Scotland's future is uncertain. But then so is the here and now

At the same time, many in the mischievous media exaggerate the transient. Who is up, who is down? What is new, what is demanding attention? Always eager to hasten to the next caravanserai.
This week, by contrast, there was a glance towards the longer term. Where are we going with our NHS, our services, our fiscal structure? What, an Edinburgh conference asked, will Scotland look like in 2050?
Now, even adopting such a perspective may be viewed as courageous, given the perils currently confronting our planet. As Israel and Iran trade missiles, as President Trump ponders, it may seem rash to contemplate anything other than our collective survival.
However, we cannot live that way. We cannot flee for the sanctuary of a dark corner whenever Donald J. Trump turns into King Lear: confused and uncertain yet insisting that he is the terror of the earth.
And so it is entirely right to cast an eye ahead. However it may appear at first glance that there is a faintly futile tinge to the entire endeavour.
Consider. In 1920, did the ravaged continent of Europe discern that, by 1945, they would have endured a second, bloody conflict? They did not.
More prosaically, in 1980, did we know that the passing of a further quarter century would lead to a transformation in Information Technology and the creation of a Scottish Parliament? We did not.
Yet contemplate a little more deeply. Were not the roots of the Second World War seeded in the aftermath of the First World War? The constraints and financial reparations understandably imposed upon Germany – but resented by their emerging, deadly leader?
Read more
Brian Taylor Do the Scottish Conservatives have any reason to exist?
This is a set-back and an opportunity for the SNP - which one will they embrace?
Brian Taylor: The fundamental battle which unites Donald Trump and Nigel Farage
And the more modern period? Were there not early prequels for the 21st century information revolution?
Further, here in Scotland, was not the cause of Scottish self-government measurably advanced in the wake of the election of Margaret Thatcher in 1979?
In short, when we purport to look into the future, we are in reality studying present-day conditions. We are examining how reform might generate a steady transformation which would emerge over that longer period.
It is a way of urging impatient voters and the mischievous media to cut a little slack for our elected tribunes. It is about the future, yes, but viewed through the prism of the present.
In the context of reform, there was much talk this week about reviving thoughts advanced by the commission on public services, ably chaired by the late and decidedly great Campbell Christie.
I recall Campbell for his intellect, his humour, his baffling devotion to Falkirk FC, his fierce competitiveness at golf – and his determination to work with all and sundry to make Scotland a better place.
In 2011, his commission urged Scotland to embrace 'empowerment, integration, efficiency and prevention' in transforming the public sector.
This week, Ivan McKee, Scotland's Public Finance Minister, set out a programme of reforms and savings – with an explicit nod to those earlier endeavours by the Christie team.
Mr McKee is a key figure in the Scottish Government, returning to office alongside his close ally, Kate Forbes. Both advocate a focus upon efficiency – and, perhaps above all, economic growth. In doing so, they are most certainly aligned with the instincts and aims of the First Minister.
Now John Swinney displayed another intuitive tendency in his forward-looking remarks this week. His solution to the entrenched problems confronting Scotland? It lay, you will be astonished to learn, with independence.
So shifting attention back to independence, rather than the day-to-day concerns of the voters? Was this a U-turn? Not really, no. Indeed, I suspect too much can be made of this apparent change.
Firstly, Mr Swinney is a believer, a fervent Nationalist. He yearns for independence. Secondly, he leads a party which contains many whose fervour is undimmed by minor matters such as convincing others. Thirdly, there is an SNP National Council this weekend.
Enough, Brian. Away with cynicism. I believe John Swinney is simply sustaining his dual strategy. He feels a little more liberated to advance the option of independence – while simultaneously concentrating for the most part on the anxieties of the people, such as the cost of living and the health service.
John Swinney (Image: PA)
In short, his attention is drawn by the here and now, even as he offers a potential vision of the future. His opponents are similarly grounded. Labour's Anas Sarwar, for example, glanced forward and concluded that the SNP were only offering 'managed decline.'
Still, futurology can be a source of innocent merriment. What might we favour? Ivan McKee is surely right to suggest public services which prioritise customers rather than producers, which share information and thus resources.
But how about the health service? The current system is simply unsustainable, unaffordable. Do you see that nurse gesturing to you? That health worker is not waving but drowning.
We have to cut waste – but also overall demand. Perhaps, as the Health Secretary Neil Gray suggested, that can be done in part by an emphasis on prevention.
However, that will undoubtedly take time – which ministers facing elections do not have. Politically, Mr Swinney's focus will be upon ensuring that the stats are going in the right direction.
Education? Our economy, our society, both need the acquisition of useful skills. I recall my school textbook entitled 'Physics is Fun!' This proved to be a brazen lie. However, physics is vital, along with tricky stuff like maths, literature and French irregular verbs.
Our universities are struggling financially. But, as they reform, they must maintain the objective of excellence. If they are truly to be world-class, as Scotland advertises, then they must aspire to the very highest standards.
And the economy itself? We need growth and prosperity. We need an environmental drive, including renewables, which does not shut down our industry and agriculture.
The future? Simple really.
Brian Taylor is a former political editor for BBC Scotland and a columnist for The Herald. He cherishes his family, the theatre – and Dundee United FC

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

NBC News

33 minutes ago

• NBC News

Trump meets with national security team as B-2 bombers head to Guam

President Trump returned to the White House on Saturday to meet with his national security team, as he continues to consider a potential U.S. strike on Iran. It comes as several B-2 stealth bombers head to the Pacific, according to two defense officials, though their mission remains unclear. NBC News' Vaughn Hillyard is traveling with the president.

Daily Mail​

38 minutes ago

• Daily Mail​

Fast-track suicide if you pay extra, discount deals for couples and you don't even have to be terminally ill: Inside Germany's morally queasy approach to assisted dying where business is booming for the pedlars of euthanasia

Last week, the UK's highest elected officials ruled on the most existential of questions: how we choose to die. At its third reading, the Assisted Dying Bill passed the Commons by a slim majority of 23 votes, and now its fate lies with the Lords, where it faces a bumpy ride before it becomes law. The upper chamber, for instance, will examine if a three-person panel of professionals (from law, psychiatry and social work) offers greater safety and oversight in approving a patient's application to die than a High Court judge, as was originally proposed. Peers will have at their disposal the grim cost-benefit analysis to the NHS in accelerating the deaths of the terminally ill, released last month under the cover of the local election results. According to the report, as many as 1,300 people are expected to apply to die in the first year, saving as much as £10million in medical bills. But can the health service cope with this demand, especially as NHS staff will be offered an opt-out from the ugly business of state-sponsored suicide? No doubt private health providers are already bending the ears of peers for a slice of the death industry pie. It would be tempting to allow private enterprise to take some of the strain, but I urge the Lords to look at how business seized the opportunity with morally queasy gusto in my native land, Germany, where some firms offer a 'fast track' service for people who can pay more and even special discounts to couples wishing to hasten their demise. Pictured: Pedestrians walk past the posters promoting the Assisted Dying bill at Westminster Underground station In Germany, anyone 18 or over can lawfully commit suicide with the help of a third party. Yes, anyone. There is no requirement for the person to be six months from death, nor is there any specification over having a life-limiting or debilitating illness (as in the UK Bill). A perfectly healthy university student can seek help to kill themselves for no better reason than they are fed up with life. Hannelore Kring, 83, is typical of Germany's liberal approach to assisted suicide. A recording of her death featured in a podcast by news broadcaster WDR and it is a spine-chilling reminder of how relaxed my countrymen are about dying. At an undertaker's, Frau Kring is accompanied by two 'death helpers' – a nurse and retired teacher – and sounds relieved her life will end in a matter of minutes. Dressed in black and with make-up, as if attending a party, she suggests a dance with the nurse. Indeed, she is not ill, she is as healthy as anyone in their 80s. She has run a second-hand men's boutique in Hamburg but feels life's no longer worth living. She's lonely, all her friends have died and the state of the world depresses her. The helpers ask if she really wants to go through with it. 'Absolutely!' she replies enthusiastically. The nurse hooks her up to an infusion of a lethal dose of narcotics – a 'suicide cocktail'. She merely has to turn a valve, letting the toxic chemicals enter her bloodstream, putting her to sleep for ever. It's important she takes the final step herself, otherwise the helpers could be charged with manslaughter. Assisted suicides like this have been fully legal in Germany since 2020, although legislation has been a generation in the making. After the Second World War the subject was largely taboo, in no small part due to revulsion at the Nazis' Aktion T4 programme, which entailed the 'mercy killing' of 300,000 disabled people. By the 1970s and 1980s, a push for more patient autonomy led to court decisions in 1984 and 1990 that ensured suffering, bed-ridden people had the right to stop treatments that prolonged their lives. With the 2009 Patient Directive Law, people could include such instructions in a living will if they became incapacitated. This gave legal protections to doctors offering assisted suicide. But then the public grew uneasy at what seemed a creeping commercialisation of the right to die. Healthcare is not free at the point of use in Germany, so the nation is more comfortable than the UK with private provision within the system. But only up to a point. Many were appalled in 2014 when a Berlin urologist Uwe-Christian Arnold revealed he had helped 'several hundred people' take their lives since the late 1990s for fees of up to €10,000. Christian groups accused him of undermining the sanctity of life. The German Medical Association threatened him with a €50,000 fine, saying doctors should prolong life, not give their patients lethal poisons. Arnold took them to court over the fine and won. Also in 2014, a right-to-die association in Hamburg caused uproar for offering fast-track assisted suicide consultations in exchange for higher membership fees. Its normal rate was €2,000, with a waiting time of a year, but it introduced a jump-the-queue service for €7,000. Other providers offered discounts for couples interested in dying together. These were grisly bargains that lead many to regard Germany as a Las Vegas of suicide, which was anathema to a country that saw itself as otherwise Christian and conservative. Church groups took to Berlin's streets as legislators sought to crack down on the industry. Arnold and others passionately defended their businesses. The 'death helpers' argued the issue was comparable to abortion: a ban would be unfair to the terminally ill, who shouldn't have to travel to places like Switzerland to end their lives with dignity. The debate ended with parliament banning 'commercial' assisted suicide under Chancellor Angela Merkel in 2015. Subsequently, only friends and relatives who received no money for their assistance could help someone end their life. Legal challenges were launched by right-to-die advocates and people suffering terminal illnesses. In a 2020 judgement, the Constitutional Court said the freedoms enshrined in the country's post-war constitution meant 'the decision to take one's own life must be respected by the state as an act of personal autonomy'. Those who had been put out of work by the previous ruling were free to ply their trade once again. Five years after that decision, it feels like we're back to the Wild West of pre-2015. Assisted suicide in Germany is an unregulated free-for-all. A slew of undertakers, lawyers and independent doctors are facilitating a rising toll of assisted deaths. Last year it was about 1,000, though no one is keeping exact figures. Likewise there's no central registry of providers. Nearly anyone can set up shop. The largest player in the business is the German Association for Humane Dying (DGHS), which charges €4,000 a suicide but offers a discounted €6,000 for couples. It says that of the 623 people for whom it arranged suicide last year (it forwards requests to independent teams of doctors and lawyers), 22 per cent were just 'fed up with life'. Two-thirds were female. DGHS spokesperson Wega Wetzel says: 'Women are more likely to be widowed and 'left over' than men. Women are more likely to plan and communicate, while men often choose 'hard' suicide methods such as hanging.' Equally worrying is the fact that nothing prevents young people from choosing the path of assisted suicide. The youngest case I heard of was a 21-year-old man. The only requirement spelled out by the court was that the person be 'freely responsible' for their decision. At least DGHS, to maintain its reputation, has doctors and lawyers screen applicants to ensure they understand what they're getting into, that they're not being coerced and that they do not show symptoms of mental illness or dementia. But nobody knows how many independent providers are making money with assisted suicide. Nobody knows how they are screening clients, particularly in the more affordable services where standards may be lower. A study last month in the British Medical Journal analysed 77 assisted suicides in Munich. It found that one patient's consultation with a clinic lasted 55 minutes and the death was booked for the next day. The assisting physician in another case was a relative of the patient. In a 2022 case, the suicidal person was judged of sound mind based on a five-year-old mental capacity evaluation. But there is still broad support for the right to die: 80 per cent of Germans feel it's appropriate for the critically ill. But just 30 per cent say it should be available to people with a long life ahead of them, and only 3 per cent for young people having a crisis. Ute Lewitzska, professor for suicide studies at Frankfurt University, sees a fundamental change in how we deal with growing old. 'Supply creates demand,' she says. 'The 2020 court decision didn't just open a crack in the door, it flung the door wide open – and we're not going to be able to close that door again.' The fear is a normalisation of assisted suicide. For some it's a humane way to end one's life; for others it's an easy solution to suffering that's being oversold. Dr Lukas Radbruch, director of palliative care at University Clinic Bonn, has worked with end-of-life patients for three decades. He says many more now ask about assisted suicide but 'so many people are not sufficiently informed. Or we have doubts about how voluntary their choice is. Or we realise they still want to live, even if they say they want to die.' Sometimes a suicidal person needs counselling, not the means to kill themselves. Where do you draw the line? Dr Radbruch asks. In 2023 the German parliament tried to hammer out rules to provide clearer guidance, but MPs couldn't reach a consensus. Like many in the West, Germany seems destined to grope its way through this ethical minefield with no transparent way forward that is satisfactory for all. I do not envy the task ahead for Britain's Lords. My country's experience offers a salutary lesson that for the Bill to become law, they must make black and white what is a painfully grey issue.

Scotsman

44 minutes ago

• Scotsman

‘Bloated' civil service in Scotland hits record size as SNP ministers told to act

Figures highlighted by Scottish Labour have shown the overall growth in the public sector workforce north of the Border. Sign up to our Politics newsletter Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... SNP ministers have been told they must deal with the 'bloated' size of the devolved civil service after the number of workers hit a record high. Figures for the first quarter of this year have revealed civil servants working in Scotland's public sector reached 27,400 full-time equivalent (FTE) roles – the highest at any point under devolution. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad It means about one in every 200 people living in Scotland were working for the Scottish Government in the first three months of this year. First Minister John Swinney addressing the Scotland 2050 conference in Edinburgh. The number employed by 'other public bodies', often referred to as quangos, also rose by another 200 positions to stand at 21,500 FTE. The figures were highlighted by Scottish Labour, which pointed out staff numbers in the NHS workforce had fallen by 200 over the same period to 161,300 FTE. Anas Sarwar's party subsequently accused the SNP Government of being 'desperately out of touch' and of 'putting self-interest over Scotland's interests'. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The public sector employment data goes back to the early devolution era in 1999, when 14,100 civil servants were recorded. A total of 15,800 FTE civil servants worked in the public sector in the first quarter of 2007. The workforce growth has emerged just days after First Minister John Swinney raised the prospect of workforce cutbacks during a keynote speech about national renewal in Glasgow on Monday. Mr Swinney said his Government was committed to avoiding compulsory redundancies as he claimed Scotland's public sector would have to shrink. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Public Finance Minister Ivan McKee earlier this week said the Government would aim to make savings of £1 billion over five years through public sector reform, cutting 'back office costs' to redirect money to the frontline. He said the number of public bodies would be reduced to drive a more efficient system alongside a new review of public sector buildings. Under a different measurement, of the Scottish Government's directly employed staff, numbers have remained between 8,000 and 9,000 FTE since 2021. Scottish Labour Finance spokesperson Michael Marra said: 'Frontline services are stretched to breaking point and NHS staff numbers are falling amid a deadly crisis – but the SNP is sparing no expense on its own bloated operation. 'Once again, the SNP is putting self-interest over Scotland's interests. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad 'This SNP Government is desperately out of touch with the priorities of the people of Scotland. 'A Scottish Labour government will prioritise frontline services over government bureaucracy and pointless quangos.' The Scottish Government said care should be taken when interpreting quarterly changes in workforce sizes, and stressed the Scottish Government's 'core workforce' had come down by 5 per cent since 2022. A spokesman said: 'It is common for there to be seasonal variation in staffing levels in public services, for example as newly qualified nurses enter the workforce each year following graduation. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad 'Public sector workers have a vital role in the funding, development and delivery of key services ranging from education, health and social care, to transport and safeguarding the natural environment – also providing impartial expert advice to the public, parliament, and ministers. 'They have responded to many significant issues in recent times, such as the pandemic, impacts of the war in Ukraine and the cost-of-living crisis, while taking on more devolved responsibilities in areas such as social security, equal opportunities, consumer advocacy and advice, and expanded tax powers.' Union leaders have warned against any plans for widespread job cuts across the public sector. Unison Scottish secretary Lilian Macer this week described any cuts as a 'political choice' rather than a financial necessity, pointing out Holyrood's budget would increase by £2.9 billion a year on average in the wake of Chancellor Rachel Reeves' Spending Review.