King of the North, you say? This is a matter of definition. Andy Burnham may have claimed the title, but John Swinney can point out that the UK stretches well beyond Manchester. Given the republican leanings of the independence movement, “king” is not a word the First Minister would associate himself with, but there is little doubt who rules Northern Britain. The question, as we await Burnham’s uncontested ascension to Downing Street, is whether these two monarchs can work together more profitably than their predecessors.
At this early stage, there are some reasons for optimism. Burnham’s devolutionary instincts, his plans to remove the main levers of government from London and Whitehall to create a “No 10 North”, are radical and in tune with the ideas of identity and control that underpinned the creation of Holyrood, the Senedd and the Northern Ireland assembly. So is the intention to pass greater powers to mayors of municipalities and directly elected local authorities.
In an article about Scottish this week the prime minister-presumptive used language that could just as easily have come from an SNP leader. “After 10 years of political turbulence since Brexit and 20 years of falling living standards since the financial crash, Westminster has not worked for the people,” Burnham wrote. “It hasn’t worked for too long. In fact, it’s broken. We’ll make politics work for you and where you live. The days of Whitehall fighting to devolve power to regions and nations are over. For good.”
There are also many policy intersections. Burnham makes most of the Bee bus network in Manchester – Edinburgh’s Lothian buses operate on a similar model. His proposal to take essential services under public control essentially mirrors much of what already exists in Scotland, where, for example, the water industry is controlled by Scott Water, a state.
The Scottish Government is unlikely to follow England down the mayoral route – “just another unnecessary layer”, one senior figure told me – but it is looking at greater devolution of power to regions as well as a more ultra-local devolution that would allow communities to directly address what they decide are their top priorities.
There are similar political conversations taking place north and south of the border: whether too many young people will go to university when they might be better served by university education and apprenticeships; in relation to re-industrialisation, particularly around the defense industry, which has a large footprint in Scotland, and renewable energy; about the need to build more houses and renovate ailing high streets; on how best to tackle the growing welfare bill; how to create a renewed social contract that can rebuild public trust and oust the populist parties that have gathered support in recent years.
There is no good reason that both governments cannot work together on some of these issues, inspiring and learning from each other. This, of course, would require a heightened form of politics on both sides, which has so far been lacking. But I wonder what John Swinney has to lose by pursuing a more open, friendly and collaborative approach to Westminster, especially when the new Prime Minister tilts as Burnham does. The complaints policy is old and stale. Independence is not just around the corner. People look to their leaders to show they can make a difference, to put country before party. False divisions and made-up lines serve no one in a climate where many of the policy challenges facing Scotland and England are similar, if not identical.
Reshaping the state will be at the heart of the coming years for both Holyrood and Westminster. Swinney acknowledged as much when he appointed Ivan McKee to the new post of Cabinet Secretary for Public Service Reform. McKee is that rarity in Nat circles, a former businessman who casts a wry eye on the waste and duplication of the public sector. He has been charged with making the wider Scottish state more effective and efficient. I’m told he and Jenny Gilruth, the Finance Secretary and Deputy First Minister, are “joined at the hip” when it comes to identifying savings. Work has already been done to unify the back office functions of quango, with more to come. The Scottish Government’s property portfolio is shrinking and civil service numbers are beginning to decline.
McKee and Gilruth want to go further – they will have to, given the administration faces a £5 billion funding gap and work is underway to identify additional savings over the summer. There are about 500 separate agencies that distribute grants of public money, which seems quite overwhelming and is certainly confusing for applicants. There is a desire to break down silos in various departments that impede progress. Understandably, tough choices are best made in the first months and years of a government, when political capital is at its maximum. The First Minister is said to be fully behind his ministers and is hopeful that opposition parties will play a constructive role in driving change.
There is much skepticism about whether the SNP will have the courage to reform the state in any meaningful way – its track record hardly inspires confidence. But I detect a resolve at the top that wasn’t there before and an understanding that change is now inevitable. There is also skepticism about whether Burnham’s radicalism will survive the realities of national rather than regional politics and power. But otherwise, what is its purpose?
However, for the first time in a while there is a fresh energy and a fresh set of ideas coming into British politics – perhaps even a much-needed degree of hope. NPSH must decide quickly if it wants to participate in this new era.
(Further reading: Late style of Anas Sarwar)
