Devolution should change to work for whole of UK

The hopes of the Scottish Parliament have not been fulfilled, but by using the current turmoil as a catalyst for reform we can build a better future for everyone, writes Lord Foulkes

ONE of the incidental results of the spotlight suddenly shining brightly on Holyrood over the past few weeks is that many millions of words have been written about the Scottish

Government and Parliament, the devolution settlement and the constitutional question in general.

At least it has diverted attention from the Cybernat fables of our supposed colonial status, likening the Scotland of Mungo Park and David Livingstone to the India of Mahatma Gandhi. It would, however, serve no useful purpose for me to add to the personal feud between the past and present SNP first ministers.

Nevertheless, many of the issues raised around it are of vital importance in the debate on both the effectiveness of the working of Holyrood and the constitutional future of the UK.

When the Scottish Parliament was created, based on the blueprint of the Constitutional Convention, there were a number of expectations, or maybe better now described as hopes.

The confrontational nature of Westminster was to be left behind, the new voting system would ensure that no party could ever have an overall majority and there was no need for a Second Chamber as the committees would be the mechanism of challenge and review.

None of these are being achieved.

The quite different party ideologies, and human nature itself, have ensured continued confrontation, the perverse and overly complicated electoral system has produced inexplicable outcomes, including an overall SNP majority, and the committees have been largely controlled by the ruling party.

Ever since Alex Fergusson succumbed to the diktat of Alex Salmond, he and subsequent presiding officers, have been ineffective in controlling the Chamber and the Executive has dominated, if not controlled the Parliament.

It was promised that there would be a review of the operation of devolution, including the electoral system after two terms, but no such review has taken place, and there is no incentive for the SNP to do so, just as a Westminster Government elected on first past the post has no wish to bring in proportional representation.

The so- called separation of the prosecutorial service and the

Executive has been under particular attack and this looks as if it is one legacy of the old system that hasn’t transferred well.

So what should be done? Once the dust settles on the current stooshie, there needs to be a systematic review of the whole structure.

I would advocate moving to a new PR system of voting, probably single transferable vote in multi-member constituencies, a more powerful presiding officer, committee chairs independent of the Executive, a second chamber chosen by councils and civic society and a complete separation of the lord advocate and Crown Office from the Executive.

And, if we are to have real devolution, the centralisation of control in Edinburgh, as we’ve seen with the police and fire services and in funding and decision making, needs to be reversed with more powers devolved to the regions of Scotland.

None of this will happen if the SNP are re-elected with a majority. They are not interested in making devolution work. Their sole motivation is to use devolution as a step towards separation. Vital services in education, the NHS, justice, transport and much more have been neglected, sacrificed on the altar of independence.

However, I now believe that independence is further off than even at the time of the 2014 referendum. It is not because of the current controversy but for a more fundamental reason. The SNP contend that Brexit is a reason to break away, because Scotland has been taken out of the EU against our wishes. So has London, by the way!

But Brexit will make the break -up of the UK less likely as the result of Scotland leaving the UK will be foreseen as likely to create even greater damage and hardship as the harmful effects of Brexit become increasingly manifest. Sylvie Berman, the former French ambassador to the UK, predicted last week that Scexit will soon be perceived as potentially far more damaging than Brexit is increasingly seen.

Also a wise old friend said to me recently that, if we ever got to another referendum the practical issues of currency, debt allocation, pensions and other financial issues would trump the heartstring issue of identity in a decent campaign. However it would be better not to divide our nation again by putting it to the test.

So it will be up to Unionists, and preferably Labour supporters of the UK to both reform our constitution and complete the process of real devolution. Just as we’ve seen in the pandemic, it is almost impossible for the Government at Westminster to act both in English interests and as an arbiter of what is best for the UK as a whole.

All of which has reinforced the argument that I have been making for some time now, that we need a UK Constitutional Convention to complete the devolution process and move us towards a federal or quasi-federal system. Such a process can also look at how to replace the increasingly anachronistic House of Lords, best achieved through a senate of the nations and regions, indirectly elected so that it doesn’t challenge the primacy of the directly elected Commons.

As a long- time supporter of devolution I weep at the barrage of criticism it currently faces but, if wise counsels prevail, the current turmoil can be the catalyst for the reform and renewal which has been needed, but ignored, for some time now.