IT might have passed you by, but last year Scotland became a global pioneer. Yes indeed, with much patting of backs down Holyrood way, the Scottish Government became a member of the magnificently titled Open Government Partnership’s inaugural International Subnational Government Programme. How could you have forgotten?
The accolade was granted apparently because of a commitment to open government and at the time Parliamentary Business Minister Joe Fitzpatrick rejoiced that it “holds us as a government up to the light over our promises to be honest, transparent and reachable.”
Mr Fitzpatrick made it clear there would be no resting on laurels and would go further: “It gives us the motivation to continue to be a beacon of good government. Our action plan will show clear commitments to making government in Scotland more open, accountable and responsive.”
All this is highly commendable, so six months on has anything changed? Is the Scottish beacon of openness and accountability shining bright? OK, the Scottish Government is more open than Putin’s Russia or Erdogan’s Turkey, but is it increasing its accountability as Mr Fitzpatrick pledged?
The Scottish Government would doubtless say yes, but according to a group of journalists working in Holyrood, the reality is somewhat different.
Key to open government are the Freedom of Information Acts, designed to make access to records easier with rules for officials to follow. Requests can be refused for reasons of security and commercial confidentiality or because the cost is excessive, but a clear guiding principle is that embarrassment, political or personal, is not a valid reason for rejection.
Yet it is now alleged that special advisers are routinely screening FoI responses for potential political problems, and spin doctors are handling requests rather than officials responsible for the information. It is also claimed the Government’s political team regularly takes control of requests to other agencies. In other words, the people whose job is to spread a positive message about the Scottish Government are trying to make sure that nothing gets out which could cause a political headache. It’s the opposite of openness.
There are further allegations, which all point towards an approach designed to make the general FoI process as sluggish as possible, even if there is no political imperative; information releases repeatedly delayed beyond the statutory deadlines without reason, requests for updates on progress ignored and internal reviews being used to further hamper availability. With appeals to the Information Commissioner often resulting in a ping-pong of correspondence, it can take the best part of a year from the initial request to final publication.
This is where the information actually exists, but there is growing concern that awareness of FoI legislation inside government, both Scottish and UK, means steps are taken to ensure there is nothing to disclose; so meetings are not held in official places, minutes are not taken and official email accounts are avoided. The question “Is that FoI-able?” is common in official circles, and the answer is not “Yes, no problem.”
The wonderful thing about material which doesn’t exist is it’s very hard to prove it should, but that didn’t stop the Scottish Government getting into a dreadful legal pickle trying to prevent the public knowing it didn’t have information about Europe, the former First Minster Alex Salmond said it did.
Scotland is about to enter what will be the most complex, fraught and emotional political era the country has ever known and the public will rightly demand reliable, accountable and untainted information, as they did throughout both referenda. With the stakes for the SNP infinitely higher if a second independence referendum does take place, 2014 will seem like a Sixth Form debating club by comparison.
The Scottish Government’s core policy of separation will take precedence over all others and the effect of potential embarrassment in any policy area will inevitably be judged by its impact on the campaign. Mr Fitzpatrick’s challenge will be to live up to his lofty ambition in a process which will stretch every political sinew to breaking point.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here