Brian Monteith: Time for our bungling unionists to sober up

Published on Friday 13 May 2011 15:22

Labour and Conservative leaders at Holyrood have for years been behaving like drunks in a brewery

AS THE politically radioactive dust settles from what has been a Holyrood election victory of nuclear proportions, it saddens me to see that unionist leaders continue to make strategic and tactical blunders that play to the advantage of the Nationalists.

There was always an honourable case to be made for a unified British state run by houses of parliament that gave equal representation to its citizens but included checks and balances so that no one person, party, region or group of people might dominate over others. That case was last articulated in any coherent way by a political party at the general election of 1992.

Since then, unionist leaders have at best been confused, if not deluded, deceiving and bungling in their attempts to provide an asymmetrically devolved system of government that might satisfy demands for more localised decision-making.

The revelation in Peter Jones's column last week, and it was certainly a revelation to me - that Donald Dewar intentionally duped his Labour colleagues and consequently the nation into believing that the additional list system of electing members of a Scottish Parliament would ensure that the SNP (or any party) could not win a majority of seats on a minority share of the vote - deserves more scrutiny and consideration.

Did Dewar really propagate and cultivate a lie to the Scottish people so that his long-cherished political dream might be realised, putting at risk Scotland's place in the UK? Whether or not his intentions were merely to slip a particular devolution scheme past his Labour colleagues, such a lie then had to be maintained and kept up in front of the media and sold to the public as a check on devolution, allowing nationalism to prosper beyond its mandate.

I have no wish to dwell on the political reputation of the Father of Devolution, but rather point out that there is (and always has been) a need to address the serious shortcomings of Scotland's single-chamber government that lacks any significant restraint on the rule of the majority over minorities.

If having a proportional electoral system was meant to be that check, then plainly it does not exist. Democrats of any party should recognise that if we are to have a proportional system as a means of political restraint, then it would be better using the single transferable vote system - and if we are not, then Scotland needs an elected second chamber that might return legislation for further deliberation. This argument carries weight be our government devolved or fully independent. What say the unionist leaders to this democratic deficit?

Then there is the question of the funding of the Scottish Parliament.Opposed, as I was, to the unbalanced constitutional settlement, I and many others never doubted that once established it had to be financially accountable to be politically accountable. Unfortunately, the leaders of the Labour and Conservative parties have not accepted this link and so we had a Holyrood parliament that has behaved like a drunk let loose in a brewery. That the proverbial knees-up could not then be organised, evidenced by various capital spending projects that have and continue to go spectacularly out of control, or the failures of policy in, say, education (now behind England's), the arts (how many cultural reviews and at what cost?) and transport (need I list the lengthy charge sheet?), should not come as a surprise to anyone.

The current Scotland Bill is nothing more than another compromise that fails to meet a terms of reference that was in itself inadequate and is, if the unionist parties would only drop their self-delusion for a minute, unlikely to provide a stable constitutional arrangement that will provide good government or halt the slide towards separation. Only by awarding Holyrood the fullest financial autonomy as practically possible within the union will its politicians become accountable for their actions, and the cold bath of economic realism awaken them and a Scottish public that has become inured to living beyond its means.

Ignored by its progenitors, Labour heirs to Donald Dewar scheming, and its adopted parents, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives, the Scotland Bill should now be put out of its misery. Cameron should withdraw it, rethink what is needed for stable, accountable and balanced government, not just in Scotland but across the UK, and then reintroduce a bill that can be put to the Scottish people in a referendum. Calls for a referendum on such a bill had been the original intention and have continued, most recently and oustspokenly by MSP Margaret Mitchell.

Such a referendum could form a third question in an independence versus status quo referendum - as was the original intention of the SNP when it published its white paper last year. A gentlemanly discussion with Alex Salmond about timing could be held, with the unionists providing a back stop that if such a referendum was not held within four years then they would hold it themselves. Alex Salmond would be caged by his own promise.

Talk of holding a referendum now is sheer madness for which the Scottish people would not thank any politician and is emanating from politicians who for the last four years (if not longer) have fought tooth and nail against any such test of public opinion.When David McLetchie now says bring it on - despite, just a week before, effectively saying not over my dead body - he is being too clever by half, and the public is neither stupid nor daft, and sees through such political posturing.

Labour must go and lick its wounds, and as a humble word of advice from someone who has been there and done that with the Scottish Conservatives, forget London politicians and look to yourself.

For the Scottish Conservatives, the most important thing they can do is actually have a contest for their leadership, something that has not happened since David McLetchie defeated Phil Gallie in 1998 by seven votes in an electoral college of less than 200. Since then, the party has introduced rules that give all of its 10,000-plus members a vote but has never had the liberation that would come from debating how to go forward and become a winner in Scottish politics.

For this to happen, Murdo Fraser must step forward and declare his candidacy as the advocate of fiscal autonomy that delivers Scotland's last and only chance of remaining in the UK with dignity. Let others step forward and explain how they would make Holyrood work without it subsisting like a subsidy junky, high on the economic hand-outs that have led to its dependency culture detached from economic reality.

Only with such a debate can the Scottish Conservatives choose, at long last, the route they wish to take and thus determine once and for all if they have a life after Thatcher.

Fraser first explained the arguments in favour of fiscal autonomy in a 1999 pamphlet and had he been listened to then, I have no doubts the prospects for his party would be far better than they are now.