Integrity Talking Points

18 March 2013

A reminder of the self serving character of international relations is provided by recent developments in the Scottish independence debate.  The Scottish Government, led by the Scottish National Party which as a parliamentary party over the last 45 years has campaigned for full separation from England, Wales and Northern Ireland, anticipates funding its aspirations as an independent state with royalties from North Sea Oil. Its campaign leading up to the 2014 referendum seems centred on the advantageous position for the Scots if those oil revenues are no longer gathered for use as a United Kingdom tax.

Not surprisingly Orkney and Shetland have once more raised their “prior rights”.  In the 1970s the SNP slogan was that “… It’s Scotland’s Oil”.  That largely disregarded the common response that, “… No. its Shetland’s oil…”

The Shetland Islands Council last week gave new life to that response. The Scottish Government may see oil revenues as the way to fund its separation from the rest of the United Kingdom, but Shetlanders don’t see themselves as part of Scotland in a fragmented Kingdom. “It’s not your oil Alex, it’s wir”  a former leader of the Lib Dems in Scotland proclaimed at that party’s conference over the weekend. He wants more powers  given to Orkney and Shetland when Scottish constitution issues are worked out later this year.  “Its time to seize the opportunity of Island home rule”.  If constitutional arrangements can recognise the re-establishment of Scottish sovereignty, the historic sovereignty of Shetland and Orkney, perhaps, should also be recognised. A suggestion is that a relationship similar to that which the Isle of Man has with the English Crown could evolve.

Orkney and Shetland became part of Scotland in 1468 as security for the dowry of a Danish princess who then married the King of the Scots. Perhaps the way forward now is to set up a settlements regime to which New Zealanders, practised in responding to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi will be able to contract their expertise!

But just as many Scots seek to undo the Union of the Crowns with England, so Shetlanders – whose nearest railway station is in Norway rather than Scotland –  may seek to undo their historic union with the Scots.

Which gives credence to the siphonaptera –  Big fleas have smaller fleas upon their backs to bite them, and smaller fleas have tinier fleas, and so ad infinitum….

www.scotsman.com/news/scottish-independence-northern-isles-devolution-bid-1-2841537

www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/mar/16/lib-dems-shetland-orkney-independent

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Siphonaptera

13 March 2013

Last night Len Cook spoke on “Framing the Debate” the first in a series of presentations about relationships, issues and tensions between Ministers and Chief executives, organised by the Institute of Governance and Policy Studies and the Institute of Public Administration. Another five lectures will take place over the next few weeks.

Len Cook is unique in having served as a Public Service chief executive in New Zealand and a Departmental Head in the British Civil Service (as NZ’s Government Statistician and UK’s National Statistician).  He has worked within the markedly different statutory frameworks and conventions but observed how they operated in a remarkably similar way.  His presentation was punctuated with anecdotes of his experience – including interactions with Hon Trevor Mallard who was his Minister for a number of years and who was in the audience. He spoke of the importance of the relationship  between Chief executives and their Ministers but which was shaped by different expectations – perhaps ultimately expressed in a comment by Prime Minister Muldoon about Jack Lewin when displeased by data released by the Statistics Office – “The Government Statistician is not this Government’s statistician”.

Len spoke of the need to manage complexity and risk – of an inability for New Zealand to rely on serendipity as in the past and the superiority of the British commitment to piloting and evaluation of new approaches. We cannot rely on traditional markets and the attitudes that went with them – illustrated by the need to be China focused and abandon our long standing “she’ll be right” perspective. His assessment is that too little attention is given to contemplating governance arrangements – we concentrate on the mechanics of leadership and not the business of leadership. It seems that Ministers cannot tap into a comprehensive understanding of departmental business until they get three levels down from the chief executive.  The commercial sector breeds leaders from within but not the Public Service.

There are some good things  in New Zealand.  When elected a government can “do stuff”  in marked contrast with the United States.  But Len felt that too often the Ministers ran out of a sense of purpose and used the analogy of giving the car keys to the kids – they just go out and do wheelies. All governments come with enthusiasm  and don’t feel any need to listen to officials’ advice.  The role of Public Servants is to be strategic, to target years’ three and four of an administration when Ministers really need support and direction, not the first three months. There was a need for serious public debate about Parliamentary sovereignty, and how parliamentarians see the rule of law.

The different expectations will always create a tension between Ministers and their chief executives.  Public servants need conventions. The role needs a framework. That is something Ministers will never appreciate.

A colourful question and answer session was cut shorter than many may have wished,  with an injunction to the audience to attend further presentations in the series. The opportunity would again arise to explore the kaleidoscope of ideas eccentrically constructed by Len into a framework for future debate.  The next presenter is Mai Chen,  speaking on 19 March about Chief executives, Ministers and Parliamentary scrutiny.

www.ipanz.org.nz/Category?Action=View&Category_id=182