Where are the ideas for devolving power from Holyrood?
Brexit can strengthen the Union if the opportunity to decentralise power is embraced at all levels, writes Brian Monteith
Today is the official 20th birthday of the opening of the Scottish Parliament. Naturally enough it is a time for back-slapping by its performers and the exchange of self-congratulatory platitudes from those that think more government is good in itself, irrespective of whether expected outcomes are achieved or how ruinous the unintended consequences are.
I am not of that ilk. I was sceptical of the proposed Scottish Assembly in 1979 and therefore voted No in that referendum, and was not moved to change my mind in 1997 and established the No-no campaign for that reason. Once Tony Blair defeated John Major in his landslide victory, there was no doubt that some form of devolution would happen, and so it came to pass. Given what has happened in Scottish politics from then, including a Tory wipe-out that took 20 years to correct (and which is by no means secure), it must be fair comment to say Major’s premiership was the greatest threat to the Union to date.
There is a tendency among nationalists and devolutionists to talk up one person or another (such as Boris Johnson), or one political event or another (such as Brexit), as existential threats from which the UK must succumb. This is practically always arrant nonsense that should come with big flashing red lights asking, “What are the author’s motives?”
The monumental lack of selfawareness or contemptuous arrogance of our political betters (the two often go together) results in routine claims by the First Minister and other SNP hacks that this or that right-wing bogeyman of the day is a threat to devolution or the use of powers by the Scottish
Parliament. The fact that the SNP understood, correctly, that devolution was a unionist political concept designed to halt the growth of nationalism and was not supportive of it until the final slam-dunk confirmatory referendum has been lost in the euphoric mists of time.
One example of a nonsense claim is the idea that Johnson is such a bad prospect for Prime Minister that the Scottish public would no longer support remaining in the UK were he to win his party’s leadership election and become PM. Yet Johnson was a better mayor of London than Theresa May was a Prime Minister – by a country mile. Boroughs such as Lambeth and Hackney did not rise up and revolt, wishing to secede. No, Johnson was re-elected, while May has literally been run out of town for her repeated political deceit, failure to listen and regular failure in policy delivery. If the Union can survive May’s off-the-scale ineptitude, then Johnson (or Jeremy Hunt, for that matter) should be able to achieve a Boris Bounce (or a Hunt Honeymoon) that initially strengthens rather than weakens the general belief in the Union. What happens next is beyond anyone’s ken.
As if to demonstrate my point, both Hunt and Johnson are making efforts to show how their potential premiership would be good for Scotland’s place in the UK. Given the potential that Brexit offers for returning decision-making more locally, not just to Westminster but to Holyrood, and given that there is at long last a recognition that far more needs to be done and branded as the benefits of UK economic or social support, one could be forgiven for believing that the Union could become much stronger, following a deal or a no-deal Brexit.
Johnson was right to point out that, if the EU referendum result is
not respected, then the corresponding blow to democracy that it represents is also a blow to the Union. For those Scottish constituencies that produced a strong Leave vote, such as Moray and Banff & Buchan, and then unseated their SNP MPS with Tory replacements, a failure to leave the common fisheries policy would surely be viewed as a second British betrayal that would return them to the SNP fold. In that respect Hunt’s greater support for May’s disastrous Withdrawal Agreement must surely count against his unionist credentials.
After 20 years of the Scottish Parliament, both Hunt and Johnson feel they have to talk about how they will defend the Union. Surely this is a recognition that the unionist devolution project has failed in one of its core aims of providing stability in the UK by reducing the attraction of nationalism through greater decentralisation. Many of the ideas coming forward have merit but where are the ideas for decentralising from Holyrood – or repealing the many new Scottish laws that can be shown to have been damaging or counterproductive to the claims made of them? While English politicians are being creative in an attempt to strengthen the Union, very few Scottish politicians are even willing to admit devolution is deficient and requires a completely new and realistic attitude towards self-criticism.
Devolution has not bound the country closer together, but instead has allowed nationalists to push us apart. It is not so much that the UK is more divided, as Scotland is divided more itself. Never have Scottish people been so pitched against each other and never has the nation been so ungoverned by its ruling class than it has been under devolution.
A final observation is that, if the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party leaders honestly believe that the Union comes before everything, they should look at their own party name to see it is they who are riding two horses. Is theirs a Conservative Party in Scotland that just happens to be historically unionist or a genuine unionist party that draws from the well of practical politics and therefore does not take sides in the Tory-labour divide?
If it is Conservative “and” Unionist they should recognise that crafting Conservative policies cannot always put unionism first; some might have benefits for the Union but others might carry some risks to it that require mitigation, for the policies will not be defined by their unionism but by their Conservatism (or quite often their lack of it).
If Ruth Davidson runs a unionist party she should have learned from the more nuanced and taciturn Arlene Foster, who quite rightly – as a unionist first – has declined to take sides in the Tory leadership contest. Political consistency aside, Davidson would then more easily be able to craft a sincere working relationship with a prime minister who publicly was only her third choice – or never her choice at all.
Brian Monteith is an Mep-elect for the Brexit Party.