Why I weep for the Scottish Parliament that might have been
THE Scottish Parliament returns from recess next week but to a shrunken Holyrood. Physically it remains the same, perhaps even bigger with new security apparatus, but in profile and perception it’s sadly diminished in scale.
In some ways that was inevitable after the outcome of the independence referendum but recent events have tarnished it and diminished its stature. Far from members returning to a legislature eager to debate the great issues of state, it’s one that’s likely to be introspective if not convulsed by debates over alleged impropriety and personal conduct.
That was evident to me as I walked past the building earlier this week and reminisced. I couldn’t help contrast the current parliament with the one that was adjourning this time four years ago. Then, with the referendum set for September 18, the summer recess had been curtailed and Parliament had reconvened early, only to break for the campaign. It was a time of great optimism with widespread political discourse across the country. The independence debate had been running for more than a year but campaigning activity was at its height. Other than one minor egg-throwing incident, magnified out of all proportion, it was conducted in a fair and dignified manner.
Only after the final outcome was loyalist thuggery unleashed, the likes of which hadn’t been seen on Scottish streets for generations. Criticism of independence being divisive and splitting communities was hyperbole if not total rot. Yet now, after Brexit and Donald Trump, evil forces have been empowered and odious views legitimised. Racism has sadly increased and intensified.
Back in September 2014, things could only get better. Either it was to be the restoration of independence for an ancient nation or a move towards significantly enhanced powers for the Parliament, if not federalism.
Instead, the debate now stands on whether powers are being removed from Holyrood and irrespective of whether that comes to pass, it stands visibly diminished in perception. Its subservience to Westminster has been made clear, even if final deliberations are awaited from the UK Supreme Court. The Scottish Office has even been rebranded as the UK Government in Scotland, not as stark as the name change to North Britain following the Act of Union but telling all the same.
In those heady days of 2014 it was argued that independence would threaten Scotland’s EU membership and to be fair, significant EU figures were complicit in that. Now, despite Scotland comfortably voting to Remain, it faces the debacle of a No Deal Brexit with all the calamity that could cause.
The world was also watching and waiting to see what Scotland did. A foreign press corps descended to speak to politicians and members of the public alike. A structure was even built in front of Holyrood itself to host the news cameras that were reporting worldwide. Yet, the morning after the vote it was being dismantled and correspondents headed home. Now, there’s little interest in the land and even less in our Parliament. Instead it’s the Scottish media that finds itself in trouble. To be fair that’s a worldwide phenomenon, but the decline has been steeper and more substantial in Scotland, where in areas such as TV it was already limited.
So, it’s a shrunken Holyrood that awaits next week. Not quite Strathclyde Council writ large but most certainly not the powerhouse parliament that seemed, at worst or at best, the alternative for many.
Now in the wake of the issues over Mark Mcdonald, and the allegations against Alex Salmond, the focus won’t be on grand affairs of state but internal, on the conduct of members past or present. Of course, that’s not to say that behaviour isn’t important; it most certainly is and criminality and serious abuse must be addressed.
But when that, not the environment, economy and welfare are the focus, there’s a problem for the country. Debates on Brexit, marginal anyway given Holyrood’s subservient status, are dwarfed by a clamour of denunciation of abuse and criminality, real or perceived. That debate had already started with the suspension of Mcdonald whose behaviour was unacceptable, if not reprehensible. But it was not criminal, yet he has been treated as if he’s Hannibal Lecter. By all means argue that he should resign but the security measures deemed necessary around him were absurd.
That set the tone: no unacceptable behaviour by anyone at any time was to be ignored, let alone forgiven. Never mind that elsewhere worse sins were perpetrated and people simply moved on. Arguably, that was inadequate but a culture of denunciation has been damaging. Some conduct, unacceptable as it may have been, has to be seen in the context of the time.
Having served in the Parliament, my recollection is that it was no worse than any major employer. As an Edinburghbased member my life was slightly different with a home and family to go to and a constituency on my doorstep. Was there unacceptable behaviour and impropriety? Of course, though none that I saw of the magnitude to warrant criminal or employment sanctions. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t happening as these things are by their nature private.
Ignorant behaviour there was aplenty, across all parties and genders. Security staff and government car drivers are the folk to ask about who’s nice and who’s nasty, and they’ve a few horror stories to tell. The demands made by opposition parties about Mr Salmond are hypocritical, given actions amongst their own members, and highly prejudicial, but why let that get in the way of a good kicking being administered to a man they loathe?
The moral rectitude demanded and enforced is devouring the body politic, as the SNP has discovered to its cost. It won’t be alone. Others will fall or be dragged down, rightly or wrongly.
Parliament’s no better or worse than any other large employer and replicates our society for good and ill. People will be put off entering public life not just politics, whether or not they’ve sins to be exposed, the intrusion sufficient to put them off.
So as Parliament reconvenes I weep for what might have been.
The moral rectitude demanded and enforced is devouring the body politic