Offord’s audacity of hope that scares the wits out of the Tories

ONE OF THE REASONS I was attracted to Malcolm Offord becoming leader of Reform UK Scotland, was that he not only delivered an on-point analysis of why Scotland’s economy was failing, but also set out answers — and had done the due diligence on how they could be delivered.

This meant he was able to be realistic and optimistic at the same time. It meant he could provide hope; the sort of hope that was about Scotland being the most successful part of the United Kingdom. Not Scotland as a dependency addicted to welfare from the South of England – but as a prosperous benefactor helping our brethren.

It meant Holyrood becoming accountable and taking real responsibility for its poor decision-making. Cutting the taxes it has previously raised (and wishes to keep raising). Cutting back on needless regulations and laws that have expanded the size and hunger of the state for a larger share of our money. Cutting back on the additional layers of government, through its agencies, quangos, and the corrupt direction of the third sector that is dependent on the dependency culture.

Offord spoke of rolling this all back so we would be free to be innovative, entrepreneurial and creative again. In a political system that uses proportional voting, this would, of course, be aspirational; bargains would have to be struck with other parties, with give and take on all sides that might work together to achieve change from the dead hand of the SNP’s faux nationalism.

Yet change would be incrementally possible and, come another election in 2031, the ratchet of change could take us further steps forward, hopefully at a faster pace, so the realised aspirations become self-evident, helping to develop a virtuous cycle of growth.

the Tories were never a serious opposition

We never heard much from the Tories to challenge the demoralising collectivism that was strangling both the private and public services with managerial diktats while imposing larger overheads through non-domestic rates, the council tax and then higher income taxes. No, when they weren’t allowing some of their MSPs to support the self-defining of genders, they were self-defining as anti-nationalists, bereft of any other exceptional policies.

They lacked the self-belief, the positivity and the hope of Offord – and they were lazy, refusing to do the hard work of coming up with a vision populated by policies to deliver a path to a healthier, wealthier Scotland. In truth, they were never a serious opposition.

So we should be welcoming the drive of Malcolm Offord in taking the challenge directly to the development of Scotland’s Stalinist state by the Labour-SNP consensus. A land where democracy is essentially performative because there is so little accountability or responsibility; where here-today, forgotten-tomorrow slogans chase headlines but change is ephemeral; where the state is at least 54 per cent of the economy (greater than the Soviet Union); where we are told what we can or cannot think or say or write; and where state failure is defended by doubling down and repeating failing policies, no matter the cost in lives lost and futures ruined.

How many addicts have to die before we change our systems of care and rehabilitation? How many children have to leave school unable to read or write or count to the standard expected of their age? How many times must housing be limited or hospital queues grow longer because we encourage more people to come to Scotland who have made no contribution to the services they are given free access to?

So we need to change our ways, and that must start with the economy. It is not extreme, or lacking in credibility to return to the three same tax scales as the rest of the UK rather than the SNP’s six that are calculated to take much more of our money. Nor is it unserious to cut Scotland’s tax, initially to 1p below the UK rate, and eventually, when funds allow, 3p lower. It demands we cut our cloth to fit our income, which means putting all quangos and agencies on notice that if they cannot justify what they do, they will be closed down and their activities abolished or merged.

“nice-to-have” functions of the state are pointless if we cannot deliver “vital-to-provide” services

Serious, credible politicians confront these real threats to our financial, physical and mental wellbeing. That is what Malcolm Offord is doing and that is why he deserves a fair hearing and, I would argue, our full-throated support.

Instead we have politicians who would rather take part in politically squalid mud-wrestling about what he said or she said in the past than talk about accountability, responsibility and policies of improvement. In lockstep, of course, are too many in the media who would rather play this game than scrutinise the abject delivery and judgement of politicians who have few redeeming successes to make their re-election attractive.

An obvious sign of bias is how so many journalists choose to continue to use the description of the Scottish Reform leader as “Lord Offord” when they know full well he has resigned his peerage, its trappings and allowances so he can stand for election.

Although it is tempting to return the dredged-up accusations of opponents and their cheerleaders with interest — such as the perversions and financial scandals of past political figures and the cover-ups to protect them — those seeking change must resist and instead focus on policies if the elections are to be worthwhile.

To do so requires us to be highly sceptical of overtures emanating from the likes of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which likes to frame itself as “independent” but was dismissive to the point of being patronising, calling Reform’s approach “not credible” and “unserious”.

But then it would say that, wouldn’t it? The IFS and Reform can never agree — it is not an accounting difference we are witnessing, but two opposing world views of how economies work. The truth, rather than the PR puff, is that the IFS — which receives 76 per cent of income from public funds — is well to the left, believing the current Labour Government does not tax enough and the SNP’s Scottish benefits could be higher.

The IFS director, Helen Miller, is a supporter of ending inheritance tax relief of farmers, suggesting Rachel Reeves did not go far enough. Miller has supported a whole suite of tax increases and campaigned for them. These include a “wealth tax”; making pensions subject to inheritance tax; removing the 25 per cent tax-free component altogether from people with large pensions; and charging Capital Gains Tax on second properties after death on top of inheritance tax.

the IFS is a highly partisan advocate of the Big State

Miller was an adviser to the far left “Tax Justice UK”, which has resulted in such damaging taxes as the incorrectly named “Windfall Tax” that has brought the end of North Sea oil and gas exploration and extraction. The IFS may be independent in the sense of it not being for any one party, but it is a highly partisan advocate of the Big State, with big taxes to balance big spending.

Reaching for a rhetorical stick to beat an opponent who ate his lunch, Murdo Fraser chose to frame the IFS as “the respected independent financial commentator” — when it has habitually criticised Rachel Reeves for not being harder on farmers and pensioners. Fraser stated, “Reform’s proposals to slash spending by £2.4bn a year are simply not deliverable” which might be true were his party in control of Scotland’s public finances, for the Scottish Conservatives abandoned any ambition decades ago to actually deliver lower spending that makes lower taxes possible.

Achieving lower spending needs change in what the Scottish state does, and yes, that does mean reducing headcount (still higher than pre-Covid) and giving room to the private sector to grow. Sadly, gone are the days when Murdo Fraser was demanding Scottish Enterprise be abolished — but that was before his elevation to the vacant Tory list seat, created by Nick Johnston’s resignation from the Scottish Parliament. Oh, how our radicals become centrist dads.literacy,

The IFS believes balancing tax cuts with savings cannot be attained because of behavioural changes of people affected — but that is just the point, and where the IFS is wrong. Offord believes Scots would respond positively by returning from working elsewhere, expanding the tax base, while those working here would also become more productive, as they have responded in the past.

There is copious evidence from around the world of ordinary people — not the rich, not the wealthiest — but ordinary workers responding to the incentive of lower taxes by working longer hours, improving their output and raising revenues. It is time Scotland tries the same approach.

Scotland’s status quo is unsustainable because of high spending — is there anyone else brave enough to change the broken system? While others pay lip service to making Scotland a prosperous country, Malcolm Offord is a man on a mission to deliver change. Asking those that in the past who have failed in the past to move the dial in your favour is a high risk gamble based on painful experience. It strikes me that it’s time to try a new path to prosperity for all.