To Ring Fence Or Not To Ring Fence

Watched John Swinney on Newsnight the other night. Talk about making a pigs ear of it!

Firstly the stance he first took a few weeks ago saying that the NHS funding would be ring-fenced was completely untenable. The NHS accounts for about 30% of the public sector spending, so to protect that would inflict unattainable cuts elsewhere.

So Swinney was doing his best to pull the wool over our eyes by saying, no fewer than seven times, that the NHS would get the benefit of the Barnett consequentials of the increased spending of the NHS in England.

Now, I don't pretend to know the ins and outs, but this doesn't sound like ring fenced spending to me, so why not just come out and say, "Our position has changed?"

The big problem of course is the looming election. No-one is wanting to make any decisions, because no matter which ones they make, it can only have a detrimental effect on their election chances.

That is why I was pleased that Swinney was seeking cross party agreement on this issue. However, I feel that his reasons for doing this is simply to spread the blame rather than agree consensus on a way forward.

But is that not what Scotland needs right now? Everybody working together for the good of Scotland, helping us get through the cuts and hauling us out of recession? That is what politicians are elected for. To take decisions on behalf of their constituents. Not to take decisions that will benefit their own self interest or that of their party.

Some people may see this as a naive viewpoint, but I am getting sick to death of petty party politics and I think the public are as well.

The best way to tackle this is to have cross party agreement on how to deal with any cuts and leave the economy or the aspect covered by cross party agreement out of any election bickering.

But I am willing to bet that it'll never happen.