Should governments have secrets?

"Secrecy and a free, democratic government don't mix."

Judging by the statement above if Harry Truman was currently President of the United States he'd presumably have no problems with the leaking of thousands of confidential documents on Wikileaks.

Governments around the world - not just the United States - have reacted angrily to this information appearing online, something which is clearly becoming more and more common. So can we assume from such a response that governments are determined to keep their populaces in the dark about terrible goings-on?

Well that would of course be many people's assumptions and in fact outright beliefs. Those who believe that governments exist to maintain their own power at the expense of the ordinary citizenry will of course believe that the state has a vested interest in secrecy.

The governments would obviously suggest otherwise. Most would likely point to the existence of Freedom of Information legislation in their respective countries to show that they want the public to be fully informed about the work the state does in their name.

However they would also point out the difficulties of having every single thought or action advertised not only to their own citizens but others across the planet. This would be for two main reasons: one, national security. And two, simply the difficulties of having people know your every thought or strategy.

At least in the latter case, it's perhaps not an entirely unfair point if you imagine what your own life would be like if every single thought, comment or action you had was known to every single person you know or interact with. You can imagine the difficulty of negotiating a trade deal if the other side knows exactly what you're prepared to agree to.

You can also look at this from the perspective of domestic policy. Consider the current UK debate over public spending cuts and where the axe should fall. Governments that are even seen to consider pursuing a certain course of action (for instance, NHS cuts) - even if ultimately rejected - risk attacks from their political opponents and the media.

This then asks us to consider if we genuinely require to know everything that a government thinks about, rather than simply knowing what they actually do. After all it's only the latter that they will truly be judged upon, so only that (and the information which lead them to that decision) which we need to be aware of.

It also raises questions about what would be done with such information and the maturity of our political culture to handle it. As noted above it would be fine if we could genuinely look at the final course of action of action a government pursues and then evaluate what they rejected in a considered manner. The reality though is likely to be further political/media attacks just for considering something that could be unpopular.

However in spite of all these caveats it is still difficult to argue that governments in free societies should have secrets. States in the West decry countries such as North Korea for the way in they seek to control their population's access to information. If however our own government believes that we should not have access to all facts affecting us are we truly in a position to judge?

The big question must be if such apparent openness would genuinely help us. As in our own lives would governments be open or honest if they thought that every word was being recorded? Or would they then find other ways in which to communicate which potentially provides even greater exclusion to their citizenry?

It is also possible that they would simply stop considering difficult and challenging options. Again back to the NHS example above would we want a government which, merely for the belief that they would be criticised, never undertook a review of how that organisation (or any other) worked? Such a society where we are scared to then tackle awkward matters fails us all.

As a final point it is also worth noting another striking aspect of the content of many of these documents; how utterly anodyne and unimportant they are in the grand scheme of things. We can reasonably hypothesize that other documents which have never seen the light of day have focused on the same trivialities.

For instance whilst it no doubt provides much amusement to the British media, revelations that Prince Andrew is a bit rude could be seen as fairly vacuous information. Or is it? The flip side is that if one of Britain's trade envoys is disliked by countries around the world, it could suggest he's not ideally suited to the role.

It's obviously much easier nowadays for people to leak information. In days gone by information would be restricted to paper copies amongst a small group of people only. Not only that but newspapers could also be persuaded of the need not to publish on the basis of 'national interest'. The computer and internet age however changes all this.

More people have access to information than before and will surely find it much easier to disseminate e.g. thousands of documents which would once have had to be photocopied and carried out a building can now be downloaded quite easily on to a small USB stick. And once this is done there are any number of ways of promoting the information, not least Wikileaks.

The reality is that whether or not people support these documents being leaked that is the world we now inhabit. Thus Governments of all hues have to go forward on the understanding that whatever they say privately may one day be discussed in public. Maybe the age of secrets is dead?

A power so important it’s never been used

It’s often the case that the issues which arouse most anger and fire amongst politicians do not even enter into the public’s consciousness. This description seems especially apt in relation to the fury over the Scottish Government’s secret decision to discontinue with Holyrood’s tax-varying power.

It’s hard to believe that this issue is being seriously discussed outwith political circles. The fact that the power to vary the income tax rate has never been used is a major reason for this. Indeed given that it’s often wrongly described as solely a tax-raising power, the public may be glad to be rid of it.

That being said, the lack of public discussion of this issue does not mean that it is unimportant. In a strange (and still relatively minor way) it’s one of the most significant events since devolution.

The establishment of the Scottish Parliament was obviously a monumental event in Scotland’s history. It was seen as vital that any such decision had to be made by public consent, meaning the use of a referendum.

This was accepted without much challenge. However the (soon to be) Labour government’s decision to have a second referendum question on tax-varying powers caused fury, even leading to frontbench resignations.

So this is the background to tax-varying powers being included in the Scotland Act; it was a specific decision of people in Scotland to have them as part of devolution, presumably to enhance the parliament’s accountability.

For those who believe this current situation is nothing more than a political storm in a teacup, it’s worth imagining the following scenario:

It’s the middle of the 2007 Scottish election campaign. First Minister Jack McConnell is on the ropes after it emerged his government had secretly abandoned the parliament’s power to vary taxes. SNP leader Alex Salmond has pulverised his opponent over this decision and called on him to consider not even standing again for election.

This is surely what would have occurred had the decision been taken by the previous Labour-Liberal Executive. And it would have been hard to defend them against such a move.

What’s most difficult to understand is that surely there was in fact the opportunity for the SNP to turn this to their advantage. Had John Swinney went to the Scottish Parliament and said the UK government was attempting to remove the tax-varying power, it would surely have been a big win for them.

This is where the whole affair becomes truly bizarre. Given the tax-varying power’s central place in the referendum that sets up the parliament it is not clear how the Scottish Government thought they could simply not tell anyone they didn’t have it any longer.

It does also through a huge spanner into the SNP’s election campaign. Given that the thrust of this will be that Scotland should be independent but at least it should have more financial powers, the decision to get rid of those they already have somewhat undermines this.

The one thing that is clear is that whatever happens the tax-varying power has now gone until 2013. What's less certain is what, if anything, happens next or if John Swinney’s statement and apology yesterday and Alex Salmond's contrition today will draw the events to a close.

Whilst Swinney’s resignation was mooted by some opponents yesterday the muted nature of these calls suggests there was little genuine feeling or expectation behind them.

John Swinney – in spite of the current furore over budgets and cuts – is generally believed to have done well in the finance post. Any attempt to remove him so close to an election would surely be rebuffed, and have little traction amongst the media.

Giving two apologies surely quells this issue and will see it disappear soon enough. The opposition parties can be satisfied with the hit they’ve certainly scored on the government but have to be careful not to seem like they actually want to use this power to raise taxes.

The SNP will be a little tamed too, and it will surely mean they will talk a bit less about fiscal autonomy or powers during the election campaign. After all you can see their opponents’ immediate comeback any time this is raised during a debate.

The public will just keep on going. Not really sure why it makes that much of a difference. Certainly bemused at how politicians can get into such a state over matters they don’t care about.

And, of course, glad that they’re sheltered from a tax rise for at least the next few years.

Who blogs anyway?

Alas this blog's title will remain only a question and won't be answered here.

However if you are interested in the profile of bloggers or their readers a survey is being conducted by public affairs firm Weber Shandwick.

One of the questions focuses on the issue of how influential blogs are now or may be in the future, always a topic of interest to bloggers and their (small number of) readers, if not the public at large.

Any readers of this site will be aware that it has been in something of a decline now for the past year mostly for numerous reasons. Whether it is likely to grow in future remains to be seen.

However if blogging is to be in any way relevant in future it is important to build a picture of the scene so anyone interested is encouraged to complete one or both of the surveys.