Comment: Scottish politics is stalled amid 'corrosive tribalism' and a lack of trust, tolerance and respect

Involved in drawing up the blueprint for devolution, 25years ago, it was difficult to assess how it would impact Scots, Scotland and the Union of the Parliaments established in 1707.

A remarkable series of events took place in 1997 – the publication of a referendum bill, a White Paper, a referendum saying yes/yes to a new parliament and financial powers, and the publication of the Scotland Bill. A new chapter was being written.

While there was a palpable sense of history in the making, there was little understanding of, what “devolution” could mean for Scotland and where this political and constitutional journey might lead.

At each stage of the parliamentary process at Westminster we were getting closer to defining the shape, structure, powers, and scope of the new parliament but, understandably, not to the spirit, ambition, mood, and momentum this would inject into the politics, governance, and democracy of Scotland, post-devolution. A journey, without signposts or a destination, had begun. The debate on “Home Rule” which started in the 1870’s, was now becoming a reality.

The commemoration of these events, which took place 25 years ago, provides an opportunity to look back and reflect. But more importantly, it is vital Scotland looks forward to the exciting possibilities that lie ahead for the Scottish Parliament and the nation.

Innovative and ground-breaking policy making has been the hallmark of a Parliament that has legislated with courage to tackle old problems and injustices. Personal care, free at the point of need, the banning of smoking in public places, the abolition of tuition fees, radical land reform, extending Scotland’s international reach, the minimum unit pricing of alcohol and ensuring that education and health remain firmly rooted in publicly provided services and free from the dismantling and commercialisation of public services by governments at Westminster.

There is now a focus for national debate in Scotland and a more accessible legislature. 

An iconic parliament building, noteworthy for its modern architecture and design, acts as a statement about Scotland where aspirations and expectations become solid achievement.

Scots, especially the young, have embraced the new parliament as having been at the foot of the Royal Mile for an exceptionally long time, so quickly has it become part of the institutional fabric of Scottish life and politics.

The devolution years have produced highs and lows, drama and controversy, humour and sadness, excitement and despair, frustration and anger, and success and failure, all part of the rich tapestry of life in Scotland and the inevitable consequences of building a new institution after an absence of three hundred years.

But there is a downside. The Scottish Parliament has inherited the worst traits of Westminster. Tribalism remains corrosive. The lack of trust, tolerance, and respect between parties is destructive.

There is not enough embrace of a more European style of consensual and coalition politics: removing “First Past the Post” from the constituency part of electing our MSPs could help. Boundaries between the Scottish Government and parliament are blurred. The parliament must have strengthened powers of oversight making the executive more accountable. Institutional reform has been slow. Surprisingly, we do not have a written constitution firmly rooted in the sovereignty of the people in which rights, freedoms and relationships are clear and easily accessible.

Practical progress and a sense of pride have stood out. This is a parliament in its infancy with massive untapped potential, no matter what the future may hold or what kind of constitutional destination Scotland may arrive at.

Devolution has changed forever the constitutional and political face of Scotland, but not yet the Union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Over the past quarter of a century devolution has provided a new focus for our democracy, politics and governance and the promise of how we can renew and modernise our politics in a rapidly changing world.

But Westminster has been reluctant to embrace four nation politics and multi-level governance. Today old-fashioned centralism and the absolute sovereignty of Westminster are the signature themes of Prime Minister Boris Johnson. This will inevitably lead to more strains and tensions between Scotland and the Union.

It is worth remembering the words of the late Donald Dewar made in a speech the day after the passing of the Scotland Act, “clearly the debate should not stop when the doors of the Scottish Parliament open”, and added, “it would be even more absurd to believe that the UK can saunter into the future with precisely the same set of arrangements that had served it in the past”.

No one ever doubted about his support for the Union, but he had that sense of presence, insight, and history to acknowledge that the constitutional genie was out of the bottle and there was no going back. Parliament, people, and political parties would now shape what happened next in Scotland: his insights were remarkably prescient.

The formative years of the Parliament, 1997 to 2007, involved the monumental task of establishing the institution and making it work. But from 2007 to the present-day politics has been markedly different. The politics of Westminster was impacting negatively on Scotland and its voters. The Iraq war, austerity and the brave idea of the Lib-Lab pact in Scotland were taking its toll. Electors were more volatile and restless. The mood of Scotland was changing. The SNP fast became the lightning rod for grudge, grievance and resentment politics as well as capturing sentiment and Scottishness as key drivers of change.

But of greater significance, identity politics was pushing hard for attention. The SNP captured the mood of Scotland, now a devolved nation with its own parliament.

The traditional Westminster parties lost traction in this new political landscape and remained within the gravitational pull of Westminster, while the SNP was busy trying to move the debate from devolution to independence. Moving from the margins to the mainstream, the SNP has dominated Scottish politics and government for 15 years.

But despite intense campaigning and favourable UK and European events likely to move voters, many Scots have stubbornly refused to embrace independence and remain uncertain about their future.

There may be a tipping point ahead, but there is, “no settled will” about Scotland’s future today. The nation remains bitterly divided with a split political personality of 50/50 on the big question. To quote Abraham Lincoln, speaking at the Illinois State Capitol in Springfield in 1858, “a house divided against itself cannot stand”.

The disastrously divisive consequences of a narrow Brexit vote are a warning to those who deny the need for a broader degree of consensus on how Scotland should move forward. The traditional parties in Scotland, reluctant to move out with the shadow of Westminster, appear, at least at this stage, to have no serious plans to radically reform the Union to accommodate Scotland’s post devolution ambitions, or indeed the stirrings of the English metropolitan regions and Wales.

This is the political battlefield that is Scotland today!

The insanity of Brexit, unfolding daily, a destructive and deadly pandemic, the “muscular unionism,” of PM Johnson’s government and the failure of the constitutional question to gain traction at Westminster, have added to the complexity of the Scotland question.

Where does Scotland’s future lie, post the 1998 settlement?

Scotland is a better place, a different place, a more modern place, and an ambitious and confident nation. The constitutional journey continues, destination unknown. The uncertainty of our future must never detract from our achievements over the last 25 years. Regardless of our destination, Scotland and its people, parliament and political parties have a great deal more to do if we are ever to become a nation with the quality of life, national well- being and social investment of the Nordic countries.

As Scots, how well do we know ourselves? This is a relevant and opportune question. Scotland is currently on hold, stalled and not moving forward. Yes, the pandemic has taken its toll over the last two years. Tragically, too many lives have been lost and the health of many scarred for ever. This may, however, be a time for a deeper consideration of our nations fortunes as we seek to build a way ahead.

An inclusive debate on how Scotland can keep moving forward is a priority. There is a need for a greater degree of consensus, inclusivity, shared aspiration, respect, trust, tolerance, and partnership on ideas such as, nation building, developing interdependencies and resilience, achieving institutional reforms, creating an “opportunity” culture, increasing our social investment and on tackling the consequences of deep seated and embarrassing levels of inequality in Scotland.

This is an alternative way of challenging the UK mindset which is trapped in the past and trying to turn back the clock to the1960s when Scotland was still regarded as a region or northern Britain.

A more ambitious and assertive role for the Scottish Parliament is a priority, modernising the nation and building on the experiences of other countries. The traditional parties should unite around such a narrative, as, it leaves open the question of what Scotland’s constitutional destination might be, challenges the Union and Westminster to reform-free from a narrow debate between nationalism and unionism-and embrace a different multi- national future, and more urgently move Scotland from its “stalled” position to one of continuing success and achievement.