Why two simple changes to Scottish devolution would be music to King Charles' ears, but not SNP's

King Charles and Queen Camilla are scheduled to be at Holyrood today for a musical event to mark 25 years of the Scottish Parliament convening – or, as the parliament’s own pre-publicity has it, “reconvening”.

It has always slightly puzzled me why the nationalists are so keen on “reconvening” as if, following an unfortunate interruption, the cord of history broken in 1707 has been woven together again at Holyrood. That does seem rather low in ambition.

The 1707 version was a motley band of bishops, robber barons, landowners, aristocracy and royal favourites, with many falling into several categories, as they still do. One might have thought the last thing Scotland should have aspired to, three centuries on, was any hint of continuity, as in “reconvening”.

Conveners vs Reconveners

Yet therein lies the fault line which has debilitated Holyrood for most of these 25 years and may continue to do so. On one side of the line, there were the “conveners” – practical politicians who thought they were creating a modern, devolved parliament within the United Kingdom, in the interests of good government for Scotland.

On the other – and they have been in control most of the time – were the “reconveners” who saw Holyrood’s stated purpose as an interim arrangement, and a rather derisory one at that, to be replaced at the earliest opportunity with the spirit of 1707 (notwithstanding the inconvenient detail that these exalted predecessors voted to abolish themselves).

Views on how the last 25 years have played out, at least among those who have been around long enough, break down along the same lines. Those who sought better and more accountable government through devolution believe that this potential has been thwarted by forces committed to a different constitutional outcome. The fundamentalists who all along saw devolution as an inadequate sop to their own holy grail naturally attribute Holyrood’s shortcomings to a lack of powers which can only be resolved through the establishment of a full-blown Scottish state, giving true meaning to the term “reconvening”.

Little to show for devolution

The curious consequence of these diverse positions is that there is, beneath the surface, something close to consensus that there is remarkably little to show for the past 25 years. Ask the “conveners” and they will say it’s because of the SNP’s obsession with independence. Ask the “reconveners” and they will insist it is all down to the parliament’s lack of powers.

Of course, neither faction will admit to complete failure. The “conveners” with long memories will shout “smoking ban” and the “reconveners” will reply “baby boxes”. But is that really as good as it gets? The answer will depend to a considerable extent on what the Scottish electorate demands over the next 25 years – but first it must understand the options.

In other words, it must untangle the two competing causes – progressive government and the constitution. My guess is that the vast majority of Scots are, for the time being at least, weary of the latter and perfectly prepared to park it if given the opportunity. That seemed to be what they were saying in the general election and I obviously hope the same verdict will persist until 2026, thereby giving devolution another chance to prove itself, in its own terms.

1999 wrongly defined as year zero

That is by no means certain. Anyone looking back over the past 25 years must conclude, whether with dismay or delight, that the pre-eminent consequence of the Scottish Parliament’s creation was to build a platform for the constitutional issue to dominate Scottish politics. That was not the intention of its founding parents, though it was pretty obvious it would be the result, later or – as it turned out – sooner.

A generation has now grown up in which Scottish politics largely equates to what happens at Holyrood. History has been rewritten, sometimes quite literally, to define 1999 as year zero, before which nothing of much consequence happened while Scotland festered. Nothing could be further from the truth but the myth creates a usefully low bar against which to set both the achievements of the past 25 years and expectations for the future.

The great reforms which Scotland achieved before Holyrood was heard of, often through our own distinctive legislation, are forgotten though they are still the ones most beneficial to millions. On housing, on health, on education, on poverty gaps… the least Scotland was entitled to expect was that devolution would advance standards and achievements which already existed, rather than stand still or go backwards. Can that be claimed under any of these headings?

Nationalists’ desire to centralise power

There was always the risk that devolution would not only stop at Edinburgh but would suck in powers which were previously held at more local levels within Scotland. And so it has proved with centralisation a key feature of nationalist rule. Their ultimate ambition might be to take all powers from Westminster but meanwhile they hoard them from wherever they exist. This debilitates local government, relies on docile quangos and leads to policymaking which disrespects the places and people affected by it.

While all sorts of commentators and learned bodies have had their say on 25 years of devolution, two bodies which have shown little interest in introspection are the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government. There will doubtless be platitudes amidst today’s royal music about the significance of what happened 25 years ago. But will there be any declaration of intent to honour its purpose?

I would settle for two simple commitments – to work with the government of the United Kingdom within the devolved framework to deliver the best possible outcomes for Scotland, and to give meaning to the word devolution by returning powers to communities within Scotland itself. I’m sure these noble sentiments would be music to the King’s ears, though certainly not to others.