 | 'If MSPs do not get their act together, discover their self-confidence and build a proper parliament, then there will be a draining of interest in and respect for Holyrood. Parliament will become an empty shell, lying dormant until someone else comes along to re-ignite the fire of Scottish home rule. Though hopefully not along with the drapery.' Iain Macwhirter, in the Sunday Herald, 4 th September 2005. |  |
It was curtains for Lord Watson of Arson. A gift for the headline writers and the satirists. But the disgrace of the MSP for Glasgow Cathcart, after his moment of drunken madness, cannot but rub off on the already tarnished image of the Scottish political class.
You sometimes ask yourself: can it ever get worse? Holyrood has had more than its share of seedy scandals, political embarrassments and dodgy expense accounts. Is there something in the water at the foot of the Royal Mile?
It wouldnÕt be so bad if the MSPs were able to give a good account of themselves. But from the First Minister down, there is a graceless mediocrity about Holyrood politicians which has led hardened hacks to wish there were curtains in the Scottish parliament which could discreetly be ignited.
Mike Watson, for all his faults, was actually one of the more intelligent and able MSPs, and will be missed, certainly by me. He joins the ranks of HolyroodÕs 'disappeared' along with the SNP's Mike Russell and Tory Ben Wallace. The winnowing of talent began even before the parliament was elected, as Labour's panels blackballed anyone who looked likely to cause trouble to the party machine and kept them off the approved candidates list.
Scottish voters have every right to feel let down by their politicians Š and not just for financial and sexual peccadillos. Blowing £431 million on a palace dedicated to themselves was a disgraceful blunder, even if the Holyrood building has been deemed an architectural success by some.
But a parliament is more than the individuals in it. It is an expression of the will of the people, and as such is a semi-sacred institution, even if its behaviour is sometimes profane. The people understand that perhaps better than many of the journalists who write about politics. Scots have remained broadly supportive of devolution in all opinion surveys taken, through all the trials of the past six years.
I suspect many Scots understand intuitively that part of the problem is the lack of responsibility. If MSPs and ministers Š with a few notable exceptions Š donÕt seem to take themselves or their work seriously it is partly because the parliament isnÕt itself really grown up yet. It hasnÕt started to earn its own living.
Setting up a parliament which spends public money but has no responsibility for raising it is a recipe for legislative delinquency. MSPs remain creatures of Treasury paternalism, grown lazy by the largesse of ŅGordonÓ. They need a proper job. There is nothing like having to raise the cash you spend to force you to grow up and get your act together.
And the evidence is clear that this is what Scots their parliament to do Š grow up. The latest poll by Mori, for Politics Now last week, showed that 58% of Scots want more power for the parliament against 24% who do not. This only told us what we already know. Every test of opinion since 1999 has confirmed that a) Scots want to keep their parliament; and b) they want it to have greater powers. It is one of the invariables of Scottish public life.
In survey after survey Š including the definitive 2001 Social Attitudes Survey Š Scots emerge in favour of more powers by a margin of around two to one.
This demand for more power for the Scottish parliament is now the settled will of the Scottish people. Like the issue of devolution in the 1980s and 1990s, it just wonÕt go away. Scots might still be vague about the precise powers they would like to see in Holyrood, but remember they were similarly baffled by the arcane constitutional arguments surrounding devolution in the 1980s. What remains important is the will of the people; it is up to politicians to find a way of expressing it.
It is increasingly reflected in the make up of the Scottish parliament itself. The Liberal Democrats, Scottish National Party, SSP, Greens and even many Tories agree that devolution cannot stand still. On a free vote there is almost certainly a majority of MSPs now in favour of extending the tax powers of the Scottish parliament. The LibDems have taken the initiative in setting up a committee under Lord Steel, which will report shortly and is expected to recommend that matters such as abortion and broadcasting should be added to the powers of Holyrood. Hopefully this can be a catalyst for a broader constitutional movement, a revival of the Scottish Constitutional Convention, perhaps, or an equivalent to the Richards Commission which two years ago mapped out the next phase of the Welsh Assembly.
The First Minister, Jack McConnell Š ever conscious of the main chance Š has initiated his own internal inquiry into how the parliamentÕs powers might be extended. However, it seems unlikely on past form that McConnell will be able to overcome his sense of political insecurity to demand any new constitutional settlement from Westminster.
There is an argument in Holyrood that, as a result of Sewell motions (whereby Westminster can legislate on ScotlandÕs behalf, with the Executive tagging this onto its own legislation) the parliament is already gaining power by stealth on issues such as transport, law and order and health. So do we need a new constitutional settlement?
Yes, because the incrementalism of the Sewell process is part of the problem. The Executive has become far too dependent on Sewell motions as a means of avoiding controversial matters like civil partnership (or gay marriage, as itÕs more often called) and dumping them on Westminster. There needs to be a proper debate on where the parliament is going.
And what better time for such a review than now, when the parliament has bedded down and become a permanent feature of British constitutional life? Gone are the days when people like the former Prime Minister, John Major, could argue that devolution would destabilise the UK by provoking a wave of English nationalism.
The much-predicted English backlash was always a figment of the febrile imaginations of Tory MPs and their press tribunes. So, it was appropriately enough at the British Psychological Society conference in Edinburgh that the phantom menace was finally laid to rest last week.
Susan Condor, of Lancaster University, concluded after a five year programme of research, that: 'English people like the Scots and are happy with the Scottish parliament É they are not annoyed about it.' That may seem like a statement of the blindingly obvious, but it is sometimes the role of science to confirm the obvious in the face of people, like Tory MPs in Westminster, who refuse to recognise it.
As recently as May, a pundit in The Scotsman was forecasting an 'English intifada'. But the only people who seem unable to get worked up about the West Lothian Question, the Barnett Formula and all the rest are the English themselves.
The heralds of the English backlash also forecast a Scottish backlash against devolution. A backlash that hasnÕt happened, despite all attempts by MSPs to invite one. But if MSPs do not get their act together, discover their self-confidence and build a proper parliament, then there will be a draining of interest in and respect for Holyrood. Parliament will become an empty shell, lying dormant until someone else comes along to re-ignite the fire of Scottish home rule. Though hopefully not along with the drapery.
Return to home page