Leaders: Victims a second time

A FOLK song written last century by the Mary Brooksbank famously declared “the world’s ill-divided”. It is hard to escape the conclusion that all these years later, although much has changed in the way of creature comforts for the majority of people, there is still one set of rules for the rich and powerful and another for the poor and vulnerable.

Our story today about the potential for drastic cuts in compensation for victims of crime is a case in point. The Scottish Government says there is a “clear need” for reform and that is true, the system as it stands is too slow and too cumbersome. But let us not confuse reform with making cuts. If Holyrood takes a lead from Westminster, it means many who currently receive compensation will get nothing, other categories will see reduced payments. As victims’ advocates point out, this is not just a question of depriving people of a cash handout. The granting of one of these compensation awards is often the only recompense – in the broadest sense – a victim of violent crime receives. In many cases, those charged with a crime of violence will not be convicted; in other cases, lack of evidence will mean no-one is even arrested. When justice fails victims, financial compensation is, in many cases, the only official acknowledgment of their trauma.

No-one doubts the need for cuts in public spending to bear down on the UK’s massive budget deficit, but once again this newspaper has cause to question the priorities of those deciding who should make the biggest sacrifices. It is already clear that welfare reform legislation will cause a great deal of suffering among the poorest and most vulnerable. To their ranks we may now have to add victims of crime. Governments may say this is not a cost-cutting measure. But it looks like it. This weekend there is a new surge of public outrage over the inflated bonus culture of Britain’s banks, with Barclays chief Bob Diamond said to be in line for a £27m package in pay, shares, bonuses and other benefits. New revelations are also expected about bonus payouts in the banks being kept afloat by taxpayers’ cash, RBS and HBOS. Add to this the news that Peter Cummings, the former HBOS executive, is likely to escape further action from the FSA, and some people’s surprise that assaulting four politicians and breaking a window in a police station does not warrant a jail sentence (MP Eric Joyce was last week fined £3,000 instead), and the general public’s cynicism about an ill-divided world might be understandable.

The SNP government has some choices to make. Within the context of its block grant from the Treasury it can prioritise spending as it wishes. Will it follow Westminster’s lead on compensation for victims of crime? Will it look to saving cash elsewhere instead? Or, alternatively, will it look at raising money from other sources, making cuts in public services less draconian? This latter option could raise its head if the Treasury cuts the 50p income tax rate and introduces a mansion tax, for the first measure would apply in Scotland but the second would not. The wealthiest Scots would, therefore, be handed a tax break, while still enjoying the SNP’s council-tax freeze. Would the SNP be comfortable with this, or would it feel compelled to redress the balance? Is it right that the burden of austerity is borne primarily by the poor, who see their benefits and services cut, and by victims of crime? It was Charles de Gaulle who said “to govern is to choose”, and both governments in these islands – the SNP at Holyrood and the Tory-led one at Westminster – will be judged on their choices.

Out to woo Glasgow

THE SNP this weekend moved its tanks on to Labour’s lawn, both physically (the Nationalists’ spring conference is at the SECC in Glasgow) and politically (with a number of policy announcements designed to appeal directly to traditional Labour voters).

May’s local elections are shaping up to be a landmark battle for one of the biggest political prizes in Scotland, control of Glasgow City Council and, in his keynote speech yesterday, Alex Salmond gave a clear picture of the strategy his party intends to implement to claim Scotland’s biggest city as its own.

Eye-catching announcements about nursery provision, the living wage for council employees and the creation of jobs and apprenticeships showed that the SNP knows it has to move beyond rhetoric on the constitution and convince Scots who remain sceptical about the Nationalists that this Holyrood administration can deliver on the practical measures that make a difference to families and individuals.

Salmond overlaid his offerings with perhaps the most powerful message that can be delivered to a Labour voter – he argued that the SNP can protect Scotland from the Tories (ironically, the same message the SNP criticised Scottish Labour for utilising at last year’s Holyrood election). Labour leaders in Glasgow should be in no doubt. They have a fight on their hands.