tag:theconversation.com,2011:/id/topics/snp-manifesto-16259/articlesSNP manifesto – The Conversation2017-05-31T15:00:05Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/786302017-05-31T15:00:05Z2017-05-31T15:00:05ZSNP’s manifesto for Scotland is deliberately cautious – and rightly so<p>The launch of the <a href="https://www.snp.org/manifesto">SNP election manifesto</a> sees the party under more pressure than in some time. The SNP continues to <a href="http://whatscotlandthinks.org">poll very well</a> in Scotland and will surely perform strongly on June 8, but the Conservatives are challenging in a number of seats thanks to Ruth Davidson successfully reinventing her party as the main protectors of the union. How has the SNP responded? Well, conservatively. </p>
<p>The biggest issue for the Scottish Nationalists is of course the independence referendum. The question of a second vote <a href="https://theconversation.com/scottish-independence-back-in-play-after-brexit-shock-with-a-note-of-caution-61457">dramatically returned</a> to front and centre after Scots voted enthusiastically to remain in the EU while the rest of the UK voted to leave – upturning the previous premise that the indyref was a “once in a generation” event. </p>
<p>Nicola Sturgeon, the first minister, <a href="https://theconversation.com/nicola-sturgeon-is-playing-great-politics-with-indyref2-but-victory-still-long-way-off-74784">stepped up</a> the pressure in March by announcing plans for a second indyref in late 2018/early 2019. Theresa May shortly responded that the Scots could have a referendum, but not that quickly, and then called the current election before Sturgeon could announce her next move. </p>
<p>In their <a href="http://votesnp.com/docs/manifesto.pdf">2015 election manifesto</a>, published just a few months after the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/events/scotland-decides/results">first indyref</a>, the SNP made no pledge to hold a second independence referendum at all. All mentions of referendums were either about promises made by the No side during the first indyref or about a potential UK-wide vote on EU membership. </p>
<p>This time, the SNP haven’t made any new pledges regarding a referendum either. The <a href="https://www.snp.org/manifesto">manifesto says</a> only that winning a majority of seats in Scotland will signify a “triple lock” that further strengthens the democratic mandate to hold a referendum “when the time is right”. The existing mandate comes from the pro-independence majority at the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2016/scotland/results">2016 Holyrood election</a> and the <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/scottish-independence-referendum-indyref-2-nicola-sturgeon-vote-date-latest-a7654591.html">majority vote</a> in the Scottish parliament in March in favour of Sturgeon’s 2018/19 plan. </p>
<p>The possibility of a second referendum is framed purely as Scotland having a choice on the terms of the Brexit deal. The manifesto says nothing about any perceived advantages from independence.</p>
<p>It is difficult to interpret all this as anything but backtracking – and indeed Sturgeon <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/30/sturgeon-steps-back-from-independence-referendum-demands">confirmed</a> after the manifesto launch that there is now no definite date for the second vote. The main reason is the <a href="http://whatscotlandthinks.org">opinion polls</a>, with support for independence pretty much where it was in September 2014. Polling has also shown that the Scottish public are not overly enthused by the idea of another referendum anytime soon. </p>
<p>This could lead to the SNP leaking support, but it is very hard to be sure. The party won just shy of 50% of the Scottish vote in 2015, so the only way is likely to be down – possibly regardless of its position on independence. </p>
<p>The SNP also remains, by far, the strongest pro-independence party and can more or less rely on the vast majority of those who voted Yes in 2014. It therefore has a pretty stable voter base to call upon and so arguably has the capacity to be flexible with its strategy and preferred timetable. </p>
<h2>Greatest hits of 2015</h2>
<p>Aside from this, much of the 2017 manifesto is a throwback to 2015. The <a href="https://theconversation.com/nicola-sturgeon-is-overestimating-the-toxicity-of-tories-in-scotland-and-could-pay-for-it-77334">focus on the Conservatives</a> as the party’s main foe in Scotland is sharper, but many of the issues around austerity, social security, tax and defence remain similar. </p>
<p>The party is again calling for the reintroduction of the 50p rate of income tax for top earners, having <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/mar/22/nicola-sturgeon-resists-pressure-for-scottish-income-tax-rises">appeared to</a> cool on it last year. It seeks an end to benefit sanctions (in 2015 it wanted an urgent review), and still wants to ditch the austerity that has been Conservative fiscal policy since 2010. </p>
<p>This continuity is unsurprising: being able to rely on the pro-independence vote takes the pressure off to some extent. The opposition parties were also caught unawares by May’s election announcement, albeit the Conservative lead in the polls should have kept them on guard. </p>
<p>As in 2015, the main slogan is “Stronger for Scotland”. The manifesto repeats the trick of running this alongside a tartanised version of the famous green leather seats in the House of Commons. Historically, the SNP has suffered from the question of relevance at UK elections: why vote SNP when you could vote for another party more likely to participate in government? </p>
<p>This problem mattered less in 2015, and also in 1974, because the constitutional question was high on the agenda. So by trying to play to the same constitutional constituency this time around, the SNP is trying to ensure the benefit continues. </p>
<p>To the same end, the 2017 manifesto has a strong focus on policy areas decided at the UK level, such as defence, foreign affairs and macroeconomic policy. On devolved areas like health and education, it makes a concerted effort to highlight the relevance of the SNP presence in Westminster. </p>
<p>It mentions, for example, the <a href="researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7386/CBP-7386.pdf">extra funding</a> that will accrue to Scotland depending on what the UK government decides to spend on health in England as a reason for the SNP having a significant presence in the Commons. In fact, the expected Conservative majority would mean strong SNP numbers have practically no impact on this area. </p>
<p>The manifesto also profiles some of the SNP’s most impactful MPs over the past two years – particularly <a href="https://theconversation.com/imminent-uk-cuts-to-mothers-tax-credits-are-an-assault-on-womens-human-rights-75014">Alison Thewliss</a>, a leading figure in the campaign against the “rape clause” that forces women to prove that the birth of a third child was the result of rape before they can claim tax credits for the child. The message? SNP MPs are hardworking representatives that can bring about positive change in Westminster. </p>
<p>In sum, the SNP’s 2017 manifesto amounts to a pitch for continuity aimed at delivering a mandate for going all out for independence when the timing feels right. It is about consolidation through bringing into sharper focus the new reality that the SNP’s biggest foe is the Conservatives, and arguing that Scotland ought to have a vote on its European future.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/78630/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Craig McAngus does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The Scottish nationalists’ election pitch is about damage limitation, not a radical sell.Craig McAngus, Lecturer in Politics, University of AberdeenLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/409822015-05-04T12:00:24Z2015-05-04T12:00:24ZManifesto Check: SNP not-so-brave in the face of eurosceptics<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/80140/original/image-20150502-23863-hfapwk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">SNP wants in for Scotland. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/qousqous/1447171274/sizes/l">qousqous/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/">CC BY-NC-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Until the 1980s, the SNP was opposed to membership of the European Community/Union, although there was a small pro-European element within the party. </p>
<p>In the late 1980s – at the same time as the Labour Party – it turned towards Europe. Since then, the EU has become a key supporting framework for the independence project. </p>
<p><a href="http://votesnp.com/docs/manifesto.pdf">The SNP manifesto</a> devotes little space to Europe. It does commit the SNP unequivocally to Europe, and to opposing withdrawal. Unlike the Labour Party, it does not explicitly oppose having an EU referendum, but insists on a double-majority provision, so that withdrawal from the EU would have to be supported by all four home nations. This would suggest that, should England vote to leave, it could be prevented by Scotland, which seems politically difficult, as England could claim that it too has its national rights, and English Conservatives would be outraged. </p>
<h2>#indyref2?</h2>
<p>More likely, an English vote to leave and a Scottish vote to stay would provoke another referendum, since Scotland could only stay in by becoming a separate member state and rejoining. Presumably, in that scenario, we would be spared the warnings from people like former European Commission president José Manuel Barroso that Scotland <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-20664907">could be left in the cold</a>. </p>
<p>But the SNP does not go down this road in its manifesto, no doubt because it does not want to talk about <a href="http://news.stv.tv/scotland-decides/318992-snp-leader-nicola-sturgeon-general-election-is-not-about-new-referendum/">another referendum</a> just now. <a href="http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/2i11ywuxs2/YG-Archive-Pol-Sun-results-230215.pdf">Opinion polls</a> have shown that a vote in England to withdraw from the EU while Scotland votes to stay in is not probable, but is definitely possible.</p>
<h2>Lack of policy preferences</h2>
<p>The second theme is Scotland’s current position in relation to Europe, where the manifesto repeats Scottish government demands for more guaranteed representation in European decision making. This includes a right to participate in the Council of Ministers – which represents the executive governments of the EU’s member states – rather than attend by invitation. </p>
<p>There is less about what the SNP’s policy preferences might be. The manifesto does say that the SNP supports the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23239493">European Arrest Warrant</a> – but even the Conservatives have conceded that. There is nothing on the wider issues under justice and home affairs; a largely devolved matter about which the UK parties have been somewhat confused. The SNP is clearer about freedom of movement, which it supports.</p>
<p>On its vision for a future Europe, the SNP is largely silent. The Conservatives and, to a lesser extent, Labour seem content with a looser Europe, reduced, in the case of the Tories, to the single market. One might have expected more from the SNP on its vision of Europe and what Scotland might contribute to a better and stronger union. Its failure to be bolder reminds us that euroscepticism is not a purely English phenomenon, but something that all parties have to take into account.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/40982/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Keating does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations. The Conversation's Manifesto Checks are produced in partnership with Nesta and the Alliance for Useful Evidence. </span></em></p>SNP are pro-EU, but lack vision for the future.Michael Keating, Chair in Scottish Politics, University of AberdeenLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/411472015-05-03T17:38:50Z2015-05-03T17:38:50ZManifesto Check: the SNP’s top policies<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/80168/original/image-20150503-23890-pio64j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Nicola Sturgeon seems pleased with SNP policies - but do they hold up under scrutiny?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://theconversation.com/election-2015-37936">Scottish Government Images/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>Welcome to The Conversation’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/manifesto-check-2015">Manifesto Check</a>, where academics subject each party’s election manifesto to unbiased, expert scrutiny. Here is what our experts had to say about the Scottish National Party’s top policies. Follow the links for further analysis.</em></p>
<h2>Economy</h2>
<p><strong>David Bell, Professor of Economics at University of Stirling</strong></p>
<p>The publication of the SNP’s 2015 general election manifesto marked a huge change for the party. <a href="http://votesnp.com/docs/manifesto.pdf">This manifesto</a> – unlike its predecessors – sets its sights beyond the Scottish border. It seeks to promote “positive change for the benefit of ordinary people, not just in Scotland, but across the UK”. It makes the case for more “progressive politics”, and positions the SNP to the left of the Labour Party.</p>
<p>Specifically, the manifesto argues for an end to austerity: the SNP proposal is for a 0.5% annual increase in public spending over the course of the next parliament, rather than the reductions in spending which George Osborne laid out in his <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/budget-2015-documents">March 2015 budget</a>. </p>
<p>The SNP claims that increased spending would still lead to a reduction in the deficit as a share of GDP, based on a <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/410051/Opposition_costing_-_SNP_Departmental_spending.pdf">Treasury costing</a> of the policy, which was proposed by the <a href="http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0047/00472778.pdf">Scottish government</a> in March 2015. Under the SNP strategy, the deficit would be 2% of GDP by 2019-20. This stands in contrast to the latest UK government forecast, which predicts of a surplus of 0.3% of GDP by the same time based on the current approach.</p>
<p>Some economists, among them <a href="http://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/">Simon Wren Lewis</a>, <a href="http://niesr.ac.uk/blog/self-defeating-austerity#.VTYpryFVhBc">Jonathan Portes</a> and <a href="http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/?s=UK">Paul Krugman</a>, argue that the coalition government’s focus on deficit reduction is unhealthy in the long term for the UK economy. So the SNP can reasonably claim that its proposal to end austerity has significant intellectual support.</p>
<p>On the other hand, the SNP case is based on forecasts made by the <a href="http://budgetresponsibility.org.uk/economic-fiscal-outlook-march-2015/">Office of Budget Responsibility</a> (OBR), whose record has been, at best, mixed. The <a href="http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fm/2015/01/pdf/fmstatapp.pdf">International Monetary Fund</a> suggests that the OBR’s deficit forecast for the end of the next parliament is too optimistic. And the UK is in the middle of a <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/pensions/9563647/Record-numbers-reach-retirement-age-as-baby-boomers-turn-65.html">retirement boom</a>, which will undoubtedly add to the pressures on public finances.</p>
<p>Read more <a href="https://theconversation.com/manifesto-check-snp-fiscal-plans-could-unite-the-uk-against-scotland-40591">here</a>.</p>
<h2>EU relations</h2>
<p><strong>Michael Keating, Chair in Scottish Politics at University of Aberdeen</strong></p>
<p>Until the 1980s, the SNP was opposed to membership of the European Community/Union, although there was a small pro-European element within the party. </p>
<p>In the late 1980s – at the same time as the Labour Party – it turned towards Europe. Since then, the EU has become a key supporting framework for the independence project. </p>
<p><a href="http://votesnp.com/docs/manifesto.pdf">The SNP manifesto</a> devotes little space to Europe. It does commit the SNP unequivocally to Europe, and to opposing withdrawal. Unlike the Labour Party, it does not explicitly oppose having an EU referendum, but insists on a double-majority provision, so that withdrawal from the EU would have to be supported by all four home nations. This would suggest that, should England vote to leave, it could be prevented by Scotland, which seems politically difficult, as England could claim that it too has its national rights, and English Conservatives would be outraged. </p>
<p>More likely, an English vote to leave and a Scottish vote to stay would provoke another referendum, since Scotland could only stay in by becoming a separate member state and rejoining. Presumably, in that scenario, we would be spared the warnings from people like former European Commission president José Manuel Barroso that Scotland <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-20664907">could be left in the cold</a>. </p>
<p>But the SNP does not go down this road in its manifesto, no doubt because it does not want to talk about <a href="http://news.stv.tv/scotland-decides/318992-snp-leader-nicola-sturgeon-general-election-is-not-about-new-referendum/">another referendum</a> just now. <a href="http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/2i11ywuxs2/YG-Archive-Pol-Sun-results-230215.pdf">Opinion polls</a> have shown that a vote in England to withdraw from the EU while Scotland votes to stay in is not probable, but is definitely possible.</p>
<p>Read more <a href="https://theconversation.com/manifesto-check-snp-not-so-brave-in-the-face-of-eurosceptics-40982">here</a>.</p>
<h2>Health</h2>
<p><strong>Karen Bloor, Professor of Health Economics and Policy at University of York</strong></p>
<p>The Scottish National Party’s <a href="http://votesnp.com/docs/manifesto.pdf">manifesto</a> makes relatively few pledges on health. This is, of course, because policy on health care and the NHS in Scotland are devolved to the Scottish parliament, and are essentially none of Westminster’s business. The UK parliament can affect the overall budget for the NHS, and could amend the formula used to distribute funds to the four constituent governments, but they cannot influence how NHS money is spent in Scotland. </p>
<p>There are <a href="http://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/sites/files/nuffield/publication/revised_four_countries_summary.pdf">major differences between the NHS in Scotland and England</a>. In Scotland the <a href="http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefingsAndFactsheets/S4/SB_11-49.pdf">purchaser-provider split has been abolished</a>, and health boards are responsible for planning and delivering services. Prescriptions are free, <a href="http://www.careinfoscotland.co.uk/what-care-do-i-need/care-at-home/personal-and-nursing-care.aspx">personal care is free for over-65s</a>, and guidelines on new treatments are provided by <a href="http://www.sign.ac.uk/">SIGN</a>, not <a href="https://www.nice.org.uk/">NICE</a>. </p>
<p>These differences should create opportunities for well-designed evaluation and policy analysis. But in practice, efforts to undertake such studies have been “<a href="http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/sites/files/kf/field/field_publication_summary/four-uk-health-systems-jun13.pdf">plagued with difficulty</a>” due to data collection differences and political reluctance. Perhaps, as so often in relation to political reaction to policy evaluation, there is “<a href="http://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/h0027982">safety under the cloak of ignorance</a>”.</p>
<p>Read more <a href="https://theconversation.com/manifesto-check-snp-health-pledges-pose-questions-for-the-whole-uk-40501">here</a>. </p>
<h2>Immigration</h2>
<p><strong>David McCollum, Lecturer in Geography at University of St Andrews</strong></p>
<p>The SNP’s <a href="http://votesnp.com/docs/manifesto.pdf">2015 manifesto</a> does not contain any surprises in terms of immigration policy – or many immigration policies at all. What it does do is acknowledge the contribution that migrants make to Scotland (“Diversity is one of Scotland’s great strengths”) and specifically, it calls for the reintroduction of the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-31998769">Post-Study Work</a> (PSW) visa.</p>
<p>This deserves a cautious welcome. For some time, the higher education sector has protested that the UK’s approach to immigration is harming British universities and also the country in general. This is particularly pressing in Scotland, where the higher education sector makes a <a href="http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/highereducation/Documents/2014/TheImpactOfUniversitiesOnTheUkEconomy.pdf">sizeable contribution to the economy</a> and international students constitute a <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/12/scottish-independence-overseas-student-numbers-survey">larger share of the student body than in the UK as a whole</a>. </p>
<p>In addition, the importance of international students in Scotland’s higher education sector is set to grow: Scotland’s <a href="http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/ageing-population-will-cause-economic-burden-for-scotland.24120715">ageing population</a> means we can expect a decline in the number of young people, and therefore potential students, growing up there.</p>
<p>A re-introduction of the PSW visa, which was abolished by the UK government in 2012, would have echoes of the 2004-2008 <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-14297289">Fresh Talent Initiative</a>, which allowed international students to remain in Scotland for a period of up to two years after graduating. A re-introduced PSW would serve the interests of Scotland’s higher education sector and economy more broadly. Offering international students the chance to work after graduation could give Scottish universities at a competitive advantage over their counterparts in the rest of the UK.</p>
<p>Read more <a href="https://theconversation.com/manifesto-check-snp-migration-plans-focus-on-international-students-40506">here</a>. </p>
<h2>Welfare</h2>
<p><strong>Craig McAngus, Research Fellow at University of Stirling</strong></p>
<p>The SNP’s <a href="votesnp.com/docs/manifesto.pdf">2015 manifesto</a> devotes significant space to welfare. The future of the welfare state was a very important issue in the Scottish referendum campaign, with the Yes campaign arguing the only solution to fixing it was for an independent Scotland to taking full control over social security and the wider welfare state. </p>
<p>Continuing that theme, the 2015 manifesto’s welfare pledges revolve around explaining how the SNP would exert its influence on this policy area if involved in supporting a minority Labour government.</p>
<p>The manifesto outlines changes to a number of aspects of the current social security system, largely centred around changes put in place by Iain Duncan-Smith’s welfare reforms, that the party would want to see scrapped or reformed. It argues that welfare payments ought to be increased at least in line with the cost of living, that the replacement of the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/pip/overview">Disability Living Allowance</a> should be reversed, the roll out of <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31476172">Universal Credit</a> halted, and the <a href="http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/welfare-sanctions-and-conditionality-uk">conditionality and sanctions schemes</a> reviewed. </p>
<p>Read more <a href="https://theconversation.com/manifesto-check-snp-uses-welfare-to-trump-labour-40500">here</a>. </p>
<h2>Energy and environment</h2>
<p><strong>Hugh Compston, Professor of Climate Politics at Cardiff and Ian Bailey, Professor of Environmental Politics at Plymouth University</strong></p>
<p>In government at Holyrood, the Scottish National Party has set <a href="http://www.gov.scot/Resource/Doc/917/0118802.pdf">ambitious targets for renewable energy</a>, and the <a href="http://www.scottishrenewables.com/scottish-renewable-energy-statistics-glance/">spectacular expansion</a> of onshore and offshore wind in Scotland since the SNP came to power in 2007 certainly supports the party’s capacity to deliver. In 2014, renewables achieved a 49.6% share of Scottish gross electricity production, just 0.4% short of the SNP’s 2015 target of 50%. </p>
<p>But the <a href="http://votesnp.com/docs/manifesto.pdf">SNP’s manifesto</a> goes a crucial step further, promising that the party will use its influence at Westminster “to ensure the UK matches, and supports, Scotland’s ambitious commitments to carbon reduction”, namely 30% of energy from renewables by 2020, and 100% of electricity. And the SNP isn’t shy about the policy reforms it would seek:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Changes to the UK’s <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/electricity-market-reform-contracts-for-difference">Contracts for Difference price mechanism</a> for renewables so that it prioritises Scottish projects and encourages the manufacturing of renewables, as well as the generation of renewable energy.</p></li>
<li><p>Reform of transmission arrangements to prevent remote Scottish communities and renewables from being penalised by their distance from UK energy markets. </p></li>
</ul>
<p>Read more <a href="https://theconversation.com/manifesto-check-snp-is-full-of-energy-but-gives-and-takes-on-climate-change-40665">here</a>.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/41147/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Bell receives funding from the ESRC, but this article does not represent the views of the research councils. The Conversation's Manifesto Checks are produced in partnership with Nesta and the Alliance for Useful Evidence. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Craig McAngus does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations. The Conversation's Manifesto Checks are produced in partnership with Nesta and the Alliance for Useful Evidence.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>David McCollum receives funding from the ESRC's Centre for Population Change, but the views expressed in this article are his own and do not reflect those of the research councils. The Conversation's Manifesto Checks are produced in partnership with Nesta and the Alliance for Useful Evidence. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Hugh Compston does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations. The Conversation's Manifesto Checks are produced in partnership with Nesta and the Alliance for Useful Evidence.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ian Bailey does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations. The Conversation's Manifesto Checks are produced in partnership with Nesta and the Alliance for Useful Evidence.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Karen Bloor does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations. The Conversation's Manifesto Checks are produced in partnership with Nesta and the Alliance for Useful Evidence.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Keating does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations. The Conversation's Manifesto Checks are produced in partnership with Nesta and the Alliance for Useful Evidence.</span></em></p>Our experts pick apart the SNP’s top policies.David Bell, Professor of Economics, University of StirlingCraig McAngus, Research Fellow, University of StirlingDavid McCollum, Lecturer, University of St AndrewsHugh Compston, Professor of Climate Politics, Cardiff UniversityIan Bailey, Professor of Environmental Politics, University of PlymouthKaren Bloor, Professor of Health Economics and Policy, University of YorkMichael Keating, Chair in Scottish Politics, University of AberdeenLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/407722015-04-24T13:24:17Z2015-04-24T13:24:17ZManifesto Check: SNP fails to recognise the potential of sport<p>It is worth noting that sport in Scotland, as in Wales, is a devolved function. At the heart of the <a href="http://example.com/">Scottish National Party’s election manifesto</a> is the relationship between the Scottish Parliament and the Westminster Parliament. Sport is only mentioned twice in the 40 page document, dedicating it two sentences in total. And yet there are so many places where it could, and should, have been mentioned.</p>
<p>One of the two things that the SNP argues for in its manifesto is that Scotland should have a greater say in the sports events that are included on the list of sport content which is free to view in Scotland. This is part of a bigger struggle to <a href="http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/mediapolicyproject/2014/11/10/could-scotlands-broadcasting-be-devolved/">move responsibility for broadcasting</a> in Scotland from Westminster to the Scottish parliament. </p>
<p>The manifesto also promises to promote a more active lifestyle through sport. This they should be commended upon, as health remains a <a href="http://www.scotsman.com/news/health/health-inequality-scotland-s-greatest-challenge-1-3586642">significant challenge</a> in Scotland. And we know that running, recreational football and swimming have a particularly <a href="http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2015/01/07/bjsports-2014-093885">positive impact</a> on health.</p>
<h2>Sport’s crucial role</h2>
<p>In comparison to <a href="https://www.partyof.wales/uploads/Plaid_Cymru_2015_Westminster_Manifesto.pdf">Plaid Cymru’s manifesto</a> which specifically states that they will promote sport for all groups, genders, and abilities, the SNP says nothing on sporting inequalities in Scotland. In a specific section on inequality in their manifesto, it mentions only women and the need for <a href="http://www.bbench.co.uk/#!The-Women-5050-campaign-has-the-power-to-change-Scottish-politics/crhk/FD061E17-7651-4D6E-9BE3-4517F0E8B3BC">50:50 quotas</a> on boards, but leaves out other potentially marginalised groups in society. </p>
<p>The manifesto also commits to narrowing the educational attainment gap, but omits to mention the <a href="http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/48/3/265">link between physical activity and educational attainment</a>. And nowhere does the manifesto mention tackling two prominent sources of inequality in participation; namely <a href="http://irs.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/07/05/1012690214541101.abstract">class and geography</a>. Without tackling these issues, there is a real risk of masking the growing polarisation in the consumption of sport between the classes.</p>
<p>The manifesto could also have mentioned that the sport and related industries sector in Scotland accounted for 35,880 jobs, making it <a href="http://www.davidhumeinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Inequality-in-Scotland-New-Perspectives-Bell-et-al.pdf">a significant employer</a> in 2013, ahead of civil engineering and the legal profession. The minimum or living wage remains a very important issue for the SNP, yet nothing is forthcoming in the manifesto in relation to sport. Yet, a precedent has been set by Heart of Midlothian, who were the first football club in Scotland and one of the few in the UK to <a href="http://nationalcollective.com/2014/12/11/heart-of-midlothian-introduce-living-wage/">commit to a living wage</a>.</p>
<h2>Lack of acknowledgement</h2>
<p>Perhaps the Minister for Sport and the Minister for International Development should talk to each other, to harness the soft power of sport far beyond Scotland’s shores. Sport for development which only focuses upon development in Scotland and not international development is only a job half done.</p>
<p>In a country that helped to bring the <a href="https://www.homelessworldcup.org/">Homeless World Cup</a> into being, it would be unfortunate to forget the historical link between sport, poverty and social mobility in Scotland and create more pathways.</p>
<p>The SNP also pleas for safer streets and communities, but fails to acknowledge the place of sport in contributing to social cohesion, crime reduction and the conditions necessary to support higher levels of sports participation, especially amongst girls.</p>
<p>On the question of sport and physical activity, Stronger for Scotland fails to reinforce many of the arguments that were seen to be so important to the 53-page long <a href="http://news.scotland.gov.uk/News/Scotland-s-Sporting-Future-c5f.aspx">McLeish Report</a> into sport in an independent Scotland. In a manifesto that wanted to place such an emphasis on reaching out to communities, there is a silence on the now recognised international role that sport know has in relation to humanitarian aid, peace and conflict resolution. This is indeed worrying, but perhaps these concerns will be addressed ahead of the Scottish elections in 2016.</p>
<p><em>The Conversation’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/manifesto-check-2015">Manifesto Check</a> deploys academic expertise to scrutinise the parties’ plans.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/40772/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Grant Jarvie receives funding from charities and research councils. He currently sits on the board of sportscotland and has provided independent advice on sports policy to governments both within and external to the UK. This article does not reflect the views of the research councils.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Paul Widdop receives funding from charities and research councils. He has previously provided independent advice and consultation services to the Scottish Government on sport and leisure consumption. This article does not reflect the views of the research councils.</span></em></p>The SNP should acknowledge the role sport could have in many of their manifesto pledges.Grant Jarvie, Chair of Sport, The University of EdinburghPaul Widdop, Research Fellow in Cultural and Sport Sociology , Leeds Beckett UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/406652015-04-24T05:09:12Z2015-04-24T05:09:12ZManifesto Check: SNP is full of energy, but gives and takes on climate change<p>In government at Holyrood, the Scottish National Party has set <a href="http://www.gov.scot/Resource/Doc/917/0118802.pdf">ambitious targets for renewable energy</a>, and the <a href="http://www.scottishrenewables.com/scottish-renewable-energy-statistics-glance/">spectacular expansion</a> of onshore and offshore wind in Scotland since the SNP came to power in 2007 certainly supports the party’s capacity to deliver. In 2014, renewables achieved a 49.6% share of Scottish gross electricity production, just 0.4% short of the SNP’s 2015 target of 50%. </p>
<p>But the <a href="http://votesnp.com/docs/manifesto.pdf">SNP’s manifesto</a> goes a crucial step further, promising that the party will use its influence at Westminster “to ensure the UK matches, and supports, Scotland’s ambitious commitments to carbon reduction”, namely 30% of energy from renewables by 2020, and 100% of electricity. And the SNP isn’t shy about the policy reforms it would seek:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Changes to the UK’s <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/electricity-market-reform-contracts-for-difference">Contracts for Difference price mechanism</a> for renewables so that it prioritises Scottish projects and encourages the manufacturing of renewables, as well as the generation of renewable energy.</p></li>
<li><p>Reform of transmission arrangements to prevent remote Scottish communities and renewables from being penalised by their distance from UK energy markets. </p></li>
</ul>
<p>This doubtlessly reflects frustrations over <a href="http://www.shetlandtimes.co.uk/2014/08/15/sounding-off-drew-ratter-on-the-future-of-viking-energy">delays in constructing</a> the Shetland <a href="http://www.vikingenergy.co.uk/interconnector">interconnector</a> – an under-sea high-voltage cable – needed to bring Shetland’s 103-turbine <a href="http://www.vikingenergy.co.uk/the-project">Viking wind farm</a> into operation.</p>
<p>Other aspects of the Scottish government’s track record also suggest that the rest of the UK could learn from the SNP on renewables. One of its most applauded schemes is its streamlined system for consenting to offshore renewables developments, which <a href="http://www.sowfia.eu/fileadmin/sowfia_docs/documents/D4.6_SOWFIA_recommendations_final.A4.web_version.pdf">compares favourably</a> with the more unwieldy English and Welsh licensing systems. The SNP further demonstrates its environmental credentials by maintaining its <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/energy/fracking/11375332/SNP-announces-indefinite-fracking-ban-in-Scotland.html">opposition to fracking</a> and its support for onshore wind, and calling for greater assistance for hydro power. </p>
<p>So far so good, but the SNP also proposes to “keep the pressure on the UK Treasury to do all it can to protect jobs and investment in the oil and gas industry”, which means continued oil and gas extraction and greenhouse gases. The SNP gives with one hand, but to an extent, it takes with the other.</p>
<p>As for the rest, the SNP is pledging to reduce energy bills by funding <a href="https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/environmental-programmes/energy-company-obligation-eco">Ofgem’s Energy Company Obligation</a> from general taxes. But while this might be good politics, given the general public’s sensitivity toward energy prices, it may limit action on energy efficiency, by making it subject to budget constraints.</p>
<p>It also promises to create new powers to force energy companies to pass on savings to consumers, provide greater support for community energy, and establish a UK <a href="http://wwf.panda.org/wwf_news/?205057/Scotland-launches-climate-justice-fund">Climate Justice Fund</a> to help communities in developing countries adapt to climate change. </p>
<p>However, while there’s little doubting the SNP’s convictions and leadership within Scotland, whether it can achieve comparable successes at Westminster depends on whether Labour needs the SNP for a majority in parliament. Controversy has already flared around giving a pro-independence party a major say over UK policy. The manifesto stresses that this election is about strengthening Scotland, not independence – but it’s an act of faith to believe that the two agendas can remain disentangled. The other parties might well prefer to take the lessons, but not the teacher – unless they can’t avoid it.</p>
<p><em>The Conversation’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/manifesto-check-2015">Manifesto Check</a> deploys academic expertise to scrutinise the parties’ plans.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/40665/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ian Bailey does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations. The Conversation's Manifesto Checks are produced in partnership with Nesta and the Alliance for Useful Evidence.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Hugh Compston does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations. The Conversation's Manifesto Checks are produced in partnership with Nesta and the Alliance for Useful Evidence.</span></em></p>The SNP wants the UK to match Scotland’s commitments to carbon reduction.Ian Bailey, Professor of Environmental Politics, University of PlymouthHugh Compston, Professor of Climate Politics, Cardiff UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/405912015-04-23T09:10:49Z2015-04-23T09:10:49ZManifesto Check: SNP fiscal plans could unite the UK – against Scotland<p>The publication of the SNP’s 2015 general election manifesto marked a huge change for the party. <a href="http://votesnp.com/docs/manifesto.pdf">This manifesto</a> – unlike its predecessors – sets its sights beyond the Scottish border. It seeks to promote “positive change for the benefit of ordinary people, not just in Scotland, but across the UK”. It makes the case for more “progressive politics”, and positions the SNP to the left of the Labour Party.</p>
<p>Specifically, the manifesto argues for an end to austerity: the SNP proposal is for a 0.5% annual increase in public spending over the course of the next parliament, rather than the reductions in spending which George Osborne laid out in his <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/budget-2015-documents">March 2015 budget</a>. </p>
<h2>Ending austerity</h2>
<p>The SNP claims that increased spending would still lead to a reduction in the deficit as a share of GDP, based on a <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/410051/Opposition_costing_-_SNP_Departmental_spending.pdf">Treasury costing</a> of the policy, which was proposed by the <a href="http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0047/00472778.pdf">Scottish government</a> in March 2015. Under the SNP strategy, the deficit would be 2% of GDP by 2019-20. This stands in contrast to the latest UK government forecast, which predicts of a surplus of 0.3% of GDP by the same time based on the current approach.</p>
<p>Some economists, among them <a href="http://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/">Simon Wren Lewis</a>, <a href="http://niesr.ac.uk/blog/self-defeating-austerity#.VTYpryFVhBc">Jonathan Portes</a> and <a href="http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/?s=UK">Paul Krugman</a>, argue that the coalition government’s focus on deficit reduction is unhealthy in the long term for the UK economy. So the SNP can reasonably claim that its proposal to end austerity has significant intellectual support.</p>
<p>On the other hand, the SNP case is based on forecasts made by the <a href="http://budgetresponsibility.org.uk/economic-fiscal-outlook-march-2015/">Office of Budget Responsibility</a> (OBR), whose record has been, at best, mixed. The <a href="http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fm/2015/01/pdf/fmstatapp.pdf">International Monetary Fund</a> suggests that the OBR’s deficit forecast for the end of the next parliament is too optimistic. And the UK is in the middle of a <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/pensions/9563647/Record-numbers-reach-retirement-age-as-baby-boomers-turn-65.html">retirement boom</a>, which will undoubtedly add to the pressures on public finances.</p>
<p>In light of these circumstances, there is now a spectrum of proposals for how quickly different parties will deal with the deficit. The Conservatives are at one extreme, favouring a rapid reduction in the deficit, while the SNP are at the other, suggesting a very muted response. </p>
<h2>Scotland’s deficit problem</h2>
<p>But the SNP has another economic issue on its plate: Scotland’s deficit. <a href="http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2015/03/1422">The Scottish government estimated</a> that there was a difference of £12.4 billion (or 8.1% of GDP) between the amount of taxes raised and public spending in Scotland in 2013/14. In comparison, the deficit for the UK as a whole was £97.3 billion (or 5.6% of GDP) in the same period. </p>
<p>During the recession, Scotland’s deficit broadly tracked that of the UK as a whole. The increase in 2013/14 was principally caused by the collapse in the price of oil and the consequent downturn in North Sea oil revenues. The <a href="http://scotgov.publishingthefuture.info/publication/scotlands-future">economic case for independence</a>, published before the referendum, relied heavily on North Sea oil revenues. The Scottish Government estimated that these would be £7.3 billion in 2015/16: the latest OBR forecast is that North Sea corporation tax and petroleum revenue tax will only raise £0.7 billion in 2015/16.</p>
<p>Until recently, the SNP was arguing for “full fiscal autonomy”, which would mean the Scottish Government becoming responsible for all taxes and public spending in Scotland. It would also involve making a payment to the UK government for those public services shared with the rest of the UK such as defence, foreign affairs, development aid and debt interest. </p>
<p>But with such a large deficit to deal with, full fiscal autonomy (and indeed independence) becomes much less attractive. The <a href="http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/7652">IFS</a> estimates that the Scottish Government would have to find £7.6 billion to continue funding its public services at their current rate, while reducing the Scottish deficit to the same level as the rest of the UK. Over time, while Scotland’s deficit would fall as a share of GDP, the <a href="http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/7722">IFS</a> prediction is that the difference between the Scottish and UK deficits will continue to grow.</p>
<h2>A change in rhetoric</h2>
<p>It is therefore not surprising that full fiscal autonomy is no longer a “red line” issue for the SNP, which must be delivered quickly. Instead, the phrase has been replaced by the somewhat more opaque “full fiscal responsibility”, which appears to be a more long-term objective. And for the short-term, the manifesto supports using the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29477233">Barnett Formula</a> as the main mechanism for determining Scotland’s finances. This is not surprising, given <a href="http://www.assembly.wales/NAfW%20Documents/09-012.pdf%20-%2026032009/09-012-English.pdf">claims</a> that this mechanism has provided Scotland with a relatively generous share of UK public finances since it was introduced in the 1970s.</p>
<p>And although SNP support for the Smith Commission proposals on increased tax powers for Scotland was lukewarm at best, the manifesto is clear: “We will demand that the proposals of the Smith Commission are delivered quickly and in full.” If enacted, the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/397079/Scotland_EnduringSettlement_acc.pdf">proposals</a> will leave Scotland with an extremely complex set of fiscal arrangements, incorporating new taxes, welfare powers and an adjusted Barnett Formula. </p>
<p>But there is a chance that the legislation itself could destabilise the next administration. In the present climate, a continuation of Barnett while giving Scotland new tax powers is likely to encounter significant opposition outside Scotland, some of which may cut across party lines.</p>
<p><em>The Conversation’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/manifesto-check-2015">Manifesto Check</a> deploys academic expertise to scrutinise the parties’ plans.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/40591/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Bell receives funding from the ESRC, but this article does not represent the views of the research councils. The Conversation's Manifesto Checks are produced in partnership with Nesta and the Alliance for Useful Evidence. </span></em></p>From autonomy to responsibility: the SNP’s manifesto goes beyond the Scottish border.David Bell, Professor of Economics, University of StirlingLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/405112015-04-22T17:54:43Z2015-04-22T17:54:43ZHere’s where Britain’s political parties stand (and fall down) on immigration<p>Immigration clearly ranks as <a href="https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3542/EconomistIpsos-MORI-March-2015-Issues-Index.aspx">one of the most important issues</a> for voters in the lead up to the UK’s election. But public opinion doesn’t always match up with the evidence, and political parties can be led in different directions by both. With this in mind, the following takes stock of the different policies about immigration, as outlined in the parties’ manifestos. </p>
<h2>Where do they stand?</h2>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/manifesto-check-on-immigration-ukip-offers-only-confusion-40274">UKIP</a> makes the strongest claims about immigration causing harm. The <a href="https://theconversation.com/manifesto-check-conservatives-talk-tough-but-bring-nothing-new-on-immigration-40336">Conservative</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/manifesto-check-labours-immigration-policies-are-led-by-public-opinion-not-evidence-40109">Labour</a> manifestos also tend to emphasise the negatives of immigration, real or perceived. </p>
<p><a href="http://b.3cdn.net/labouruk/e1d45da42456423b8c_vwm6brbvb.pdf#page=50">Labour says</a> the number of low-skilled immigrants is too high and points to no high-skilled categories where they’d welcome increase. Both the <a href="https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/manifesto2015/ConservativeManifesto2015.pdf#page=31">Conservatives</a> and <a href="https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/ukipdev/pages/1103/attachments/original/1429295050/UKIPManifesto2015.pdf#page=10">UKIP</a> want migration to be lower overall. In their <a href="https://www.conservatives.com/%7E/media/files/activist%20centre/press%20and%20policy/manifestos/manifesto2010#page=32">2010 manifesto</a>, the Conservatives proposed to reduce net migration to the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13083781">tens of thousands</a> – a “goal” which the coalition government <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31638174">dramatically missed</a>. This time around, the party refers only to an “ambition”. </p>
<p>In contrast, the <a href="https://theconversation.com/manifesto-check-lib-dems-take-a-more-liberal-approach-to-immigration-40259">Liberal Democrats</a> and the <a href="https://theconversation.com/manifesto-check-the-green-party-offers-a-new-take-on-immigration-40186">Green Party</a> stress the benefits of immigration. Both parties propose more open policies, such as the restoration of post-study work visas for students and – in the case of the Greens – the abolition of minimum income requirements for the entry of spouses. The Greens are the most thoughtful on the global context, but their openness toward immigration is tempered by some scepticism toward immigration for business reasons or by the more affluent, citing worries about impacts on small businesses and house prices. </p>
<p>Among parties standing only in some parts of the UK, the <a href="https://theconversation.com/manifesto-check-snp-migration-plans-focus-on-international-students-40506">SNP</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/manifesto-check-plaid-cymru-wants-immigration-policy-to-address-welsh-needs-39589">Plaid Cymru</a> and the <a href="http://allianceparty.org/document/manifesto/alliance-2015-westminster-manifesto#document">Alliance Party</a> are all fairly liberal, and concerned with the regional suitability of immigration criteria. Of the Northern Irish parties, the <a href="http://uup.org/assets/images/uup%20ge%20manifesto.pdf#page=20">Ulster Unionist Party</a> and the <a href="http://dev.mydup.com/images/uploads/publications/DUP_Manifesto_2015_LR.pdf#page=9">Democratic Unionist Party</a> support immigration in moderation, while the nationalist <a href="http://www.sdlp.ie/site/assets/files/42192/westminster_manifesto.pdf#page=24">Social Democratic and Labour Party</a> and <a href="http://www.sinnfein.ie/files/2015/Westminster_Manifesto_2015_web.pdf">Sinn Féin</a> are more or less silent on the matter.</p>
<h2>An EU issue</h2>
<p>UKIP’s approach is the most innovative and the most restrictive. The party wants to make sharp cuts to levels of immigration; an approach which is tied to their core proposal of withdrawing from the EU. Instead, the party wants to establish a <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29594642">points-based system</a> which treats Commonwealth migrants comparably to European ones. </p>
<p>The Conservatives tie the issue of migration to a renegotiation of the terms of EU membership, as do the UUP. These parties question whether free movement meets the needs of established EU members. On the other hand, the SDLP’s positive comments on “<a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/335088/SingleMarketFree_MovementPersons.pdf">free flow of people</a>” within the EU is as close as the party comes to discussing immigration.</p>
<p>EU withdrawal is advocated also by several parties outside the mainstream whose manifestos talk at length about immigration. The <a href="http://issuu.com/communist_party/docs/ge_manifesto">Communist Party</a> and <a href="http://www.socialist-labour-party.org.uk/SLP%20Manifesto%202015%20pdf.pdf#page=8">Socialist Labour Party</a> on the left, for example, regard the EU as an organisation promoting capitalist interests at workers’ expense. Both propose immigration policies outside the EU with humanitarian emphasis. The Socialist Labour Party propose a policy of zero net migration with priority for Commonwealth immigrants. For the <a href="http://www.englishdemocrats.org.uk/policies/full-manifesto.html#3.15">English Democrats</a> on the right, withdrawal not only from the EU but from a wide range of international agreements is regarded as essential to regaining full border control. </p>
<h2>Boon, or burden on benefits?</h2>
<p>For several parties, concerns about immigration from the EU focus on <a href="https://theconversation.com/hard-evidence-does-benefits-tourism-exist-22279">migrant benefit claims</a>. Yet evidence suggests there is <a href="http://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/Preston-2014-The_Economic_Journal.pdf#page=5">little reason</a> to consider this a serious problem, and that restricting entitlements is unlikely therefore to discourage immigration. </p>
<p>The Conservatives, Labour, UKIP and DUP all want to delay receipt of benefits by migrants in various ways. The Conservative and Labour manifestos propose to rule out payment of <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/oct/23/child-benefit-payments-outside-uk">child benefit</a> for children abroad. This will raise issues with <a href="http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/amending-eu-free-movement-law-what-are.html">EU law</a>, whether renegotiating terms of the UK’s EU membership or not.</p>
<p>Stresses on public services are a prominent theme in the Conservative, Labour and UKIP manifestos alike. The Conservatives propose a fund to alleviate such pressures, which bears similarities to a <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/aug/06/fund-impact-immigration-scrapped">fund scrapped early in the last parliament</a>. </p>
<p>The best evidence suggests that migrants <a href="http://www.voxeu.org/article/fiscal-effects-immigration-uk">pay taxes</a> which more than cover the cost of benefits received, <a href="http://www.cream-migration.org/files/Migration-FactSheet.pdf#page=9">in cash</a> or <a href="http://www.voxeu.org/article/immigration-and-public-finances">in kind</a>. The net contribution of migrants should alleviate the cost of providing public services. </p>
<h2>Where’s the evidence?</h2>
<p>Costs imposed by migrants on the <a href="http://www.cream-migration.org/files/Migration-FactSheet.pdf#page=13">NHS</a> are mentioned by the Conservatives, and are repeatedly emphasised in UKIP’s discussion of immigration. In fact, immigrants are <a href="http://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/Preston-2014-The_Economic_Journal.pdf#page=9">typically healthier</a> than natives on arrival, becoming more like them the longer they stay, and make <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-5890.2013.00177.x/epdf">similar use of health services</a>.</p>
<p>Nonetheless, UKIP would require that most migrants arrive with private insurance. Unsurprisingly, the issue is also prominent for the <a href="http://nhap.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/National-Health-Action-Party-Election-Manifesto-2015.pdf#page=37">National Health Action party</a>. It proposes that stronger efforts be made to <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/329789/NHS_Implentatation_Plan_Phase_3.PDF">recover the costs</a> of treating migrants, but <a href="http://www.irr.org.uk/pdf2/Access_to_Health_Care.pdf">opposes refusing treatment</a> to anyone on ethical, economic and medical grounds.</p>
<p>Crime is another issue raised by Conservatives, Labour and UKIP in relation to immigration. In fact, evidence suggests migration is <a href="http://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/Preston-2014-The_Economic_Journal.pdf#page=9">unassociated</a> with <a href="http://www.cream-migration.org/files/Migration-FactSheet.pdf#page=19">changes in crime rates</a>.</p>
<p>Housing also figures in some manifestos. The Conservative party worry about use of social housing, and UKIP about housing shortages. The <a href="https://www.greenparty.org.uk/assets/files/manifesto/Green_Party_2015_General_Election_Manifesto.pdf#page=71">Greens</a>, on the other hand, worry about richer migrants pushing up house prices. Research on <a href="http://www.nuffield.ox.ac.uk/People/sites/Stephen.Nickell/Publication%20Files/Too%20Many%20People%20in%20Britain-May%202012.pdf">migration and housing</a> is still developing, but evidence does not point to strong upward pressure on <a href="http://www.cream-migration.org/files/Migration-FactSheet.pdf#page=17">house prices</a>.</p>
<h2>Revival of student opportunity</h2>
<p>UKIP alone discusses the burden which immigration imposes on schools. Such a burden might simply arise from growing numbers, or it might follow from the difficulty of educating children of mixed backgrounds together. The <a href="http://www.voxeu.org/article/impact-immigration-educational-attainment-natives">international evidence</a> on <a href="http://www.voxeu.org/article/how-immigrant-children-affect-academic-achievement-native-dutch-children">the latter</a> is <a href="http://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/Preston-2014-The_Economic_Journal.pdf#page=8">ambiguous</a>, but negative effects of high proportions of non-native speakers in the classroom on the performance of British-born children <a href="http://www.voxeu.org/article/language-barriers-impact-non-native-english-speakers-classroom">seems to be ruled out</a>. </p>
<p>Instead, the treatment of foreign university students is the biggest issue linking education and migration. Liberal Democrats, Conservatives and Labour promise crackdowns on <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/dec/02/students-private-higher-education-colleges-taxpayer-subsidy-benefits-nao-loans">bogus institutions</a>. </p>
<p>UKIP and the <a href="https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/libdems/pages/8907/attachments/original/1429028133/Liberal_Democrat_General_Election_Manifesto_2015.pdf#page=124">Lib Dems</a> pledge to <a href="http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_396645.pdf#page=17">separate students</a> in official statistics. Since the Lib Dems are not proposing to base targets on such statistics, the point of this is unclear. For UKIP, who do want to keep immigration down, but are not so averse to students, it makes more sense to exclude students from the count. </p>
<p>The most significant proposal here is reintroduction of the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/major-changes-to-student-visa-system">post-study work route</a>, abolished under the current government, whereby students are permitted to work for two years after completing study. The Greens promise unconditional restoration, Plaid and the SNP propose restoration for students in Wales or Scotland, and the Lib Dems propose a reintroduction specifically for STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) graduates. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.voxeu.org/article/how-highly-educated-immigrants-raise-native-wages">STEM students</a> have been <a href="http://www.voxeu.org/article/international-graduate-students-are-critical-scientific-discovery">shown to be particularly associated</a>) with <a href="http://www.cream-migration.org/files/Migration-FactSheet.pdf#page=7">innovation, trade and entrepreneurship</a> – <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/24/immigration-tax-skills-brilliance-quality-life">issues</a> which are largely absent from the discussion about migration in any manifesto.</p>
<h2>Little effect on labour</h2>
<p>A <a href="https://fullfact.org/immigration/migration_policy_since_election-41297">cap on skilled immigration</a> would be retained by Conservative, Labour and UKIP. Indeed, UKIP would put a five-year moratorium on any unskilled immigration whatsoever, and restrict skilled immigration to 50,000 visas per year. By way of comparison, about <a href="http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/reports/highly-skilled-migration-uk-2007-2013">221,000 highly skilled non-student migrants</a> are estimated to have entered the UK for work in the three years prior to 2013. </p>
<p>Evidence on how immigration affects <a href="http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/ea019.pdf#page=8">average wages</a> and <a href="http://www.cream-migration.org/commentsarticle.php?blog=3">employment</a> finds no significant adverse effects. If there are labour market effects, then they hit <a href="http://blog.oup.com/2012/07/what-effect-does-immigration-have-on-wages/">workers on the lowest wages</a>. The Conservatives, Labour, the Lib Dems and the Greens all propose crackdowns on <a href="http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/11/migrant-workers-are-being-exploited-uk-we-must-take-action">exploitation</a>, through new legislation or greater monitoring.</p>
<p>Questions of <a href="http://www.ucl.ac.uk/%7Euctpb21/Cpapers/languageproficiency.pdf">language proficiency</a> appear in the manifestos of Conservatives, Labour, Lib Dems and Greens. The emphasis shifts from <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/420506/20150406_immigration_rules_appendix_b_final.pdf">testing migrants’ English</a> to offering English lessons, as the tone of the manifesto becomes more liberal.</p>
<h2>Regional differences</h2>
<p>To the extent that labour market restrictions are set nationally, they may be inappropriate for the demands of <a href="http://niesr.ac.uk/blog/migration-growth-and-jobs-positive-agenda">particular regions</a>. <a href="https://www.partyof.wales/uploads/Plaid_Cymru_2015_Westminster_Manifesto.pdf#page=38">Plaid</a>, the <a href="http://votesnp.com/docs/manifesto.pdf#page=9">SNP</a> and the Alliance Party (in Northern Ireland) all call for greater regional sensitivity of policy in various respects, and complain about policies set to suit the south of England. But the unionist parties of Northern Ireland make no similar calls, and the nationalist parties of Northern Ireland say nothing on the issue.</p>
<p>One respect in which policy may be regionally discriminatory is nationally set <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/family-and-private-life-rule-changes-9-july-2012">income thresholds</a> for <a href="http://www.parliament.uk/Templates/BriefingPapers/Pages/BPPdfDownload.aspx?bp-id=sn06724">family union</a>, which may hurt families more in lower income regions. Some suggest such policies are <a href="https://www.freemovement.org.uk/one-rule-for-the-rich/">intrinsically unjust</a>. Plaid proposes a review; the Greens would drop the policy altogether. The Conservatives alone propose a toughening, while UKIP worries about <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/256257/Sham_Marriage_and_Civil_Partnerships.pdf">sham marriages</a>.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32205970">Full exit checks</a>, <a href="https://fullfact.org/immigration/count_people_in_and_out_uk-37635">frequently promised</a> and already <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/exit-checks-on-passengers-leaving-the-uk/exit-checks-fact-sheet">partly delivered</a>, are proposed by Conservatives, Labour, Lib Dems and UKIP. Labour and UKIP both promise to expand border staff.</p>
<h2>Protecting the persecuted</h2>
<p>All main parties except the Conservatives reaffirm support for <a href="http://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/migration-uk-asylum">protecting victims of persecution</a>. Labour, the Lib Dems and the Greens would end <a href="https://detentioninquiry.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/immigration-detention-inquiry-executive-summary.pdf">indefinite detention</a>. The Lib Dems and the Greens go further, advocating <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/299415/Permission_to_Work_Asy_v6_0.pdf">allowing asylum seekers to work</a>. </p>
<p>For those whose asylum claims fail, the Greens suggest a review of legal status, while the Lib Dems would abolish the <a href="http://www.redcross.org.uk/en/About-us/Advocacy/Refugees/Azure-payment-card">Azure card</a> system. The Greens want applicability of legal aid to immigration and asylum work extended.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/40511/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ian Preston has been part of teams receiving funding from the Home Office, Migration Advisory Committee and Low Pay Commission for past research on migration.</span></em></p>Our immigration expert evaluates the manifestos of 16 political parties, to see how their policies on immigration stack up.Ian Preston, Professor in the Department of Economics, UCLLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/405872015-04-22T10:03:48Z2015-04-22T10:03:48ZWhat’s wrong with political manifestos, and how to fix them<p>The flurry of 2015 election manifesto releases has come to a close and <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/manifesto-check-2015">much analysis</a> has already been offered of what the various parties are offering. Understandably much of the focus has been on the likelihood these policies will win votes in what is surely the most tightly fought electoral contest for a generation. </p>
<p>But should we not be asking a deeper question about these manifestos: how far do they allow the country to actually be governed? Too little thought has been given to whether the policies contained within them can actually be implemented in practice. </p>
<p>Part of the issue is inevitably fiscal. Ed Balls, Labour’s Shadow Chancellor, has <a href="https://www.politicshome.com/economy-and-work-party-politics/articles/opinion/ed-balls-mp-obr-should-audit-all-manifestos">sensibly argued</a> that the Office for Budgetary Responsibility should independently scrutinise the fiscal plans of each of the parties, making the implications of each prospectus for taxing and spending more transparent. </p>
<p>But it’s also important to ensure that policies can be delivered in the real world. Too many fiascos have originated from parties failing to adequately stress-test new policy ideas. Take, for example, the Conservatives’ “community charge” (otherwise known as the <a href="https://theconversation.com/scotland-decides-14-what-does-alex-salmond-owe-the-poll-tax-25179">poll tax</a>) from the 1987 election manifesto. That later became unworkable due to its unfairness. Then there were Labour’s individual learning accounts, which had to be abandoned in 2001 following widespread <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/oct/25/furthereducation.educationincrisis">financial fraud</a>.</p>
<p>The problem is that once commitments are enshrined in party manifestos they are then difficult to break, even if they look increasingly unworkable, or do not provide value for money. </p>
<p>What’s the answer? The civil service should have a formal role in working with politicians and advisers to scrutinise policy ideas prior to their inclusion in manifestos. At present, there are <a href="http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/briefing-papers/SN03318/preelection-contacts-between-civil-servants-and-opposition-parties">rules</a> governing the process by which the major opposition party consults Whitehall officials, but in practice these amount to cursory discussions between shadow cabinet ministers and permanent secretaries. The terms of engagement remain too limited.</p>
<p>Prior to 1997, civil servants in major government departments were forced to consult <a href="http://www.lrb.co.uk/v17/n05/rw-johnson/megalo">Will Hutton’s The State We’re In</a> to discover more about New Labour’s plans for government. Little did they know that Blair’s Labour Party had already jettisoned many of Hutton’s ideas for a “stakeholder economy” on the basis that they might concede too much power to the trade unions. </p>
<p>Equally, in 2010 a profusion of books about Cameron’s vision of the Big Society didn’t provide much of a guide to the coalition government’s actual programme. Even the government of the day cannot involve the civil service formally in manifesto preparation for the next parliament, as I remember from my time as a special adviser prior to the 2010 general election. </p>
<p>Whether in government or opposition, the civil service is often left in the dark about each of the major parties’ intentions. This is dysfunctional and inimical to good government. Politicians rely on civil servants to turn abstract ideas into practical policy. </p>
<p>The Office for Budgetary Responsibility and key departments must be allowed to work alongside all the main parties to produce a fiscal plan for their policies, as well as helping them work out how they’d actually implement them if they formed a government. </p>
<p>Now, more than ever, we need political parties that are sufficiently prepared for governing. The political environment has become considerably more complex as the result of greater devolution in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, as well as membership of the European Union. </p>
<p>Tony Blair admitted in his own memoirs that he had <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11148564">little idea of how to govern</a> after being elected in 1997, never having run a large organisation before. The coalition government similarly faced huge obstacles after 2010, in part due to its lack of experience. Reforming Whitehall’s role in working with the major parties would help to remedy this gap in the governance of Britain.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/40587/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Patrick Diamond is a member of the Labour party. He is formally a government special adviser. </span></em></p>Civil servants are left out of manifesto writing, and we’re all worse off for it.Patrick Diamond, Lecturer in Public Policy, Queen Mary University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/405012015-04-21T13:36:56Z2015-04-21T13:36:56ZManifesto check: SNP health pledges pose questions for the whole UK<p>The Scottish National Party’s <a href="http://votesnp.com/docs/manifesto.pdf">manifesto</a> makes relatively few pledges on health. This is, of course, because policy on health care and the NHS in Scotland are devolved to the Scottish parliament, and are essentially none of Westminster’s business. The UK parliament can affect the overall budget for the NHS, and could amend the formula used to distribute funds to the four constituent governments, but they cannot influence how NHS money is spent in Scotland. </p>
<p>There are <a href="http://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/sites/files/nuffield/publication/revised_four_countries_summary.pdf">major differences between the NHS in Scotland and England</a>. In Scotland the <a href="http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefingsAndFactsheets/S4/SB_11-49.pdf">purchaser-provider split has been abolished</a>, and health boards are responsible for planning and delivering services. Prescriptions are free, <a href="http://www.careinfoscotland.co.uk/what-care-do-i-need/care-at-home/personal-and-nursing-care.aspx">personal care is free for over-65s</a>, and guidelines on new treatments are provided by <a href="http://www.sign.ac.uk/">SIGN</a>, not <a href="https://www.nice.org.uk/">NICE</a>. </p>
<p>These differences should create opportunities for well-designed evaluation and policy analysis. But in practice, efforts to undertake such studies have been “<a href="http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/sites/files/kf/field/field_publication_summary/four-uk-health-systems-jun13.pdf">plagued with difficulty</a>” due to data collection differences and political reluctance. Perhaps, as so often in relation to political reaction to policy evaluation, there is “<a href="http://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/h0027982">safety under the cloak of ignorance</a>”.</p>
<h2>The balance of power</h2>
<p>The manifesto highlights differences between Scotland and the rest of the UK, but also shares priorities with some of other parties, like <a href="https://theconversation.com/manifesto-check-lib-dems-offer-detailed-and-coherent-plans-for-health-40258">the Liberal Democrats</a>. There is a focus on health and social care integration (£300 million over three years for an integrated care fund, and £30 million for telehealth), and on mental health (£100 million for an innovation fund over five years), including investment in child and adolescent services. </p>
<p>But these and other policies outlined (including investment to tackle delayed discharges, and more specialist nursing care) would not be delivered by the SNP in Westminster, but in Holyrood.</p>
<p>This manifesto, which aims to “make Scotland’s voice heard at Westminster”, includes only two substantial pledges that could be delivered by the UK parliament. The first is to protect NHS Scotland’s finances, increasing NHS funding across the UK by £9.5 billion above inflation. This, the party says, will deliver an extra £2 billion to NHS Scotland by 2020-21. This presumably assumes no change in the allocation of NHS funds to Scotland, which is still based largely on the Barnett Formula. </p>
<p>The Barnett Formula was intended as a <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldselect/ldbarnett/139/13907.htm">short-term expedient in 1978</a>, and has been repeatedly criticised ever since. As far back as 1980, Scotland’s NHS was <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0047279400001355">reported to be over-funded by around 15%</a>, largely at the expense of England. More recently, a <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldselect/ldbarnett/139/139.pdf">House of Lords Select Committee report</a> described the formula as “arbitrary and unfair”, on the basis that it has not taken account of changing population levels and economic needs.</p>
<p>The SNP also commits to “vote against any further privatisation of the NHS in England and back any moves to restore it to a fully public service”. As it stands, SNP MPs at Westminster can affect the English NHS in ways that English MPs cannot affect NHS Scotland. There has already been political tension over <a href="https://theconversation.com/dilly-dallying-coalition-is-still-baffled-by-the-english-question-35606">proposals to introduce “English votes for English laws”</a> (EVEL). </p>
<h2>Policy that’s good for you</h2>
<p>The manifesto also includes a number of commitments which, while not influencing health care, may have the potential to influence population health. The strategy to reduce emissions, with ambitious targets for carbon reduction, should <a href="http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(09)61759-1/abstract">directly benefit respiratory and cardiovascular health</a>. Pledges regarding in-work poverty, child poverty, affordable housing, job creation and supporting unpaid carers all have the potential, at least in theory, to influence <a href="http://www.instituteofhealthequity.org/projects/fair-society-healthy-lives-the-marmot-review">social determinants of health</a>. </p>
<p>Given the poor health profile of Scotland <a href="http://www.gcph.co.uk/assets/0000/3606/Scottish_Mortality_in_a_European_Context_2012_v11_FINAL_bw.pdf">in comparison with other European countries</a>, and stubborn <a href="http://www.gov.scot/Resource/Doc/229649/0062206.pdf">health inequalities within Scotland</a>, this focus is to be welcomed, particularly as <a href="http://www.gcph.co.uk/assets/0000/0087/Investigating_a_Glasgow_Effect_for_web.pdf">there is evidence</a> that deprivation is only one part of a complex picture driving “excess” mortality. </p>
<p>The manifesto also highlights public health policies already implemented in Scotland aiming to reduce reduce alcohol and tobacco consumption, promote physical activity, and remove financial barriers to treatment and care. </p>
<p>Although the SNP manifesto does not offer comprehensive, detailed plans for health – for the simple reason that these would not be relevant to a Westminster election – it does pose important and complex questions about how health funding should be determined within the UK, and who gets to make decisions about the NHS. </p>
<p><em>The Conversation’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/manifesto-check-2015">Manifesto Check</a> deploys academic expertise to scrutinise the parties’ plans.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/40501/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Karen Bloor does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations. The Conversation's Manifesto Checks are produced in partnership with Nesta and the Alliance for Useful Evidence. </span></em></p>The devolved health care in Scotland raises questions on the fairness of the funding for health in the UK.Karen Bloor, Professor of Health Economics and Policy, University of YorkLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.