FOI: Sturgeon lied to Andrew Neil and then tried to cover it up
Does anyone remember this remarkable exchange during the
last election?
Sturgeon:
Andrew Neil:
“I saw a figure that said that the cuts would have been £50bn
more over 10 years”
Sturgeon:
“I can assure you that’s not the case”
Andrew Neil:
“Where’s the economic model that has done that?”
Sturgeon:
“If you apply those figures…”
Andrew Neil:
“Who’s done that modelling?”
Sturgeon:
“Em, huh, I don.. had that done figure done by…. Scottish Government”
Nicola Strugeon faired about as well as anyone else interviewed
by Andrew Neil, in that she barely survived. But it was this exchange that
really stuck with me. If you watch it very carefully you can see Sturgeon was
incredibly shifty when it came to explaining who had done the modelling she was
talking about?
That struck me as strange. Why would the First Minister be
uneasy explaining that her own government had completed this modelling? Was it
a blurring of the lines between the SNP and Government she was worried about,
or was there something else going on? Had Strugeon lied to Andrew Neil? Had she
claimed there was modelling by the Scottish Government when it didn’t exist?
Sounds like a job for an FOI!
Round 1
I sent my FOI request the following day and kept it precise wanting to see the modelling and any discussion about the suitability of the Scottish Government modelling a party proposal.
I got an answer a few weeks later (earlier than the usual maximum time limit which was unusual in itself).
I have to admit I was a bit deflated when I got the response.
The Scottish Government had indeed done the modelling and it indeed it did seem to back up what Sturgeon said.
Applying the Growth Commission proposals on growing the Scottish budget by 1% less than GDP then the budget would be higher than within the UK.
Looks like there was no lie and no controversy.
But hang on!
I didn't ask about the Scottish budget, I asked about Sturgeon's statement regarding Scottish public spending. Furthermore the Growth Commission's rule was not GDP growth minus 1%, it was to use spending increases below GDP growth to get the deficit down over a decade. This was utterly silent on this point.
From deflation I felt like I was on to something. I've asked about bananas and been given an answer related to spanners. It was either an error or something else was afoot.
Round 2
I therefore fired off an an immediate appeal asking for them to answer my actual question, rather than the one they wanted me to ask.
Remarkably this appeal succeeded and I was given a response to my actual question. The Scottish Government had modelled the Growth Commission recommendations on total Scottish spending (but not over a 10 year period as Strugeon claimed) and it showed that Scottish spending would have been higher but only at the expense of higher borrowing, which violates the Growth Commission rules entirely!
In other words Sturgeon lied to Andrew Neil.
Using the Growth Commission rules Scottish public spending would not have increased, and furthermore Strugeon didn't even have the 10 year analysis that she claimed.
Now the "Em, Huh, I don..." all makes sense.
I sat back, satisfied that the FOI system still had integrity and, despite having to use an appeal, the Scottish Government were able to provide the information that showed that Nicola Sturgoen lied on air.
But I've been here before
But there is another little twist in this story. It's not obvious here but the look and feel of both these memo extracts are very different when you view them online. The second was presented as an almost integral part of a letter whist the first was a standalone extract.
Fair enough that could just be the writing style of the civil servants involved.
But it was only when it reviewed both of them again that I realised that I hadn't been given an entirely new piece of analysis on appeal, I'd been given the same piece only this time with a redaction removed.
It took a few minutes to process. As I've said before one of my hobbies is biblical analysis, and one of the techniques you can use is redaction criticism. If you knew that Luke was copying out parts of Mark then it's not just what he added that mattered, it's what he left out that is of greater importance.
This puts a new light on the FOI.
Firstly, I ask for the analysis showing Scottish public spending.
Secondly I get a reply which at first glance shows the First Minister was right if you miss the fact that I've not asked that question, but the reply deliberately redacted the analysis that answered my question but showed the FM had lied.
It's difficult to see that this was not deliberate and on appeal with a further direct request the civil servants knew that the game was up (I would have gone to the Information commissioner and they knew it).
Sturgeon lied live on air to Andrew Neil, she's used this lie about the Growth Commission rules resulting in higher public spending a few times in the past the question is has she used it in the Scottish Parliament?
Lying to Andrew Neil is stupid, lying to the Scottish Parliament is another matter.
With that in mind I'll just leave this here.
The First Minister to Jackie Ballie in the Scottish Parliament 31 May 2018 (Page 26)
"I have some analysis that I will share with the chamber. It will be of embarrassment to the Tories and, hopefully, of interest to Labour. If the spending recommendations of the growth commission had been applied over the past 10 years, the £2.6 billion real-terms cuts that have been imposed on the budget of the Scottish Government by Tory Governments at Westminster would have been completely wiped out. It would have eradicated austerity in Scotland. That is the reality."
PS thank you to everyone who is asking. I'm much better!
I got an answer a few weeks later (earlier than the usual maximum time limit which was unusual in itself). I have to admit I was a bit deflated when I got the response.
The Scottish Government had indeed done the modelling and it indeed it did seem to back up what Sturgeon said.
Applying the Growth Commission proposals on growing the Scottish budget by 1% less than GDP then the budget would be higher than within the UK.
Looks like there was no lie and no controversy.
But hang on!
I didn't ask about the Scottish budget, I asked about Sturgeon's statement regarding Scottish public spending. Furthermore the Growth Commission's rule was not GDP growth minus 1%, it was to use spending increases below GDP growth to get the deficit down over a decade. This was utterly silent on this point.
From deflation I felt like I was on to something. I've asked about bananas and been given an answer related to spanners. It was either an error or something else was afoot.
Round 2
I therefore fired off an an immediate appeal asking for them to answer my actual question, rather than the one they wanted me to ask.
Remarkably this appeal succeeded and I was given a response to my actual question. The Scottish Government had modelled the Growth Commission recommendations on total Scottish spending (but not over a 10 year period as Strugeon claimed) and it showed that Scottish spending would have been higher but only at the expense of higher borrowing, which violates the Growth Commission rules entirely!In other words Sturgeon lied to Andrew Neil.
Using the Growth Commission rules Scottish public spending would not have increased, and furthermore Strugeon didn't even have the 10 year analysis that she claimed.
Now the "Em, Huh, I don..." all makes sense.
I sat back, satisfied that the FOI system still had integrity and, despite having to use an appeal, the Scottish Government were able to provide the information that showed that Nicola Sturgoen lied on air.
But I've been here before
But there is another little twist in this story. It's not obvious here but the look and feel of both these memo extracts are very different when you view them online. The second was presented as an almost integral part of a letter whist the first was a standalone extract.
Fair enough that could just be the writing style of the civil servants involved.
But it was only when it reviewed both of them again that I realised that I hadn't been given an entirely new piece of analysis on appeal, I'd been given the same piece only this time with a redaction removed.
It took a few minutes to process. As I've said before one of my hobbies is biblical analysis, and one of the techniques you can use is redaction criticism. If you knew that Luke was copying out parts of Mark then it's not just what he added that mattered, it's what he left out that is of greater importance.
This puts a new light on the FOI.
Firstly, I ask for the analysis showing Scottish public spending.
Secondly I get a reply which at first glance shows the First Minister was right if you miss the fact that I've not asked that question, but the reply deliberately redacted the analysis that answered my question but showed the FM had lied.
It's difficult to see that this was not deliberate and on appeal with a further direct request the civil servants knew that the game was up (I would have gone to the Information commissioner and they knew it).
Sturgeon lied live on air to Andrew Neil, she's used this lie about the Growth Commission rules resulting in higher public spending a few times in the past the question is has she used it in the Scottish Parliament?
Lying to Andrew Neil is stupid, lying to the Scottish Parliament is another matter.
With that in mind I'll just leave this here.
The First Minister to Jackie Ballie in the Scottish Parliament 31 May 2018 (Page 26)
"I have some analysis that I will share with the chamber. It will be of embarrassment to the Tories and, hopefully, of interest to Labour. If the spending recommendations of the growth commission had been applied over the past 10 years, the £2.6 billion real-terms cuts that have been imposed on the budget of the Scottish Government by Tory Governments at Westminster would have been completely wiped out. It would have eradicated austerity in Scotland. That is the reality."
PS thank you to everyone who is asking. I'm much better!
That is if you accept the starting point that the budget was cut, the actual real term budget (TME Totals )was not cut.
ReplyDeleteThe Fraser of Allander Institute tells us in a blog it was not and we already know budget is up by over 1 billion + 2019 / 20 to the end of this parliament.
It's like the SNP lie on mitigation on spare bedroom paid by DHP , it is in fact also covered by the UK , in it's first year in 2013 the UK provided £18 million funding and Scot. Gov £20 million and over next two years there is an extra £70 million coming for DHP.
"Between 2010/11 - 2017/18 the F.O.I tells us It gives the full picture of the Scottish Government’s share of public spending in the national accounts – and is an important measure of the government’s overall contribution to demand in the economy. Taking TME as a whole, this has increased by 0.4% in real terms between 2010/11 and 2017/18."
Andrew Neil destroyed Angus Robertson and WOS online over this very point and his interview can be viewed hear.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFUyX_JqdoQ&fbclid=IwAR0g9mwCdZowxr1EbnGxw5VoOfUVL6gD4-HpmYGjhnusOsh6WrFBwKPg764
"It is debateable whether or not comparisons just with 2010/11 are appropriate. 2010/11 marked the year when the Scottish Government’s RDEL budget was at its historic peak following years of significant growth. The 2017/18 RDEL budget in real terms is around that in 2007/08."
It went on to point out one salient point we should all worry about:
"The Scottish Government can – if it wants to – increase its discretionary budget by raising tax. And here lies a weakness in the Scottish Government’s argument"
In our view none of this debate is helped by the way in which the Scottish Government presents its budget.
"The information in the budget isn’t particularly easy to understand. And the selective data that the government presents often appears designed to support their arguments rather than to help inform debate."
Wow, impressive and dogged determination. I often wonder why the Scottish mainstream media do not show more interest in highlighting this sort of thing...if they did perhaps the current administration would lose some of its Teflon coating.
ReplyDeleteBravo to you
Nice to hear from you and that you are well.
ReplyDelete