Before going in to address a class of first year law students at Aberdeen University, last November, the head of the Law School took me aside and said, “Just to be aware. Most of your audience can’t remember a Scotland without a Scottish Parliament.” And, of course, these students were only about four years old, when the first elections to that Parliament were held fifteen years ago last week.
To those of us who campaigned so long and hard to create the Parliament, it doesn’t seem so long ago. But that a new generation of young Scots takes the Parliament’s existence for granted is a welcome affirmation that we achieved the permanent legacy of a transfer of power that has brought government closer to the people of Scotland.
For those who have always known a Scottish Parliament, they have lived in times when we have had the best of both worlds. A strong Scottish Parliament which shapes our domestic agenda while working together across the UK to unlock shared economic and social advancement.
Before the creation of the Scottish Parliament, much of the constitutional debate had been around which powers should be transferred from Westminster, not how they might be used. The devolution settlement put that issue to bed for a time. As a member of the first coalition government in Scotland, I was one of those grappling with the question of what we did with those powers.
As Liberal Democrats, we know that that power is not an end in itself. It is a means to deliver the kind of social change and Liberal reform that Scotland needs. It is through the exercise of power that we can support individuals and families, help businesses and build a fairer society – that is what we sought to achieve in government.
Different parties have different values and different priorities. That is the nature of politics. But working with colleagues in Labour and across the Parliament we were able to pass key legislation that is as important today as it was more than a decade ago.
The first Act plugged a legal loophole which had led to a man who’d pled guilty to killing a neighbour being released from the State Hospital. Devolution gave us the powers we needed to act expeditiously. We then legislated to implement a Scottish Law Commission report to simplify the law relating to adults who lacked capacity to enter into legal transactions.
There followed legislation to give communities the right to buy land and individuals the right to responsible access over land. Other early successes of devolution included free bus travel for older people, free eye and dental checks and the abolition of tuition fees.
Debate over issues like free personal care for the elderly was fierce. But Liberal Democrats, with the support of many within Labour and the other parties, were able to make the case for a policy that has benefitted thousands of older citizens over the last decade.
Arguably, the most significant measures were the introduction of the single transferable vote for local elections and the ban on smoking in public places. England later followed the trail blazed by the latter; but sadly – as we’ll see later this month – still retains the much less democratic first-past-the-post system for council elections.
In 1999, Scotland faced different demographic and health challenges to the rest of the UK. That is still the case today. But devolution gave us the power to design a Scottish solution to the unique circumstances that we faced.
A proud Scottish Parliament had the powers to take big choices on policies that continue to make a huge difference to the lives of people around Scotland. And just as today, Scotland benefited from the strength and stability that we took from being part of the UK.
Policies taken forward in the Parliament have helped build a consensus that decisions over things like health, education justice and transport should be taken here in Scotland. That is the real legacy of the devolution settlement and it is something that Liberal Democrats welcome. After all, Liberals have backed Home Rule and the decentralisation of power since Gladstone’s Midlothian campaign in 1879. And since 1999, Liberal Democrats have continued to make the case for a stronger Scottish Parliament, building on the successes of devolution while protecting the positive things we share as part of the UK.
It was a Liberal Democrat Scottish Secretary, Michael Moore, who took the Scotland Act 2012 through the UK Parliament, extending the tax powers and accountability of the Holyrood Parliament. The latest report from Sir Menzies Campbell’s Home Rule Commission report shows that we are still leading this debate.
All three UK parties have made it clear that further devolution for Scotland will be on the agenda in the 2015 election manifestos, if Scotland votes to stay with the UK. There is a growing consensus that a no vote in September will not mean no to change. A positive vote to remain part of the UK offers Scotland the best of both worlds. A stronger Scottish Parliament and the strength, security and stability that comes from being part of something bigger. More powers for Scotland and more opportunities for businesses as part of the UK family.
Come September, I hope that the Law students I met in Aberdeen vote to build upon this progress by voting to remain in the UK. That would be a positive change which builds upon Scotland’s proud history of devolution and enables a future where we can have the best of both worlds with a stronger Scottish Parliament which shares risk and reward across the broad UK shoulders.
The first 15 years of devolution have been good for Scotland. The next 15 years represents an inspiring opportunity to build upon that progress.
* Jim Wallace is leader of the Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords and was Deputy First Minister of Scotland from 1999-2005.
4 Comments
Dear Jim
It’s good to be reminded of the successes of the Scottish Parliament, especially those of the first two sessions where you so ably led our party in two successful coalitions.
But I can’t share your optimism on the further devolution for Scotland that “will be on the agenda in the 2015 election manifestos, if Scotland votes to stay with the UK”. I don’t doubt our own party’s sincerity, but our own current position falls well short of our longterm ideal of federalism, as Andy Myles pointed out (https://www.libdemvoice.org/andy-myles-announces-support-for-scottish-independence-38809.html), while Labour and the Tories are making noises but offering nothing.
As over and again in the long history of attempts to get Home Rule, we’ve missed opportunities. After the 2007 election we might have manouevred the SNP into a referendum on Home Rule, but our leadership decided undemocratically it wouldn’t even talk to them. And in 2012 we had the opportunity to get Devo-Max – with our own definition of it – onto the ballot paper, and again a childish hatred of the SNP among our leadership prevented us going for this option, despite the opinion polls that told us how popular it would have been.
Instead we’ve allowed ourselves to lose our identity in the Can’t Do movement that is Better Together.
You are right to praise our Scottish Parliament. It provides representative democracy on a human scale. Westminster will never provide the latter, and has shown remarkable resistance to the former – and don’t get me started on House of Lords reform!
So I’m voting Yes. If the Better Together rhetoric is honest – and the Edinburgh Agreement kept – Westminster will make every effort in negotiations to see that we keep our social union as we get our political independence, so we will be close enough to that long held dream of Home Rule.
I would like to believe that the result a Yes vote would be, not a permanent divorce but the beginning of a new sort of Union, freely entered into by both sides and respecting the rights and wishes of both the Scots and the English. But I am not naïve enough to think that such a thing could come about without immense difficulties (most of them avoidable but insisted on by one party or another).
Nobody has explained to me what would happen if a Yes vote were to be followed by the SNP losing the 2016 elections, so that the tail end of negotiations for separation might come under a different government opposed to Scottish independence — or, at least, the SNP’s vision of it.
David-1 –
“a new sort of Union” – not sure what you mean by this, perhaps a confederation of independent states, which might at some future point include Wales and both parts of Ireland? – I’d support that in principle.
” if a Yes vote were to be followed by the SNP losing the 2016 elections” – I hope the intended timing would stick, so that the SNP would lead on the independence negotiations, but the “vision” would come after the 2016 elections. We should as a party be thinking how we might relaunch if there’s a Yes vote, as there’s plenty we could contribute, especially in promoting more powers at local level, as in Ming’s devo-max report and in contrast to the centralising tendencies of the SNP – I don’t know whether that centralising tendency is part of their real thinking, or just a referendum ploy.
But the best thing about the independence movement is that so much of it is grass-roots, and not associated with specific parties.
The real problem is that no-one has the slightest idea as to what would follow a vote in favour of Scotland leaving the United Kingdom, including basics such as currency, EU membership, defence and a host of other unresolved questions. The idea opined by Denis Mollison that the outcome could be a pally get-together to sort out a new UK rather more congenial to the Scots than the current set-up is one of the more bizarre suggestions I have come across. If I were a Scottish resident I don’t think I would base my voting decision on that prediction.