Kenny Farquharson: Keep your hands off Scotland’s Sir Humphrey

Published on Sunday 22 January 2012 00:00

THE job description “civil servant” is oddly quaint and archaic. Apart from Sunday night tranquiliser television of the Downton Abbey variety and the required protocol if you happen to be writing to the Queen (you are meant to sign off “I have the honour to be, Madam, Your Majesty’s humble and obedient servant”), the very concept of being someone’s servant seems very 19th century

However, in the context of those many thousands of men and women whose job it is to make government work, I must admit I find it rather reassuring.

The curious language extends to how we describe government ministers – they are said to be the civil servants’ “political masters”. All very Upstairs Downstairs. But, given the way this relationship is meant to work, the anachronism is actually quite apt. And it is why I have no truck with an increasingly popular method of attack on the SNP and the Scottish Government.

Last week saw the latest outraged condemnation of the man heading the Scottish Government’s civil servants, permanent secretary Sir Peter Housden.

The furore was over a briefing note in which Housden described a Yes vote in an independence referendum as “a positive result”, and discussed his preparations for the “substantial negotiations” that would follow between the Scottish Government and the UK government.

Previously, leaked papers had shown Housden disparaging the coalition’s Scotland Bill as being “lost in the mists of time”.

Housden is an interesting man who, with an openness and honesty that leaves some colleagues spluttering into their elevenses cuppa, writes a blog that details his life and interests outside the walls of St Andrew’s House. So we are treated to his views about his yoga class, his visits to the opera and what one does in the small moments of downtime between bouts of running a country.

“I did get some time to have a mooch up and down George Street and get into Harvey Nicks, ostensibly in search of a raincoat,” he wrote in one posting. “I came home with a jumper and a shirt, but that’s shopping isn’t it?”

I find his everyday tales of pinstriped folk rather endearing. But there is no doubting that the knives are out for him.

Last week, Lib Dem leader Willie Rennie led the attack: “This is further evidence that under the SNP a poisonous atmosphere of politicisation hangs in the air. Scotland’s civil service has long prided itself on steadfast impartiality, but in these comments Scotland’s top civil servant appears to be more a craven follower of the First Minister than an impartial broker.”

Strong stuff. Rennie’s position seems to be this: that on the question of an independence referendum the machinery of the Scottish Government should somehow be neutral, acting as a disinterested observer or umpire, while the politicians do battle.

Previously, former Scottish Lib Dem leader Nicol Stephen – now in the Lords – has accused Housden of “pandering” to Alex Salmond. But hang on a minute. What function does a civil service have if it isn’t to pursue the objectives of the politicians it is there to serve? If a government has a policy – say, for the sake of argument, independence – should the civil servants not pursue that aim with vigour, intelligence and application? And if that government has been elected with a majority and an unimpeachable mandate, can there be any real debate about where the civil servants’ priorities must lie?

There is, if you listen carefully, a more subtle, sotto voce argument in play here. It seems to be based on the view that when it comes to the break-up of Britain, normal civil service niceties need not apply. Yes, by all means, the civil servants should show due diligence when working on alcohol pricing or transport policy, but on the constitution? Why, don’t they have any loyalty to the British state which, under a quirk of devolution, is still their ultimate paymaster?

Tony Benn once likened the civil service to “a rusty weathercock” which “moves with opinion then stays where it is until another wind moves it in another direction”. If Benn is right (and there’s a first time for everything) then there is no doubt where the political wind in Scotland is blowing from, and therefore where that weathercock should be pointing. Any reticence on the part of the civil service to fully engage with the SNP government’s mandated aims would not only be an abdication of professional responsibility, it would have the whiff of a coup. It is theirs not to reason why. They are servants of a government and, ultimately, servants of the people who elected that government.

What I find particularly galling is that the charge of “being political” is coming from parties currently prioritising their own narrow political advantage over what’s good for the Scottish national interest. I’m talking of course about their reticence – perhaps that should be fear – of committing themselves to developing a strong “devo max” or “devo plus” option to challenge independence in the forthcoming referendum.

Both Labour and the Lib Dems take an peculiarly Augustinian position on this. Whereas the good saint pleaded to God, “Give me chastity and continence, but not yet”, so the Lib Dems and Labour say, “Give us a strong Scottish Parliament fit for purpose, but not yet”. From conversations I’ve had over the past couple of weeks from senior figures in both of these parties, I can discern no logic other than a pursuit of a party political imperative. Labour cannot countenance a situation where an advance in home rule is delivered by the Tories, or for that matter by the SNP. The Lib Dems want any advance based on the fruits of Ming Campbell’s commission, not due to report until the autumn. Now that’s what I call “a poisonous atmosphere of politicisation”.

Comments

There are 3 comments to this article

Order by:

• Newest first
• |
• Oldest first

Page 1 of 1

• 1
• Show all

3

gus1940

Sunday, January 22, 2012 at 08:23 AM

For once a fair realistic and unbiased political article that actually speaks the truth. How did it it sneak past the JP censors?

• Report Unsuitable

2

The Harder They Come

Sunday, January 22, 2012 at 08:18 AM

The criticisms go to the heart of 'unionism' and it's inherent complaints. Unionism is the estamblishment, they don't like challeneges, they don't like change and are inherently cnservative and dogmatic. They represent the very worst of Britishness, it's the bit that riles the French, angers the Germans and dismays the Americans. That arrogant ignorant side of the British identity cliche. It's also a part that is all but dead except for politicians who rely on this construct for their income, we've almost returned to 1707

• Report Unsuitable

1

Onwards

Sunday, January 22, 2012 at 05:35 AM

It seems pretty obvious that Scottish Labour and Lib-Dem leaderships simply do not want any further significant powers coming to Scotland. Or perhaps they simply don't have the will to defy their London masters. Surely then, those who aspire to a Devo-Max outcome, would be better off campaigning for independence, and then negotiating 'backwards' from a position of power.

• Report Unsuitable

Order by:

• Newest first
• |
• Oldest first

Page 1 of 1

• 1
• Show all

Logged in as:

Comment here. Start typing your comment here:

Post comment

Please adhere to our Community guidelines

Your view

Please sign in to be able to comment on this story.