Henry McLeish: SNP civil war leaving door open for a Tory dismantling of devolution

Boris Johnson’s government is trying to reclaim Scotland for an unchanging Union at a time when a perfect storm of issues and events have engulfed the country in the run up to elections for the Scottish Parliament, now only a few weeks away. The extraordinary spectacle of Salmond versus Sturgeon playing out in full public view is an unwelcome distraction which has diminished our politics and served the interests of the many critics of devolution in Scotland and at Westminster.

For the first time in 14 years the SNP, a successful, disciplined, highly centralised, and tightly controlled party, seems less assured, and riven with internal divisions. A remarkably long period in government is now taking its toll on the SNP. It was inevitable that after 14 years dominating Scottish politics the SNP would end up with a one-party nation, one-party government and a one party-parliament. Actions and success do have consequences! The inquiries into harassment and the ministerial code must report soon so the court of public opinion, in the form of the election, can decide.

This very public spat between the First Minister and her predecessor have laid bare profound weaknesses in the governance of Scotland which strengthen the case for reforms, to the Scottish Parliament, to achieve less partisanship – still bordering on the tribal – in committees, and to procedures which hold government to account with greater powers over document disclosure, scrutiny and sanctions.

Eventually there must be moves to scrap the first-past-the-post system of elections for the constituency vote, to be replaced by Proportional Representation. Adopting a more European style of Parliament based on consensus, cooperation, and genuine coalitions is the way forward for a modern Scotland.

In the aftermath of recent events, early consideration should be given to the idea of “absolute privilege”, being available to MSPs at Holyrood as both a sign of a maturing parliament and as a necessary tool to be deployed sparingly. This may come up against resistance from Westminster, steeped as it is in absolute sovereignty, and the legal establishment, but this is the time for such issues to be discussed.

READ MORE: Kevin McKenna: New pro-indy party may not be a bad thing for Yes movement

The role of the Lord Advocate has also come under scrutiny and once again there may a case to examine whether in a modern government, there is a problem having the roles of the principle legal officer to the Government and the head of the prosecution service being vested in the one person. There is little appetite in Scotland for the current elections, except within the SNP where there is the prospect, possibly fading, of winning an overall majority to help smooth the path towards a second independence referendum. The public mood and mind are however elsewhere. The Brexit nightmare is just beginning. The pandemic continues to kill and disrupt the lives and livelihoods of every family in Scotland. And after Sunak’s budget, people are once again braced for more years of Tory austerity and the further dismantling of our public services.

Scotland is a house divided. Our split political personality reveals a 50/50 nation on the Scotland or constitutional question. There is no “settled will”, on the future of our country. There is no genuine debate or conversation on the future of Scotland. There is only a campaign for independence. The traditional opposition parties in Scotland too readily defend status quo Unionism, but with a hint of some form of federal solution to be found for the future of the Union: this faltering possibility may be receding further.

The forthcoming parliamentary election will reveal the same old story: the SNP will demand support for independence and seek a new mandate, the traditional parties will argue against a second independence referendum and will ignore the need for a bigger, deeper debate on alternative visions for Scotland and how we build a more ambitious parliament.

But if this election is to make sense to voters there is a need for a reality check by all the parties about where national sentiment lies about leaving the Union. There is a tendency in Scotland to lean towards the delusional, helpful for party morale, but not when it becomes a distraction from making a hard-headed assessment of how far Scotland has travelled on its constitutional journey over the last 150 years and the long road and difficulties that lie ahead.

Maybe it is time to see Scotland’s future through the prism of a longer timescale and a much more inclusive debate! The lack of a settled will reflects public opinion and history. There is also the question of, to what extent is electoral support for the SNP, a vote for Scotland or independence or the result of weak and ineffective opposition in the post devolution era? Post the independence referendum vote in 2014, there have been 135 opinion polls in Scotland on the question of leaving or remaining in the Union. For Yes, 38 polls were recorded, with 10 of them over 50%. For No, there were 97 polls with 33 of them over 50%. Seven of the last eight polls have shown a no vote.

Independence has been a live and significant political issue in Scotland in fthe irst two decades of the 21st century promoted very successfully by one party and culminating in the 2014 referendum where Scotland voted to remain in the UK.

In the Westminster parliament post the 1870’s a Home Rule Bill received its second reading in 1913. War intervened and the debate on Scotland’s future ebbed and flowed with little real enthusiasm for change, but occasionally stirring when Scottish and Welsh by election results recorded spectacular victories for the SNP and Plaid.

A serious attempt to create assemblies in Scotland and Wales failed on a technicality in 1978/79, some would argue that the ballot was rigged. The real break – through came in 1998 when devolution to the Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, led to the setting up of the Scottish Parliament. Two further tranches of powers were devolved to the parliament in 2012 and 2016, to check the rise of the SNP, but also to satisfy legitimate demands for increased powers for the new parliament.

THIS momentum has stalled. Under Johnson dangerous times lie ahead. Much will depend on the performance of the SNP in the May elections and Johnson’s response to the result. It is time for all the parties to show some unity around defending our Parliament and the 1998 settlement. Scotland’s future may not be decided for many years, but in the mean- time the theme should be, “hands off Scotland”.

In these unprecedented times, this struggle, between nationalism and Unionism and the binary choices it offers, obscures new and important political and constitutional realities which demand an urgent response from each political party to defend Scotland’s interests, including Scottish Tories.

The case is simple and urgent. Johnson has launched a major assault on devolution, seeking to wreck the 1998 Scotland Act by using the new internal market legislation to undermine every aspect of the devolved settlement. This is more than a power grab. In the spirit of Brexit, “taking back control” is being ruthlessly applied to Scotland. Johnson has declared war on the on the 1998 Devolution settlement. The Prime Minister has scant regard for Scots or Scotland. His attempts to dismantle the very foundations of our devolved government and parliament are audacious and foolish. There is no acknowledgement from him that our disunited kingdom requires serious reform. Instead, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are viewed as being out of step, irritating and ungrateful. Under this dismal view of the future, Scotland needs to be brought to heel! Post Brexit, the Prime Minister, lacking any sympathy or understanding of four nation politics, is a convinced centralist, and is thirled to the principles of 19th century Westminster power-exceptionalism, sovereignty, and a dislike of borders within the Union. Johnson understands that borders create tensions. This provides a basis for him to break international laws to keep Northern Ireland onside. The border between Scotland and England could become the Prime Minister’s worst nightmare!

For Johnson, destroying the yellow and black wall in Scotland, combined with a Scottish version of “levelling up”, may be legitimate political objectives, but turning the clock back and rewriting the future of Scotland in Downing Street is an intolerable insult to Scots and a contempt for an outstandingly successful Scottish Parliament, which should be the focus for a more ambitious future.

Johnson and his cabinet have clearly decided that Scotland must be more significantly reintegrated into the Union. In this process he is willing to use the crudest of political methods, tactics, and bribes to keep Scotland in check. Brandishing the Union Jack, moving civil servant jobs to Glasgow and East Kilbride, more defence work, building tunnels under the sea, expanding the idea of free ports, enterprise zones and direct funding of investment, letting Rees Mogg loose at the dispatch box hurling insults and declaring Scotland a district, are all part of an elaborate strategy to declassify Scotland as a nation and downgrade it to the status of a region, as it was considered in Whitehall for much of the first half of the 20th century. Let us not forget the idle Tory chat around re visiting the Barnet Formula.

READ MORE: SNP welcome 12,500 new members who've joined in March and plan summer conference

JOHNSON is serious and is willing to damage, regardless of the consequences, especially, if as seems the case in England, his supporters continue to suffer from “euro scepticism” and “devo anxiety” as “Englishness becomes the political force transforming Britain”. This is one of the conclusions of a remarkably well-written and recently published book, Englishness, by Ailsa Henderson and Richard Wyn Jones. The political landscape of the UK is changing as identity politics, English nationalism, levelling up, euro scepticism and devo anxiety and grudge and grievance politics combine to form a potent background to a narrative Johnson is keen to pursue. This election winning formula is now being applied to Scotland. In this new book, based on compelling and authoritative attitude surveys, the authors, “offer a new perspective on the current remaking of British politics by focussing on what we regard as the motor force behind it-namely Englishness”, and argue that, “the character of English nationalism has been poorly understood”. Their research suggests that English nationalism combines both a concern about England’s place within the United Kingdom as well as, “fierce commitments to a particular vision of Britain’s past, present and future”.

What the authors describe as, “the English world view”, is offended against by devolution-devo anxiety and European integration. Of particular significance is the view that the pattern of public attitudes in England, the fusion of English and all UK institutions, as well as the overwhelming size of England, all serve to shape, limit, or undermine attempts to accommodate England within the post devolution UK! This has profound implications for those wishing to promote an alternative to independence in some form of federalism.

This existential threat must be viewed as deeply disappointing but will hopefully serve as a rallying call to all political parties in Scotland to defend and sustain the 22 years of achievement of the devolution settlement. This is not about Scotland’s final constitutional destination, but about the right of Scots to determine their own future, without a Government and British Prime Minister seeking to turn back the clock and frustrate the aspirations of people, 50 percent of whom currently want to stay part of the Union.

Boris Johnson has embarked on a shocking strategy to derail Scotland’s progress and pursue politics with a thuggish set of ideas. If sensible reforms of the Union are ignored by this government or Westminster and if Johnson succeeds in damaging a great experiment in Scotland, then Scots will face a choice between staying, on Boris Johnson’s terms, or leaving the Union.