EVEL aye - David Mundell on the Conservatives in Scotland

The Westminster recess was no holiday for the Scottish Secretary. As Holyrood sits down with him in late August in his Edinburgh office, David Mundell is tucking into a supermarket salad after a whirlwind morning trip to the Scottish Highlands. 

“I had a gin at 8:30 this morning,” he says. Rather than being some kind of coping mechanism, it emerges he had been visiting the Crossbill Gin distillery near Aviemore as part of a new push to maximise gin production and sales at home and abroad. “Britain is the largest exporter of gin in the world and 70 per cent is produced in Scotland,” he says.

Whatever the justification, early day drinking can make the rest of the day’s work somewhat of a challenge, but Mundell shows no sign of slowing down as he sits down for a working lunch.
After all, there’s the small matter of the biggest transfer of power to Scotland since Labour established the Scottish Parliament in 1999 to contend with. The Scotland Bill is a big step up in responsibility for someone who has spent most of his Westminster career being compared to a panda.

“The Labour Party have certainly had to drop that line. It still amazes me people might think I’ve never heard that before. Our response has always been the pandas are rented, we’re here to stay.” 
Indeed, both Labour and the Liberal Democrats are in the same boat now, with a solitary MP each outnumbered by the black and white bamboo-eating bears at Edinburgh Zoo.
“For me it hasn’t changed. For ten years it’s been me and 58 others, it’s just the others are slightly differently configured this time,” says Mundell.

The other 56, of course, represent the SNP ‘tsunami’ which swept the Scottish political map at the general election. Initially the influx was branded rebellious for applauding in the chamber and fighting a territorial battle with Labour veteran MP Dennis Skinner over seating arrangements. 

Mundell says they haven’t been hard to work with. “I’ve met with virtually all of the SNP MPs and found them, on an individual level, very personable. I’m sure, as I’ve done in the past with MPs for Scotland, we’ll work together on interests of mutual interest. Because although we might have a different vision for the future of Scotland, everyone there accepts we all have Scotland’s best interests at heart. That’s the same in relation to Alistair and in relation to Iain, so I don’t think there’s any difficulty in working with others.”

He insists the move from coalition to a majority Conservative Government won’t upset a continuum in the Scotland Office which started in Better Together and moved through the Smith Commission to climax in the Scotland Bill. “There’s not a wholesale change of direction in that core area, and I’ve recently discussed the Scotland Bill with Jim Wallace who is leader of the Liberal Democrats in the Lords. The discussion Jim and I had post the election was little different than it would have been before it.”

Furthermore, Mundell has been in Inverness that morning, reassuring councillors there would be no change in position on the city region deal for the area.

It’s all very well, perhaps, for Mundell to call it a continuum, but for the other two prominent unionist parties, change is more keenly felt. Labour, he says, lost its way because of a lack of understanding what the party stands for.

“Other than being anti-Tory, I’ve no idea what they’re actually for. In the political environment that’s a very difficult place to be in. Clearly the UK leadership election was a big challenge for them because none of the candidates sought particularly to reach out to Scotland or actually address the principal issue which determines whether there will ever be another UK Labour government, and that is how they win back seats in Scotland. It’s not been any substantive part of the UK leadership discussion.”

And does he have any sympathy for his former Scotland Office colleagues, the Liberal Democrats? “It’s very difficult to see how the Liberal Democrats are going to make any comeback in Scotland. In parliamentary terms, there were a lot of people, very assiduous constituency MPs, lost. Obviously that in itself isn’t enough.” 

Mundell suggests they may struggle to find a distinctive voice. “A lot of people clearly who voted Liberal Democrat in some of these constituencies again were part of the anti-Tory vote. That vote has been hoovered up by the SNP. There are other people who are clearly more conservative in their outlook and we are very much hoping their move over to us will be a permanent one. Probably some Liberals are more in the Green camp.”

He says he has spent his summer looking at amendments to the Scotland Bill, something he described to Holyrood editor Mandy Rhodes in June as a “big job”. It will now go to report stage.
“Some of the amendments were not serious amendments. We spent a lot of time discussing full fiscal autonomy when it was actually quite clear the Scottish National Party did not want that. They wanted to go through the motions,” he suggests, pointing to a “bizarre moment” when a Conservative backbencher proposed complete fiscal autonomy and the SNP had to vote for it.
Not so bizarre, Holyrood suggests, when the Conservative’s own Strathclyde Commission in the lead-up to the independence referendum appeared to suggest much more fiscal autonomy for Scotland than is on the face of the bill.

“A lot of people wanted to call their bluff, for political reasons. But we couldn’t do something so damaging to Scotland, to leave Scotland with a £10 billion black hole in its finances, just to show the SNP were wrong in their approach. We’re a responsible government. We are governing for the benefit of the people of Scotland and you can’t simply do something so patently disadvantageous to Scotland just to show up the SNP’s economic failures.”

The “serious” amendments which Mundell has been considering relate to equalities, welfare provision and the permanence of the Scottish Parliament, he hints, ahead of the bill’s third reading.
What has also been ongoing “behind the scenes”, he points out, is discussion between Scotland’s Finance Secretary John Swinney and Chancellor George Osborne on the future of Scotland’s fiscal framework, and how the new powers might affect the block grant.

“What I want is in next May’s Holyrood elections the debate can then be about what can we do with the powers we’re going to have, and not just ‘the powers are not enough’.”
If Mundell is keen to paint the Scotland Bill as the delivery of the Smith Commission proposals, and the SNP label it a breaking of the pre-referendum ‘vow’, where does that leave the civic organisations who felt their submissions to Smith were largely ignored?

After the engagement of the referendum, the agreement could be described as political rather than practical. Mundell says he is due to meet the Child Poverty Action Group that afternoon to discuss welfare provisions, one of a number of organisations he has met with alongside his Scotland Office colleague, Andrew Dunlop. “We do want to hear what people think of the proposals we have in response to the Smith Commission, but we’re not reopening the Smith Commission, we’re delivering it.”

The Smith Commission was a political settlement, he agrees. “We’re dealing with practical issues, but ultimately, yes, it is a political settlement, just as the Constitutional Convention in the 1990s was a political settlement, and just as the Calman Commission was a political settlement. The referendum was a political settlement. That’s the nature of our democracy.”

While the agreement was drawn up in Edinburgh however, Conservatives south of the border saw a conclusion which apparently maintains the Barnett formula at a time when the Prime Minister was stoking the argument for English votes for English laws (EVEL).  Has Mundell found the Scotland Bill a hard sell within his own party?
“No, I haven’t. Because people understand commitments were given, and those commitments need to be honoured. The overriding commitment of the Conservative Party is to keep our United Kingdom together, and that’s very much at the heart of the Prime Minister’s one nation government approach,” he says.

The progress of the Scotland Bill, Mundell insists, does not depend on EVEL being passed, or any other of the Government’s constitutional plans. 
“The Conservative Party’s approach is to take forward the commitments we’ve made in relation to the different parts of the United Kingdom because we know doing these things – combined with devolution within England which we’ve pioneered with the northern powerhouse and other cities in England coming forward with proposals – that’s the best way to keep the United Kingdom together,” he says.

But if EVEL doesn’t affect any of these other things, what’s the rush? The decision to make the changes by parliamentary standing order has been criticised by senior Tory MPs as well as the opposition parties. Former Conservative Party chairman David Davis raised a point of order about how little time had been given to debate them, and in an emergency debate on the plans called by Mundell’s predecessor, Alistair Carmichael, Sir Edward Leigh said EVEL put the future of the Union at stake. Dominic Grieve even suggested the UK needed a written constitution.
Mundell, predictably, doesn’t accept the notion has been rushed, pointing out EVEL was in the party manifesto in 2005 and 2010. The opposition, he says, “grossly misrepresented” the proposals.
“There were two full debates. Two full days of debate on that issue. I don’t see how people can say it hadn’t been fully debated. And it wasn’t the first time it had been debated. There were lengthy debates in the previous parliament. 
“It’s not that the issue hasn’t been debated, it’s just that there are different opinions on it, and ultimately there’ll have to be a decision. I don’t think it’s about the capacity to have the debate, I just think some people don’t like the debate.”

The implication is that some of those people lie within his own party. But with the Scottish Conservatives under Ruth Davidson pursuing an increasingly separate policy agenda based on the realpolitik at Holyrood, Mundell’s elevation to the front bench at Westminster puts him with a foot in each camp.
“The nature of devolution is there will be different policy positions held, and that’s rightly so. In fact one of the criticisms of devolved administrations in Scotland since 1999 is that they haven’t done that many radically different things, and have used devolution to keep things the same [rather] than to change them. So, I’m completely comfortable with that and I don’t think there’s any difficulty in principle or practice.”

Labour, despite being the party who created the Scottish Parliament, have found the relationship far less comfortable. Mundell says the personality clashes and status games behind the scenes at Labour were clear. “What everyone knew behind the scenes, and it has come out in public, is that most Labour MPs, a lot of whom put the Scottish Parliament in place, were completely contemptuous of it.”

He says he witnessed it first-hand. “When I arrived in Westminster I found the people most hostile to the Scottish Parliament were Labour MPs. They did have a really Jekyll and Hyde approach to devolution,” he says. 

Mundell was an MSP from 1999 to 2005, and is the first former MSP to become a UK minister. He says he benefits from the perspective that brings. “Donald Dewar was an MP who became a member of the Scottish Parliament, but I’ve gone the other way. I still feel a strong affinity with the Scottish Parliament, I don’t ever diminish it because I very much take the view Scotland has two parliaments and they’re both important,” he says.

What is also important for Mundell is for both parliaments to have Conservatives in it representing Scotland, a reason, he says, why he made the transition. 
In the lead-up to the referendum, David Cameron tipped Ruth Davidson for great things, and she has been tipped as a future Tory leader. Holyrood asks if she should follow in Mundell’s footsteps and head south.
“I think Ruth has got a really important job to do over the next few months for Scotland, and that is ensuring we have a strong unionist voice in the Scottish Parliament, an opposition voice to hold the Scottish National Party to account. That’s what we need in Scotland right now.” 

Next year’s Holyrood election could see her installed as the main opposition leader at the front of a larger body of Conservative MSPs, Mundell insists. 
“The average member of the public knows Ruth’s the only person who holds Nicola to account, the only person on the spot and is a passionate and strong advocate of the United Kingdom. That’s what Scotland needs within the Scottish Parliament, and that’s the role Ruth wants to perform and the role I think she is best able to do,” he says.

If the strongest Conservative voices should remain in the Scottish Parliament, Mundell’s dream of having Scottish Tory representation in both parliaments seems a long way off. And if Scottish MPs can be vetoed on English matters, can there ever be another Scottish MP as Prime Minister?
“Yes,” says Mundell, frankly. Asked how it would work, he replies: “Well, they would have to have the confidence of your colleagues in order to get elected leader of your party.”
Holyrood points out they would be in a weakened position to lead on English issues. 
“Gordon Brown was the Prime Minister only three or four years ago… sorry, six years ago,” he corrects himself. Time does indeed fly while you’re having fun, it seems. 
“That’s part of the judgement people have to make when electing a leader credible with the wider electorate, but there’s no specific impediment, because MPs from Scotland will still be voting on the health service in other parts of the UK, it’s just that members from England would be able to veto certain proposals. It’s not that members from Scotland will not be allowed to vote on it. That’s a distortion of proposals. There’s no reason why, if the person is credible and capable, we shouldn’t have another Scottish Prime Minister from any party, and Scottish MPs can hold all the great offices of state.”

In reality, though, the concern is that politics is fragmenting across the UK, exacerbated by talk of a second referendum on independence. Mundell says that talk is by the SNP, not the general public.
“We made our decision, there was a decisive No vote, and we accept that and move on. It’s just there are some elements within the SNP for whom it is an obsession. 
“It’s incumbent on Nicola Sturgeon to rule out another referendum because her position has become unclear, having said immediately before the general election there wasn’t going to be one, they’ve now allowed this ‘is there/isn’t there going to be another referendum’ to develop.”

Those who support the Union, he says, have to continue to make the case for it “every day” because the issue of independence is raised “all the time” by the SNP.
“It could be argued some very strong supporters of the Union were complacent in relation to the referendum because they thought some of the benefits of the United Kingdom were self-evident, that everybody accepted them. Actually, the case had to be made. Therefore we have to continue it. The case has to continually be made.”

In the weeks since our discussion, two polls have been released which suggest a majority of Scots would vote Yes if a second referendum were held, and the SNP have said a possible timetable for it will be in their 2016 manifesto. Another more recently suggests a majority want Scotland to "move on" from talk of a second referendum.

As we speak Mundell clearly cannot yet be aware of the poll results, but doesn’t the SNP’s significant political capital, at least, suggest a second referendum appears likely?
“The Prime Minister’s position is we’re not having a second referendum because we agreed in the Edinburgh agreement that everyone would accept the outcome of the referendum,” replies Mundell. “In the immediate past we used to hear the Edinburgh agreement being cited all the time by the SNP for various alleged infringements by the UK Government. Now we never hear about the Edinburgh agreement, but right at the heart of that was that both sides would accept and work with the outcome. The outcome was a decisive No vote. That’s what we got.”

For some campaign-weary unionists in Scotland, however, it must seem like hopeless times. Opinion polls have suggested the SNP  is likely to win up to 60 per cent of the constituency vote in the Scottish Parliament elections next year, as Scotland threatens to become a one-party system.
“Our supporters are very motivated, and I don’t think there’s any problem motivating them. Ruth is offering a modern centre-right approach with distinct policies. She’s offering a strong message on the Union and she’s demonstrated the personal qualities to be a strong opposition leader to the nationalists in the parliament.”

Former Liberal and Labour voters can be attracted to the “strength of commitment to the Union” in the Conservatives, he says. “The situation isn’t hopeless. I think absolutely the contrary. There’s a real opportunity for the Scottish Conservatives at next year’s Scottish Parliament election. The Scottish Nationalists don’t speak for everyone.”

Mundell also has encouraging words for English Conservatives attending the party’s UK conference in Manchester who might be glancing worryingly over the border. “Conservatives from across the UK are going to this conference in good heart, because we’ve got a Conservative majority government. That was a very significant achievement, and that we were able to hold our support in Scotland despite the SNP tsunami. It was a great result in Scotland. People understand the next important test for the Conservatives is the elections next May, so there will be a lot of focus ensuring we make the best of those opportunities.”