Scotland’s Priorities: Fixing What Matters

Back to Blog Education Scotland’s Priorities: Fixing What Matters admin March 13, 2025 Scotland is facing serious challenges. Our health service is under immense strain, our education system is struggling, and key public services are failing to meet the needs of the people. Yet, political discussions remain dominated by the independence debate, while urgent issues are left unaddressed.It’s time for our leaders to focus on what truly matters: fixing the foundations of our country. Without a strong health service, an effective education system, and well-functioning public services, Scotland cannot thrive—independent or not. The NHS in Crisis Our National Health Service is at breaking point. Long waiting times, staff shortages, and underfunding have left patients struggling to get the care they need. People deserve better, and fixing the NHS should be at the top of the political agenda. Education Under Pressure Scotland has long prided itself on a strong education system, but in recent years, standards have declined and we have dropped significantly down the league tables. Schools are facing funding cuts, and students are not getting the support they need. Education is the backbone of any successful nation—this cannot be ignored. Public Services in Decline From transport to housing and social care, essential services are struggling. Public transport is unreliable and costly, affordable housing is scarce, and local councils are stretched to their limits. These are the real, everyday issues affecting people’s lives. Wasting Time on the Wrong Debate The debate on independence is important, but it should not come at the cost of solving Scotland’s most pressing problems. A country cannot build a strong future without first addressing its current struggles and we have many.The focus should be on delivering real improvements to people’s lives. Political parties must set aside differences and work together to fix what’s broken. Only then can we have a meaningful discussion about the future of Scotland.It’s time to get our priorities straight.

Does the UK Civil Service Have Too Much Power?

Back to Blog Education Does the UK Civil Service Have Too Much Power? admin March 9, 2025 The UK civil service is a vital institution providing stability, expertise, and continuity in government. However, do they overstep their brief? Concerns about whether unelected civil servants wield too much influence over policy and decision-making have been raised. Do their political views come into play when providing expertise? Critics argue that the civil service operates with limited accountability, while supporters highlight its role in ensuring effective governance beyond political cycles. In America, President Donald Trump has discussed firing civil servants who do not focus on serving the nation, and while I do not always agree with the President’s view, I do agree the Civil Service should act in the country’s best interests and their choice of party/policies. Civil Servant Department Heads do not change as we change politicians, do these Civil Servants serve our nation or do their views impact the advice given? What Is the Role of the Civil Service? The civil service is responsible for implementing government policies, advising ministers, and managing public services. It is politically neutral and designed to serve whichever government is in power. Civil servants provide expertise and ensure that policies are carried out efficiently, regardless of political changes. Concerns About Civil Service Influence Despite its intended neutrality, some argue that the civil service has grown too powerful in shaping government decisions. Key concerns include: Lack of Accountability – Unlike elected officials, civil servants are not directly answerable to the public. This raises concerns about transparency and democratic oversight. Example: The Post Office Horizon scandal revealed a failure of accountability, with civil servants allegedly failing to act on evidence of wrongful prosecutions over many years. Policy Resistance – Ministers have occasionally accused civil servants of being resistant to change or slow in implementing policies they disagree with. Example: Former Home Secretary criticised civil servants for being reluctant to implement stricter immigration policies, claiming bureaucratic delays undermined government mandates. Bureaucratic Influence – The complex structures of the civil service mean that officials often have more knowledge and control over policy details than elected ministers. Example: The Treasury has been accused of blocking or diluting policies from successive governments, particularly regarding tax cuts and public spending plans. Accusations of Resistance – Some critics have referred to the civil service as an entrenched establishment that resists government reforms. Example: During the Brexit negotiations, some politicians accused civil servants of slowing the process due to their preference for remaining within the EU. Power in Crises – During times of national crisis, such as Brexit or the COVID-19 pandemic, civil servants played a significant role in decision-making, leading to debates over whether they had too much control over government policy. Example: The COVID-19 response saw senior civil servants influencing government lockdown policies, raising questions about the extent of bureaucratic power in emergencies. Influence of Special Advisers – Some argue that senior civil servants work too closely with unelected special advisers (SPADs), creating a network of influence outside of direct ministerial control. Example: The role of Dominic Cummings, former Chief Adviser to Boris Johnson, highlighted concerns about unelected figures exerting disproportionate control over government policy. Defending the Civil Service Supporters of the civil service argue that its independence and professionalism are crucial for effective governance. They highlight: Continuity and Expertise – Civil servants ensure stability and consistency, preventing drastic policy swings that could disrupt the country. Example: The Bank of England and the Treasury played a crucial role in stabilising the economy after the 2008 financial crisis, ensuring long-term planning beyond political cycles. Preventing Political Overreach – A strong civil service can act as a safeguard against poorly thought-out policies driven by short-term political interests. Example: Civil servants played a key role in mitigating the economic impact of the mini-budget in 2022, which led to financial market instability. Non-Partisan Advice – Civil servants provide impartial guidance, ensuring policies are based on evidence rather than ideology. Example: During the pandemic, civil servants provided scientific and logistical advice on vaccine rollouts, ensuring an efficient distribution process. Checks and Balances – The civil service can act as a moderating force, preventing rushed or ill-conceived policies from being implemented without due consideration. Example: The High Court ruled that the government’s plan to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda was unlawful, highlighting the role of civil service legal teams in ensuring compliance with international law. International Comparisons – Many democracies with strong civil services, such as Germany and Canada, see them as key to maintaining stable governance despite political changes. Example: Canada’s professional, merit-based civil service is often cited as a model of non-partisan administration, contributing to efficient governance. Is Reform Needed? Some argue for reforms to improve accountability and efficiency within the civil service. Possible changes include: Increased Ministerial Control – Giving elected ministers greater authority to appoint senior civil servants. Performance-Based Accountability – Introducing clearer benchmarks to assess civil service effectiveness. More Transparency – Ensuring decisions and policymaking processes are more open to public scrutiny. Stronger Public Engagement – Encouraging greater interaction between civil servants and the public to make government processes more democratic. Limiting Special Adviser Influence – Reducing the reliance on unelected special advisers to ensure ministerial decisions remain independent. Conclusion The UK civil service plays a crucial role in the functioning of government but concerns about its power and accountability remain. Striking a balance between maintaining its independence and ensuring democratic oversight is key to a well-functioning system. The debate over whether it holds too much power will likely continue, reflecting broader tensions between governance, expertise, and democracy.

Running the UK as a business

Back to Blog EconomyEducation Running the UK as a business admin March 9, 2025 In an era where efficiency, profitability, and innovation drive success, could the United Kingdom benefit from being managed like a business? What if the government operated with strategic focus, accountability, and financial discipline of a corporation? Could a business-minded approach transform economic policy and public services? 1. Vision and Leadership Successful businesses thrive under clear vision and strong leadership, set goals, and how goals will be achieved. Applying this to governance means: A Prime Minister would act as a CEO, set goals with measurable outcomes (e.g., economic growth targets, unemployment reduction, and infrastructure development). Ministers operating like department heads, accountable for performance, results and delivery of agreed goals (e.g., the Health Secretary measured on NHS efficiency etc). Policy decisions based on return on investment (ROI) and long-term sustainability (e.g., funding education programs that improve workforce skills and boost GDP in the long run). 2. Efficiency and Innovation in Public Services Running the UK like a business could lead to: Streamlined bureaucracy to cut waste and inefficiencies (e.g., digitising government services to reduce paperwork and processing times). Investment in technology to modernise public services (e.g., AI-driven healthcare diagnostics to reduce NHS wait times). A focus on customer satisfaction, similar to private sector customer service (e.g., introducing performance-based public sector bonuses for improved service delivery). 3. Fiscal Responsibility and Economic Growth A business-driven government would prioritise: Budgeting based on financial prudence, reducing deficits and unnecessary spending (e.g., restructuring government agencies to improve cost-efficiency). Encouraging entrepreneurship and investment to drive GDP growth (e.g., tax incentives for startups and SMEs to foster innovation and job creation). Attracting global talent and businesses with competitive tax policies. 4. Performance-Based Governance Government departments could have KPIs (Key Performance Indicators) to measure success (e.g., transport efficiency metrics to assess the impact of infrastructure investments). Policies could be evaluated based on data-driven performance metrics (e.g., analysing crime rates to assess the effectiveness of policing reforms). Greater transparency and accountability, ensuring taxpayer money is spent wisely (e.g., publishing real-time expenditure reports and audits for public scrutiny). 5. Challenges and Ethical Considerations While this approach has potential, it comes with challenges: Risk of prioritising profit over social welfare (e.g., potential privatisation of essential services leading to affordability concerns). Public services cannot always be run profit-driven (e.g., emergency services and social care require funding regardless of profitability). Ensuring fairness, rather than focusing solely on efficiency (e.g., ensuring economic policies benefit all citizens, not just businesses and investors). Conclusion Could the UK truly be run like a business? A balance must be struck between efficiency and public welfare. The key lies in adopting the best of both worlds: the agility and accountability of business, combined with the social responsibility of government.

Political Heavyweights

Back to Blog Economy, Education Political Heavyweights admin February 13, 2025 Churchill, Leadership, and the Need for Political Heavyweights Winston Churchill—a giant of a man, a statesman of unparalleled stature, and a leader whose vision secured our freedom. Few figures in British history have connected with the masses, articulated their party’s vision, and led their country with such determination and strategic brilliance. Charisma, strategy, and an unshakable leadership set Churchill apart, making him one of the greatest political figures of all time. As we mark the 60th anniversary of his funeral, I find myself reflecting on our current political landscape and wondering: where have all the heavyweights gone? We expect our politicians to be influential, shaping policies, driving public discourse, and leading their parties with conviction. The leaders who once commanded the political arena—figures of real presence and conviction—seem absent today. Instead, we have a class of politicians who, while competent and presentable, lack the force of personality and strategic clarity that once defined the greats. The Return of Political Heavyweights? Across the Atlantic, Donald Trump has stormed back into the White House following a landslide victory. Like him or loathe him, he gets things done. Within hours of reassuming office, he had already taken decisive action on immigration, deporting two plane loads of illegal migrants back to Colombia. His leadership style is direct, unapologetic, and action-oriented—qualities that many feel are sorely missing from British politics today. In the UK, we see no equivalent political powerhouse. Sir Keir Starmer, Kemi Badenoch, Stephen Flynn, Ed Davey—competent, perhaps, but do they inspire? Do they lead with the conviction and force of personality needed to guide the nation through uncertain times? I struggle to think of a single leader today who stands as a true political heavyweight. A UK-First Approach? Is it time for British politicians to adopt a more UK-first mindset? Surely, our priorities should include energy independence, national security, food production, and the protection of vital industries. Instead, we find ourselves reliant on foreign resources and policies that seem increasingly disconnected from national interests. Take energy, for example. The UK imports oil and natural gas despite having ample reserves in the North Sea. Phasing out fossil fuels is necessary, but only when we have a viable replacement that meets demand without making us dependent on imports. Should we, “drill, baby, drill”? Similarly, we import electricity because we have failed to invest sufficiently in nuclear power, phased out coal without adequate alternatives, and neglected our gas-powered infrastructure. Clean energy is an admirable goal—but it must be pursued with energy security in mind. National Security and Defence: Are We Prepared? Years of defence cuts have significantly impacted our ability to protect and defend ourselves. Can we honestly say we value our armed forces when our military readiness is so compromised? The Evening Standardreported on March 24, 2024, that the British Army would run out of munitions in just ten days in the event of war. Less than two weeks. If we are committed to supporting Ukraine and maintaining our own defence capabilities, then increasing weapons manufacturing and stockpiling munitions should be a priority. A “just-in-time” supply model may work for retail, but it is reckless when applied to national defence. Feeding the Nation: Support for British Farmers Food security is just as vital as energy and defence. Yet, British farmers face an overwhelming tax burden that threatens their livelihoods. Unlike any other profession, farmers work tirelessly in all conditions for wages that often fall below the minimum. They care for their animals, steward the land, and ensure our food supply. If we tax them to the point where farming is no longer viable, we risk not only their livelihoods but also our ability to feed the nation. We must reverse punitive tax policies and support the long-term sustainability of British agriculture. Protecting Key Industries Britain’s key industries should be safeguarded—not sacrificed. Part of Donald Trump’s appeal in America is his willingness to speak directly to the concerns of everyday citizens. He champions domestic industries, prioritizes national interests, and refuses to bow to globalist pressures. Perhaps it’s time for Britain to take a similar approach—an approach that puts the UK first. We need strong leaders with vision, conviction, and the courage to take bold action. The question is: do any of today’s politicians have what it takes to step up and fill that role?