SATURDAY marked the 15th anniversary of what I regard as a highly significant day in Scotland’s history – the day it got its first government of the democratic era.
On Monday, September 3, 2007, the Scottish Executive became the Scottish Government – officially even if not legally. Some dismiss this as a mere cosmetic exercise. At the time, many did. But presentation is important. As is language.
Alex Salmond, the then first minister, was well aware of just how important this change was. He knew the way people think about things is powerfully influenced by the way we represent and talk about them.
He knew Britain’s political elite didn’t want the people of Scotland to see the devolved administration as a real government. It was important that they think of the Scottish Parliament as a real parliament. This was, after all, supposed to kill the independence campaign “stone dead”.
But people had to be constantly reminded that the administration was less than a real government. In one of his first acts as first minister, Salmond transformed Scotland’s perception of the minority administration he led after the 2007 Holyrood election.
Legally, it’s still the Scottish Executive. The fact only the most fanatical British nationalists now use this term demonstrates what the purpose was in naming the devolved administration thus. It was always intended as a slight.
The change of title has had a transformative effect on Scotland’s politics. Not that alone, of course. But it is unlikely the Scottish Parliament would have come to be generally regarded as the locus of our politics as quickly or as completely had Salmond not had the nous to recognise the need to alter the way people thought about the administration. If it was seen as something less than a real government then the Parliament would surely be perceived as less than a real parliament.
A real parliament might cast doubt on the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. Westminster can only be sovereign if, in people’s minds, it is the only real parliament. If the sovereignty of Scotland’s people was to be affirmed then it must be possible for them to imagine Scotland’s democratic institutions as being equivalent to the democratic institutions of independent nations.
The name “Scottish Executive” served as a constant reminder that Scotland’s Parliament and government are subordinate to the structures of power, privilege and patronage which constitute the British state.
Alex Salmond rectified that – an achievement which should be applauded and celebrated.
The importance of perceptions is, as we would expect, well known to the British political elite. The term “UK Government in Scotland” has been introduced to directly compete with the term “Scottish Government”.
Just as colonial governments of the past erected great fortresses, palatial residences and impressive administrative buildings to remind the natives of their inferior place in the decreed “natural order”, so the British government has planted Queen Elizabeth House in the middle of Scotland’s capital.
READ MORE: Liz Truss may be planning a knockout blow for devolution and independence
These things are neither incidental nor trivial. They are the actions of a country clinging to its imperialist past, a country in the grip of an increasingly extreme British nationalist ideology.
Of course, the Scottish Government and Parliament still aren’t like those of other nations. The Parliament is less than it should be given it uniquely has the democratic legitimacy that derives from being directly elected by Scotland’s people. It is less because the British elites continue to withhold the powers that rightly belong with the only institution entitled to be regarded as the real Parliament of Scotland. The Scottish Government is less than it should be because it continues to be hobbled by the devolution settlement.
What has changed since the Scottish Parliament reconvened in 1999 is that it is now possible to envisage a Scottish Government and Parliament with status and powers of those of other nations. The “cosmetic” change implemented by Salmond has had massive implications for the normalisation of the idea of restoring Scotland’s independence. That’s why I have September 3 marked on my calendar.
Peter A Bell
via email
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here