 | 'Like the Liberal Democrats, the SNP has given strong support to Calton Hill as the best location for the parliament. This is not just because of the scope to build an outstanding parliamentary quarter in the heart of the capital city - combining existing buildings with attractive new buildings - but also because of its suitability as the site from this wider point of view.' Alex Salmond, 8 th January 1998. |  |
In a shock announcement in January 1998, Labour's Secretary of State for Scotland, Donald Dewar announced that he had chosen as the site for the Scottish Parliament, not the people's choice of Calton Hill, but the headquarters of Scottish and Newcastle Brewers at Holyrood. Ironically, Scottish & Newcastle had been consistent opponents of Scottish Devolution and were major funders of the No campaign in the 1970s.
Why had this last minute and apparently highly unsuitable site been chosen? There were claims from a Labour insider that the Scottish Secretary had not wanted Calton Hill from the start, as he had feared it would be 'a nationalist shibboleth' and he also wanted to give 'a poke in the eye to the Edinburgh establishment'. As with later allegations that he had blocked a knighthood for SNP supporter Sean Connery, Dewar's refused to comment and got off with a 'not proven' verdict.
If the allegations were true, it was an astonishing indictment of Labour's commitment to home rule. The Royal High School had been converted by the Callaghan Labour Government at the cost of several millions, in order to house the proposed Scottish Assembly. The building had been saved for the nation by Cllr George Kerevan, now of the SNP when he was the Labour councillor in charge of Edinburgh's finances.
The plans for Calton Hill parliament included using the old St Andrew's House which had once been home to the Scottish Office, linking this to the Royal High by a tunnel and adding several new buildings to form a modern parliamentary complex.
Perhaps the Royal High had been the scene of too many Labour defeats? It was associated with the devolution bill of the 1970s which had been so effectively sabotaged by Labour back benchers such as Tam Dalyell and George Cunningham. The debating hall of the Royal High School was also a symbol of Labour's impotence when it was used for meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee during the Thatcher and Major years. Despite Labour's massive parliamentary majority in Scotland the party was powerless for 18 long years due to the Conservatives' majorities in England. The Royal High was also the site of the Great Debate. Then, Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland George Robertson professed that he would be 'proud to serve in a Scottish parliament' (so why isn't he a candidate now?). Robertson's chances of becoming Secretary of State for Scotland foundered when he was unable to answer a simple question from Lorraine Mann.
I must obviously have missed the debate, so over the last year I have asked some 200 citizens of Edinburgh what they think of Holyrood as the choice of site for the new Parliament. Answers have ranged from "just plain daft" to "wholly inappropriate" to "guaranteed traffic nightmare", and that was before many realised that the "Dynamic Earth" opposite is expected to average 10,000 visitors a week.
Not one single Edinburgher have I been able to find who favours Holyrood against Calton Hill, or even thinks Holyrood is worth considering. Since their opinions are based on everyday, lifelong experience, I wrote to the Secretary of State to ask him why he chose Holyrood.
A spokesperson for Mr Dewar replied that "The Secretary of State's decision to locate the Parliament at Holyrood took account of the opportunity to construct a new purpose-built building . . . which has the additional advantage of being in a magnificent historic setting in an accessible city centre location," and "The Secretary of State appreciates that the Parliament could have been built on any of the sites, but it is his clear view that Holyrood is the best option".
Unfortunately for the people of Scotland, Mr Dewar is from Glasgow and couldn't be expected to know that Holyrood is about as poor a choice of site as it is possible to find in Edinburgh.
Given a free choice of any site in the city, even the Labour-controlled City of Edinburgh Council, through their development arm, EDI, chose Calton Hill as the best option.
By pedestrianising Waterloo Place from Leith Walk and Regent Road from Abbeyhill, it would have been possible to create a Parliament "in a magnificent historic setting in an accessible city centre location": one which would be highly visible, adjacent to the Scottish Office, approachable through a civic space comparable with other European capitals, and without causing any major traffic problems.
Instead we will be paying a small fortune for a new Parliament on a wholly inappropriate site which will be a traffic and security nightmare.
Whether it was merely the ill-considered whim of the Secretary of State or a blatant attempt to contradict the choice of the Scottish National Party, it is an affront to the people of Scotland, who were never consulted. If this is an example of the new style of "democracy" proposed for the Scottish Parliament, then heaven help us if our current rulers gain control in May.
Edinburgh. April 1.
Return to home page