TOMORROW'S First Minister's Questions will bring the curtain down on the first act of the comedy/tragedy/farce (suit yourself!) of the third devolved parliament of Scotland. In theory, after we come back from the Easter break, MSPs will start looking forward to the end of the second act, the 2011 Holyrood election, instead of backwards to the last election.
I for one will be delighted if this fact of political life impinges on the weekly war of the broken promises that has all but subverted the only part of the Holyrood week designed to provide the parliament's hoi poloi with the opportunity to call to
account the high heidyins on the Government's front bench.
I know the Presiding Officer won't mind my sharing this with you, but I have stretched his patience nearly every week following FMQs, nagging and beseeching him to change the formula. Far too much time is taken up by predictable accusations that the present Government has broken the manifesto promises made by the SNP at the last elections. Even more of the backbenchers' time is taken up by equally predictable responses from the First Minister recalling with gusto the last Labour/Lib Dem manifesto commitments that fell by the wayside once the election was over.
Hope springs eternal that this often futile session will have its format changed by the parliament's procedures committee deciding that enough is enough and suggesting a fresh format to the whole parliament.
This would give everyone a chance to escape from the unrealistic restraints imposed by the promises that seemed like a good idea at the election, but turn out to be impossible to implement or are blown off course by unexpected events, like the near-collapse of the financial system and consequent economic upheaval and mass unemployment.
It's a syndrome common to democratic systems, but not every national government allows its back-of-the-fag packet wheezes chucked into its election leaflets to dictate its policy-making when it's dealing with real people, real money and real problems and opportunities.
President Barak Obama, for example, told an audience in the Bible Belt the truth when he was asked why the promise made to the same audience by candidate Obama had not yet been honoured. "Oh," he laughed, "that was a manifesto promise." And his audience laughed with him.
With one bound he was free of the small print and big, attention-grabbing headlines in his manifesto. He was honest with his audience and it showed him that it had expected as much, given the change in the political climate. My guess is, that provided Obama continues to tell people what he'd like to do, and will do as soon as circumstances allow, most Americans will support him when he explains that he has to make some unpopular decisions until then.
Would that the Scottish Government adopt the same attitude instead of getting itself defined by the number of broken manifesto promises chalked up by the opposition parties, like whether or not there are 1000 extra police officers in post across the country or the new taunt about there being fewer teachers, after the SNP promised more. So what if the total number of teachers is fewer than hoped for, and rashly promised before feet were under the ministerial desk and the effect calculated of there being fewer pupils in schools?
Instead of trying to prove that just because there are fewer teachers doesn't mean that their manifesto promise has been ditched, SNP spokespeople would be better doing an Obama and explaining that real life is different from election la-la land. In any case, hordes of teachers of the wrong subjects in the wrong places won't raise standards or cut the number of pupils leaving school minus the basic skills needed to compete for, and keep, jobs. The dire state of the British economy means any Scottish devolved government over the next decade will have difficulty in making its manifesto wishes come true. Electors know this, so what's to lose by admitting it, rather than lose their respect?
Bin the bombA number of people have asked me recently about where the money would come from to keep Scotland PLC afloat as an independent country. In the middle of an international economic turndown, we need confidence and determination even more than money.
But a ready source of money for the NHS, support for the very young and the very old and so on lies in the cancellation of nukes. Who are we going to fight? Will we be able to if the Americans say no?
We can't afford nukes. We don't need them, so why are we wasting money on them that's needed elsewhere?
