All together now - it's time to act as one

WHAT do the people of Scotland really want from the SNP at Holyrood and in local councils? That may seem a stupid question. We have just had an election stuffed to the gunwales with manifesto pledges including promises on hospitals and trams which local people will expect the SNP to deliver - or at least try to deliver. With a hung parliament, even the sternest critics will concede it's impossible to predict which SNP policies have a real chance of success.

But forget for a moment these specific party pledges. Forget rows over referendums, the bill for re-opening A&E at Monklands and the future of the council tax.

What do the people of Scotland want to see happening under the SNP that couldn't be done under Labour? Perhaps it is the truly unthinkable - SNP and Labour working together to make sure the best ideas are implemented by the best people.

I can hear the howls of derision already. Labour and the Nats working together? It's like asking Ian Paisley to work with Gerry Adams, Glasgow to work with Edinburgh, Tommy Sheridan to work with Maggie Thatcher. Precisely. Many of life's irreconcilable rivals are currently co-operating. And even those who are not - like class enemies Tommy and Maggie - are united by the fact their ideological single-mindedness built then wrecked their party's fortunes.

Labour and the SNP, by contrast, are post-ideology parties. New Labour's willingness to abandon Clause 4 socialism allowed it to become electable in middle England. Alex Salmond's willingness to postpone moves towards independence allowed him to become electable in the central belt. But far from sharing in government, these old enemies must now spend the next four years in Scotland manufacturing pseudo-ideological points of distinction to fulfil the traditional roles of government and opposition. Is this as good as it gets?

It hadn't occurred to me that people might wish things otherwise until I chaired a meeting of community council members in Dundee last week. Campaigners and residents in the new Maryfield ward were meeting one another and their new councillors.

But Dundee Council is a rudderless ship. The SNP won most seats but the Lib Dems might do a deal with Labour, although the Tories might abstain, and if one independent votes with the Nationalists on Thursday, there could yet be an upset.

Then came a novel suggestion: "We want you - Labour and the SNP - to work together. Must of us voted for the two of you - you've got most of the talent. Why can't you just get on with it?"

There was loud and general applause followed by much huffing and puffing from the Labour and SNP councillors, each claiming the other "side" would need to make the first move.

And I'm sure back at party HQs everyone had a good laugh at the naivety of the punters. Naive like the peace people in the 1980s who set out to fill the gap their politicians would not enter. Naive like every other "new party" on either side of the Irish Sea which has failed to replace the "old parties" ever since.

But if the Pollyanna approach to politics sounds absurd, what exactly is the function of opposition in the "new politics"? To set out a legislative agenda as if you were still first minister, as Jack McConnell has done? Or to "put your best ideas in deep freeze for four years and hope the electorate might want them then", as a troubled Labour councillor confided to me this week?

Or is it important that some of the best minds sit in lengthy, constant and even contrived opposition, to give government policy rigorous examination without strings or ministerial Mondeos attached? Just as the law separates the function of prosecution and defence, so government keeps its largest parties separate to check and balance one another. But should we feel relieved or short-changed that their combined might is something Scots will probably never witness?

Actually, this time at Holyrood, there's a better chance of joint working. Committees will often be chaired by SNP newcomers, eyeballing former cabinet ministers. The legislative timetable will have to be shared with other parties and backbenchers. The biggest winner (the SNP) will not take all. But the biggest loser (Labour) won't get much unless both sides play differently.

What do the public want? They don't want a mean-spirited guddle at Holyrood. They don't want a top-heavy bureaucratic state. But they don't want a bonfire of the quangos to put thousands of "ordinary" Scots out of jobs.

Perhaps a culling of the sacred cows should come first. At present policy at national and local level is driven not by ideology but by "insurance", "official advice", "health and safety considerations", "statutory powers" and "best-value criteria".

This recipe for indecision and inaction has allowed mindless, risk-averse thinking to dominate our public realm.

The Dundee meeting heard of a back court off St Andrews Street, where sinks, fridges, wrecked cars and old furniture have been fly-tipped for almost a decade. The council cleared the mess up once and now refuses to act. Why? Because ownership of the land is unclear. Why can't they just clear it up anyway? Because that would exceed their statutory powers.

This may sound small beer. But such problems are cross-party issues. No-one knows how to resolve them. So excuses are made and public confidence is lost.

Perhaps this is what voters really want of the SNP - to end the excuse culture, and to engage with Labour to achieve it.