Constitutional peace hasn’t quite broken out in Scotland, but it is at least and at last being discussed.
In a new paper, the unionist former Scottish Labour leader Kezia Dugdale and Stephen Noon, a former SNP adviser and Yes campaigner, explore how the two sides might come to some agreement about the way forward.
Both had very different experiences of the 2014 referendum and its aftermath. Dugdale writes that “looking back now, the divide in the country was not between those that won and lost, but between those experiencing grief or relief. I understand the motivations and desires of those that voted ‘Yes’ far better today than I did then.”
For his part, Noon says that “I realise now that what was joyful and inspiring for me was frightening and threatening for others. We had, as a nation, been involved in two different conversations with sharply contrasting emotional undercurrents.”
In their paper, the pair propose a commission to examine the devolution settlement and whether Holyrood has the range of powers it needs to adequately tackle issues such as poverty, ill health, and demographic and climate change. There should also be a formal agreement between the Scottish and UK governments about the criteria and mechanism under which another independence referendum might be held, they argue.
Not everyone will want to settle on terms, but there are more of them now than at any point since 2014. There is weariness on all sides at the long divisions that have dogged Scottish political and civic life ever since. The talk at Holyrood – though for now it’s really only talk – is of greater collaboration across the chamber. There is a better relationship, too, between John Swinney’s government and Keir Starmer’s than the SNP was ever able to establish with the previous Conservative administrations.
Ministers further down the chain have also been meeting their counterparts – at the recent British-Irish council meeting, ministers from across the devolved assemblies, taking in Labour Wales, Sinn Féin/DUP Northern Ireland and SNP Scotland, found themselves in agreement about reforms to devolution that might improve tackling the undersupply of housing.
If we are to find our way past the angry disagreements that have hindered our politics for at least the past decade, and which were so ruthlessly and damagingly exploited by populists, there needs to be much more of this. A focus on what works for its own sake rather than what might provide narrow and temporary party advantage is essential. As Starmer put it in his conference speech, “country first, party second”.
In truth, everyone would benefit. The SNP, with independence far down voters’ list of priorities, would stand a chance of showing that it can use devolved powers to improve public services and that its members are not beyond being grown-ups who can work with the UK government (which they’d have to do anyway in the event of independence).
Scottish unionists would also benefit from a Scottish Parliament that is more effective and that shows it can deliver on its promise. That’s the way to make Scots more comfortable with the devolved settlement rather than full independence. They should always strive to be the bigger and more tolerant partner.
And it provides Starmer with the opportunity to show that the Union can work for Scotland in creative and collaborative ways. Scotland’s two governments need not constantly be at loggerheads, a situation from which no one wins, whatever some of the more aggressive Nats may think.
Here’s a thought – why doesn’t the next leader of the Scottish Conservatives, whose identity is announced today – work with the SNP to pass its December budget? Do a bit of horse-trading, secure some policy wins, and help to usher in a new era of delivery, establishing their credentials as a significant and intelligent force? After all, the SNP and the Tories worked together well in the 2007 parliament.
From Scottish Labour’s perspective, it should look to harness the talent that exists around Holyrood – there isn’t really enough of it in any one party. If they win in 2026, for example, why not ask Kate Forbes, circumstances permitting, to chair a commission on reforming Scotland’s sclerotic enterprise network? Or make use of the smart, driven, Conservative peer Malcolm Offord, a passionate Scot who recently left the UK trade department, in its quest to make more of Scotland’s international and inward investment opportunities.
There are so many areas where national brainpower needs to combine, from making the most of the energy transition to fixing the health and education systems, to growing the economy and more effectively tackling child poverty. Local government reform, too. Many of the solutions in these areas are modern and technocratic rather than ideological.
It would also serve to repair the reputation of a political class that has sunk dangerously low in public estimation in recent years. Showing that this class has the nation’s interests rather than its own or the movement’s at heart is surely something voters would welcome. And we badly need policy solutions for the long term, whoever is in government at any given time.
As the 2026 election draws closer, the incentive will be to paint the other side as the bad guys. But that’s how the last ten years have gone, and all it has done is break things. The chance for a fresh start is here and now.
[See also: What Rachel Reeves can learn from Keynes]
Content from our partners
Related
