25 Years of Devolution Is a Potion that Treats Unionism

The next in our series looking at devolution twenty-five years on.

Politics returned to Scotland 25 years ago. A fact that unionists have been keen to highlight on a sunny then wet Sunday. 

Of course, politics never left Scotland. Local authorities were governed by elected councillors, answerable to their constituents. And Scotland almost always sent a gaggle of MPs to Westminster. Just as we do now, we did then, before devolution.

Instead, this ‘return’ is supposed to soothe the Scottish nationalist. It is to say “look, England values you, we have given you a play centre for men and women in suits to speak loudly at one another. Isn’t that lovely?” And Scottish unionists are trumpeted across the airwaves to deliver this message in a lilting, recognisable brogue. 

To be fair, to an extent, it is lovely. It is right that Scotland has a parliament, and the subsequent powers that such a parliament yields have been beneficial. As our new First Minister has pointed out, the SNP, in government since 2007, have lifted more than 100,000 children out of poverty. Without the opportunity to govern in Scotland, in a parliament, this may not have been achieved. 

And, we have the best-paid NHS staff in the UK, a staff that haven’t taken industrial action, unlike south of the border. That is thanks to the outlook of Scotland’s government. Indeed, it is the effect of polar opposite government, of polar opposite political ideology, of polar opposite rhetoric. 

These are reminders of what a true government of a nation can do for its people. But that is not what unionists want to champion when they discuss Scottish politics in the context of this milestone. 

Instead, it is a ploy to make mischief of the spoken – or written – word. Through a thin veil, they are reminding Scotland that devolution was the result of lengthy debate, significant lobbying, and constituent pressure. It came thanks to a fight with a bully. The issue with winning a fight with a bully, though, is that they typically want revenge.

A realist might argue that devolution came with the aim of muffling the rising popularity of the Scottish nationalist movement. It has failed to do this. Now, unionists wish to use this anniversary as a reminder. It is a reminder that what came up can come down, that just as the Scottish Parliament has given a stymied system of government, so too can it be strangulated if it strays too far beyond what they deem acceptable. It is a reminder that a bully will punch back, and might do so when you’re not looking.

Of course, this isn’t new. The section 35 order issued by the UK Government, blocking Scotland’s Gender Recognition Reform Bill, was issued under the guise that it may impact UK government policy. Scotland’s refusal to challenge this further in court suggests that this could be the case, but it also shows the willingness of a UK Government to clamp down on the liberties of Scotland’s legislative platform, irrespective of a Bill’s possession of parliament-wide support. 

And it feels natural that unionist Lord McConnell, when speaking to The Herald’s Andrew Learmonth about 25 years of devolution as a former First Minister, spoke of the parliament’s “shaky start”, before acknowledging a “few decent years” – when he was First Minister – before his rising climax suggested the SNP government doesn’t care for the real priorities of the people of Scotland. Perhaps, Lord McConnell’s commitment to such a tired trope proves Scottish Labour are unable to deliver the ‘real change Scotland needs.’

None of this is to say that the de facto position of the Scottish unionist is one from which they wish to see Scotland’s politics [sic devolution] fail. It is to say that if Scotland succeeds where the rest of the UK fails, they are uncomfortable. It challenges their inner desire to be close to a colonial privilege, one where robes and wigs debate upon red-leather benches, where a man carrying a gold mace convenes their parliament, and where their only permissible lie is committed by the naming of a provably corrupt parliamentarian as ‘the Honourable’. 

We should be extremely cognisant of this modern-day Scottish cringe. It is not going away, is the largest threat to Scotland’s devolution, and to any pursuit of Scottish independence. This is particularly true if, as it seems, there is no way of holding a legal independence referendum without the blessing of these people. 

The unionist political class will remain eternally convinced of Scottish independence, but there are enough people in Scotland who could be convinced by Scottish nationalism. It is worth exploring with these people, these winnable activists, why it is that so many of the unionist political class wish to disprove Scotland’s effectiveness at the art of self-governance. 

Perhaps it was in Lord McConnell’s self-aggrandising message to The Herald that highlights most effectively the unionist fear? I put it to you that, for this former First Minister, through Scotland’s successful and effective self-governance, the prestige of his political career, including that of his position in the House of Lords, has a prestige more akin to that of a Prius than a Lexus. I suspect his skin crawls.

To test this theory, close your eyes and think of the most prominent unionists across the media and elected politics. 

I put it to you that this argument – likely – stands up to them, too.