Cross-party agreement

is needed to deal with

the SNP agenda

Walter Humes

 

A healthy democratic system requires both a government that is strong and an opposition that is capable and effective. Assessed against these criteria, post-election Scotland might be judged to meet the first but not the second requirement.
     The success of the SNP in gaining an overall majority of nine seats over all other parties means that it can press ahead with its manifesto programme, without having to worry constantly about the risk of parliamentary defeat. A greater risk is hubris, an arrogant triumphalism, particularly in relation to the Labour party which for so long had assumed a divine right to rule in Scotland. Alex Salmond would do well to discourage some of his more ardent supporters from indulging in rather nasty 'payback' comments in the blogosphere. In victory, generosity of spirit is likely to win more approval – and secure greater long-term benefits – than dwelling on past slights.
     All three main opposition parties are in a seriously weakened position and this poses as much of a danger to democracy as the nationalists' temptation to indulge in the arrogance of power. Labour, Conservatives and Liberal Democrats need to find new leaders from a pool of MSPs that is not overburdened with talent.
     In Labour's case, their best prospects failed to get re-elected. The names that have been touted to succeed Annabel Goldie as Tory leader do not inspire much confidence: in fact, one of the things to emerge from the election campaign was that many voters seemed to quite like Miss Goldie personally but did not like her party. In the case of the Lib Dems, the problem is very limited choice and the low visibility of potential candidates. Willie Rennie, a list MSP for Mid Scotland and Fife, is being canvassed as the most likely person to succeed Tavish Scott. For all three opposition parties it is possible that someone currently not well known could grow into the job of leader, but that would take some time. Meanwhile, the task of holding a strong government to account may not receive the urgent attention it deserves.
     Hanging over all of this is the intention of the nationalists to proceed to a referendum on independence. They certainly have a mandate for doing so, though it is interesting to see that questions are now being raised about the relative constitutional powers of the Holyrood and Westminster parliaments in relation to this issue. The London chattering classes were slow to appreciate the full significance of the SNP victory but it would be surprising if the security and intelligence services are not now engaged in a full risk assessment of the implications of a 'Yes' vote for independence. 'Dirty tricks campaigns' seeking to discredit the SNP leadership can be anticipated in the run-up to the referendum: however, if mishandled and exposed, they could have the opposite effect from the one intended.

 

     If the opposition parties at Holyrood fail to re-establish some credibility quickly, and leave the case against independence to their London-based colleagues, they will be further weakened in the eyes of the Scottish public. They would do well to consider a cross-party agreement in responding to the SNP agenda. Even the first minister, a man not noted for modesty, in his victory speech admitted that the SNP did not have a monopoly of wisdom.      Working together, the opposition parties might achieve more than ploughing separate furrows. Such an agreement could be time-limited up to the date of the referendum and could be confined to a specific remit relating to constitutional options. It would have to focus on a positive set of alternatives to full independence as a purely negative stance would be unlikely to win support: indeed Labour's negativity was one of the reasons for its poor showing in the election.
     What would the positive aspects consist of? They would involve exploring a range of federalist alternatives to both full independence and the current constitutional position of Scotland within the UK. This would entail renewed scrutiny of the distinction between 'reserved' and 'delegated' powers in the division of responsibilities between Westminster and Holyrood. It would also go well beyond proposals in the Scotland Bill that is making its way through the UK legislative process, demonstrating a realistic response to the message conveyed by the election result. If some senior Scottish figure with a UK profile – Alastair Darling might be a possibility – could be persuaded to convene the cross-party grouping, that might enhance its credibility.
     Do I consider that such a development is likely? Sadly, in the short-term I think it is more probable that the three main opposition parties will retreat into private bunkers that will not allow the kind of open-minded exploration of new approaches that is needed. Labour's visceral tribalism used to be a strength but has become its major source of decline. Both the Tories and the LibDems need to reinvent themselves as distinctively Scottish parties, willing to cut adrift on a range of issues from their London counterparts.
     In all cases, if they fail to show boldness and imagination in addressing the new political order in Scotland, they will make it much easier for the SNP to persuade Scots that, despite their reservations, independence is perhaps the best option.

 

Prior to his retirement Walter Humes held professorships at the universities of Aberdeen, Strathclyde and West of Scotland. He is now a visiting professor of education at the University of Stirling