in the development of future industrial strategy/economic development strategy. By all means continue to try to develop new sectors – for too long this has been beyond the scope of Government thinking - but please pay attention to those where people work now and are likely to work in the future.

With all the above in mind, here are some recommendations for a new approach to industrial policy (like CRESC, I prefer 'policy' to 'strategy' – it suggests a propensity to action) which might start to fill in some of the gaps left by the White Paper:

• Don’t pretend this stuff is easy, obvious or straightforward. Industrial policy is difficult, the payoffs are uncertain and long-term and some investments are bound to fail. Government can expect to receive little if any credit for the successes of industrial policy but it certainly won't avoid scathing criticism for its failures. It’s the way of the world. 
• Be careful with loose terminology: where do manufacturing, industrial and economic development strategies/policies begin and end? The potential for damaging confusion is high and I’m sorry to say that’s where the White Paper seems to lead. If industrial strategy is to achieve anything at all then a minimum requirement is that people should know what’s being talked about.
• (with reference to point 1 above) Don’t assume that industrial strategy must necessarily focus only on external constraints on production – I know it’s difficult for politicians to acknowledge but too many companies (whole sectors?) operate lousy and/or damaging business models. Such models may succeed in providing the quarterly growth in earnings demanded by the City while actively reducing the systemic capacity to replicate the skills the firm/sector needs to sustain and improve production. Even if government got its supply side interventions exactly right, Scotland’s private sector manufacturers could not and would not morph into a Caledonian Mittelstand overnight.
• It’s a similar story with supply chain power relations. Think of supermarkets and food processors. A handful of very powerful monopsonistic buyers forcing prices down prevent the type of patient investment in skills and capital equipment necessary for the supplier to thrive in the long-term. CRESC again: “let us suppose that the problem is the stock market together with Sainsbury and Tesco and their effects on food processing which is our largest manufacturing sector. The new industrial strategy literature contains no clear answer as to what should be done because it is concerned mainly with adding new sectors and sources of finance and has proposed nothing more than talking shops for different interests in the food chain as the means to ‘win-win’ supply chain improvement”
• Put geography right up front – I recently attended a meeting in a market town in one of Scotland’s local authority areas not long since described as having a soviet style economy (which was of course palpable nonsense). Having recently suffered the demise of two major private sector employers a new economic development plan was being developed for the area based on 1) using local assets to engage with Scotland’s key sectors and 2) growing the local business birth rate. A highly orthodox approach and one doomed to failure. The area has no such assets and creating more marginal under sized poorly performing enterprises (step carefully with the acronyms) is likely to reduce rather than increase local employment. A foundational approach here will involve using every tool at Government (at all levels) to drive up the economic and social return from sectors like the privatised utilities, supermarkets and retail banking. National action (e.g. living wage) will also be necessary to drive up private sector employment standards and returns to the local economy. 
• Get real about structural reform of finance: the White paper just doesn’t go there and the Scottish Government’s recent banking strategy paper is very weak. There’s simply no point promoting a new approach to industrial policy while continuing to treat finance as a priority sector i.e. promoting growth in the sector as an end in itself. This is bad not just for the economy’s productive sector but also I would argue for equality and democracy. If an independent Scotland wants to be less fair, equal and democratic while growing an economy that is inherently unstable then, yes, continue to pump up big finance;
• Innovation policy and industrial policy should be developed and implemented as intimately as possible. It was, I believe, a mistake for the Scottish Government to recently publish a joint entrepreneurialism and innovation strategy thereby further embedding the notion that private entrepreneurs are always and everywhere the key driver of innovative change. I’d start again from an Entrepreneurial State perspective.
• Drop all the silly stuff about the pivotal role of very small firms. As Mazzucato notes, 'the majority of start-ups end up as marginal, undersized, poor performance enterprises that can drive down profits, increase factor prices for high-potential firms, confuse investors and fail to generate benefits commensurate with the amount of public support they receive'.
  
  
• Finally, if done properly, industrial policy is potentially expensive and Scotland already spends much more than rUK on direct economic development. Corporation tax cuts are expensive and could – if paid for by removing allowances which favour manufacturing – actively undermine the purposes of industrial policy. It’s also essential that the Government captures at least some return from its investments to reinvest back into the system.

Let’s hope the White Paper starts a proper debate about industrial policy for its remarkable how economic development policy in general has been lost from public discourse over the last decade. Remember the fuss A Smart, Successful Scotland caused on publication? The current Scottish Government’s economic strategies received much less coverage. This is depressing because economic development policy should serve the needs of every citizen. We should talk about it.

Stephen Boyd

STUC

A Just Scotland: fiscal sustainability and income inequality

Today at the STUC we held a small conference, one of a series to help inform our next A Just Scotland report due for publication early in the New Year.

David Comerford, Stirling University asked a highly topical question: is the IFS report consistent with the Scotland's Future White Paper? The slides from this excellent presentation are available here and I'd encourage you to read them. What really struck me was the contrast between this patient and effective critique of the IFS report and the hyperbolic ad hominem nonsense which followed its publication. There are many on both sides of the referendum debate who could learn from Comerford's analytical approach.

David Eiser (chaired by Dave Moxham this was one helluva Davefest), also Stirling University, then presented on Income Inequality in Scotland; a subject much discussed but tragically under-researched. The slides are available here and I'd also recommend the important paper written by Eiser and David Bell on which it was based. There has I think been a laziness about the inequality debate in Scotland; a tendency to assume that 1) the trajectory of inequality in Scotland has closely imitated that of the UK, and 2) the trajectory has followed a relentlessly upwards path. Eiser punctured these canards. I'm also far from convinced that people understand the role of working hours (rather than hourly pay) in driving inequality. The presentation concluded with some slides which described the stark difficulty of tackling inequality through tax policy changes alone. Much food for thought.

The conference finished with a debate between John Foster of the Red Paper Collective and Robin McAlpine of the Jimmy Reid Foundation but on this it would be very difficult to comment without preempting the next AJS paper. And I'm not going to do that.

Stephen Boyd
STUC

Storify: Regional GVA stats

Economics of the White Paper: Manufacturing

This is the first in a series of short blogs around the economics of the White Paper. 

It might often be exaggerated but the steeper decline of manufacturing in the UK relative to many other advanced nations is real enough. Unit wage costs are significantly higher in nations like Germany, Sweden, Finland and France where labour and product markets are also more stringently regulated.  

So, if it’s not the usual suspects of wage and regulatory costs to blame, what is it about the UK economic model that’s so hostile to manufacturing? In a recent paper on manufacturing and constitutional change for the Red Paper Collective I argued that the following factors surely apply: 

1.    Lack of political support: UK political class has been hugely complacent about the decline of manufacturing and ability of services to sustain growth and create decent jobs. Industrial policy has been inconsistent and erratic. Indeed, for years prior to the financial crisis, simply using the term risked the ridicule of senior policymakers. Monetary policy has tended to be set to benefit the City and at times – the early 1980s in particular -  has simply been disastrous for manufacturing;

2.    Short-termism: the short-term nature of the UK financial system disadvantages manufacturing firms who are unable to access the patient, committed capital necessary to sustain crucial investment in R&D, capital equipment and people.

3.    What Robert Skidelsky describes as the ‘imperial overhang’: UK firms, used to exploiting captive markets, were wholly unprepared for, and unable to deal with, globalisation; and,

4.    Ownership and control: among advanced nations, the UK is quite unique in its relaxed attitude to ownership. Other nations identified by the current Chancellor as ‘more competitive’ operate regimes less accommodating of foreign purchases of indigenous firms. Migration of ownership leads to loss of control and decision making and key functions such as R&D. It also leaves workers more vulnerable to redundancy as it’s much more difficult for owners to close domestic workplaces.

 In short:

 “Other nations have been much more successful in building models that support long-term investment; workers have direct input into decision making, finance is more knowledgeable and supportive, political commitment is strong and enduring.  Other EU member states retain much higher proportions of procurement spend domestically and give more to manufacturing in state aid”.

I went on to argue that:

“…there are no quick fixes under any constitutional scenario. The factors explaining Scotland’s relatively steep decline in manufacturing are systemic, with deeply embedded economic, institutional, historical and cultural roots. At risk of stating the obvious, it is how additional powers are patiently applied to overcome these problems that will determine manufacturing’s long-term future in Scotland.

 “It’s not credible to assume that constitutional change in and of itself will boost manufacturing output and jobs. Global economic forces have acted to reduce manufacturing’s share in all advanced economies. These forces, particularly the rate of productivity growth due to technological and process innovation, will continue to constrain jobs growth whether Scotland is independent or not. Bad domestic policy may help explain Scotland and the UK’s relative performance but it’s very far from the whole story.

 I then noted that:

“Under current devolved powers, the Scottish Government already possesses the ability to support the long-term future of manufacturing in vital areas such as skills (where it holds full powers), public procurement (powers limited only by EU Directives) and finance (powers are available as the establishment of the Scottish Investment Bank testifies, but it can be reasonably argued that budget constraints seriously limit effective action)”.

 

After citing a number of areas where policy could be more supportive of manufacturing, I concluded by arguing that:

 
“Maybe the greatest opportunity is constitutional change precipitating radical change in Scotland’s business culture. Freed from the dead hand of the City, it’s possible to see a new manufacturing and innovation eco-system developing in which firms can grow organically with committed – public and private – funding partners.  As investment horizons widen, management and policymakers may start to see the benefits in an approach which works for employees, communities, suppliers and customers as well as shareholders.”
 

I guess this is why I find both the Scottish Government’s White Paper and the Economic Policy Choices paper that preceded it ultimately disappointing on the issue of manufacturing.

 

They do promise much: in the chapter in Policy Choices entitled ‘Boosting Competitiveness and Reindustrialising Scotland’ the case is set out for why ‘Scotland like the rest of the UK needs to rebalance…creating a greater role for manufacturing and securing more private investment’. The importance of manufacturing to quality employment, economic stability, equality, innovation and regional growth is correctly emphasised. The commitment seems genuine and strong.

 
However the analyses of why industrial decline has been steeper in the UK than other nations and what might be done to reverse the trends are pretty inadequate. More words are expended on the benefits (all justified) accruing from a ‘strengthened’ manufacturing sector than on how it might be strengthened in the first place – and, pertinently, exactly how additional powers flowing from independence might be applied in this respect.
 
But it’s the refusal to take on the role of finance that’s most problematic. Although Policy Choices argues that the interests of the City have been catered for to the detriment of manufacturing, there is no developed assessment of the failure of UK finance to support industry or of the disproportionate amount of resources (e.g. STEM graduates) it absorbs.

The White Paper could have been much, much bolder on structural reform of the banking sector, new public investment vehicles and how they might be funded and corporate governance reform. Models of independence or enhanced devolution which seek to retain or replicate essential elements of the current system (e.g. predominant role of finance) are very unlikely to deliver manufacturing growth. It’s interesting that one of the few clear policy priorities of the Scottish Government remains cutting corporation tax; a policy that’s likely to prove actively detrimental by further embedding short-termism and pressurising the investment subsidies which benefit manufacturing over finance.

Stephen Boyd - STUC

[STUC discussion papers on manufacturing 2007 and 2011. Presentation to National Economic Forum 2010] 

Next post: industrial policy – what does it mean?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Scottish Labour Market

The scottish labour market ajs 1 from Stephen Boyd

Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson supporting St Andrew's Day anti-racism rally

Last week Ruth Davidson made a fantastic speech in the Scottish Parliament in support of Equal Marriage.  Here she adds her, and the Scottish conservative Party's support for the St Andrew's Day anti-racism March and Rally.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson

 

The eyes of the world are beginning to fall on Scotland, thanks to not only the upcoming Commonwealth Games, but of course the independence referendum which closely follows.

That puts a pressure on us to promote the fair society we strive to be, and show the watching world that there is simply no place for racism.

It doesn’t matter whether discrimination is prompted by skin colour, nationality or religion, it is unacceptable in modern Scotland.

While we are mindful of the work we still need to do, it is important we acknowledge the advances we’ve made in eradicating racism and recognise that sport can play a huge part in how we see ourselves and how others see us.

It’s a disgrace that some football teams approach matches in certain European countries with trepidation, purely because they know every time a black player receives the ball, he will be greeted with a chorus of boos or monkey chants.

It wasn’t so long ago that the UK had such flashpoints too, and while we’re pleased that this has gone from the British game, it is not something we can afford to become complacent about.

That’s why the Commonwealth Games can be such a key demonstration of the value of progress.

Glasgow is a friendly city and we will welcome every member of every team from every country that’s competing.

Having the friendliest Commonwealth Games in history here in Scotland will show other countries the huge benefits in atmosphere, support, engagement and competition that stamping out racism can bring.

It takes public and political will to do this and while Scotland has both, we can’t pretend that there is not a stubborn minority for whom discrimination and prejudice is a poison they still choose to practice.

If pockets of racism didn’t still stubbornly exist, I wouldn’t be writing this article, and the Scottish Trades Union Congress wouldn’t be staging this important rally every year.

I’m proud to be associated with the event for the second year running, as was my predecessor as leader of the Scottish Conservatives, Annabel Goldie.

If we are to maintain the progress achieved thanks to longstanding events such as this, people and politicians from across the political spectrum must come together to offer their full-blooded support.

Scottish Government's White Paper childcare pledge

The White Paper pledge to significantly increase childcare provision is a good thing.  Critics have suggested that there is nothing to stop a Scottish Government implementing such a policy now, under existing powers, and that is true.

It is however also true that if under existing powers the Scottish Government currently wished to raise taxes in order to significantly lower the cost of childcare for parents, there would be something of a negative incentive.

Basically, cost of provision is 100% borne by Scottish taxpayer.  Increased labour market participation would generally benefit Scottish economy but some of the specific advantages  (fewer benefit payments more and increased tax take) would accrue to the Westminster and only a proportion of this would end up back in Scottish Government coffers.  The greater the level of fiscal autonomy the smaller the disincentive.

But this would chiefly be the case in circumstances where Scottish taxes were raised above the UK average in order to fund the policy.  And that's not what we heard form the Scottish Government today.  To genuinely aspire to the Nordic model of childcare cost/labour market participation, tax as a share of GDP would have to rise.  Here are a couple of graphs, indicative rather than exactly comparative, to make this point.

Dave Moxham

Expect a pause in the St Andrew's Day Anti-Racism Weekend blogs
tomorrow as we catch up with the not unimportant question of the Scottish Government's Independence White Paper.  Meanwhile we remain grateful for the continued support of all of Scotland's mainstream political parties for the St Andrews Day march.

Willie Rennie MSP, Leader, Scottish Liberal  Democrats

 

As Scots, prejudice and intolerance run contrary to our values and beliefs. This is something that my parents taught me at a young age. It is something that I am teaching my own children and I know that parents across the country are doing the same.

We have made real progress in tackling racism in our society in recent years. The STUC and other groups have been at the forefront of efforts to curb racism and they deserve credit for their hard work. But we know that there is still a long way to go.

Education is key to eradicating the scourge of racism from our streets, from our schools and workplaces. This march is another opportunity to educate people and send a strong message that there is no place for racism in Scotland.

I hope that those joining us today will take this message back to their own communities. Take it back to the pub, to the football club, the local shop or takeaway. When we hear racist abuse, we need to speak up.

To those who would say that this is not their problem, I say you are wrong. This is everyone’s problem. I want to see a liberal, open, welcoming Scotland. Fifty years on from Martin Luther King’s speech in Washington it is down to all of us to ensure that people in Scotland are judged not by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character.

Dr King’s speech was delivered in a different time and from a very different place. But the lessons from his work are as relevant today as ever.

Racist attitudes are not welcome in any part of our modern, liberal United Kingdom. Today we have a chance to take a stand for equality and shout that message loud and clear.

John Wilkes, Scottish Refugee Council

The world is watching
Scotland has a proud history of providing hope and safety to people seeking sanctuary. Men, women and children fleeing war, terror, torture and other atrocities have rebuilt their lives and raised their families here.

These ‘new Scots’ seek in Scotland a place where human rights and human dignity are respected. A place where difference – whether in ethnicity, sexuality, political or religious beliefs – is accepted and valued.

Next summer Scotland will welcome thousands of athletes and visitors to the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow. With the world watching the Games, we have an opportunity to show the world this vision of Scotland – a country of diverse, vibrant communities; a country that protects the vulnerable and welcomes new Scots and celebrates the talents and skills they bring.

But we know that this is not always the reality in Scotland. While we welcome the news that hate crime in Scotland has decreased, even one such incident is one too many. We know that racially motivated crime makes up over two thirds of hate crime charges raised in Scotland. We must continue to work to rid our country of any form of discrimination, and look for further opportunities to break down barriers between people across racial divides.

Many refugees in Scotland come from Commonwealth countries where human rights abuses are common. Many have been persecuted for their religious or political beliefs. Others have been tortured or suffered other violations of their human rights because of their sexuality. Many more have fled terror and violence based on ethnic divisions. As we help these new Scots rebuild their lives and raise their children here, we must remember the atrocities faced by people around the world and work towards building a country where everyone feels safe and welcome