A country with any sense will dissolve the Union – rather than accept idiocy

In Scotland, of course, all these are activities that cannot be brought here by English–Tories-cum-prime-ministers, or not at least without an escort of police and an entourage of tame paid-up party hacks summoned to show loyal support by the flaunting of Union Jacks. It is even better to do this on a chilly afternoon with an international rugby match going on at the same time in an adjacent city, so that there are rival attractions for any dissidents. I have this on the authority of Boris Johnson, who came here on just such an errand last weekend.

I hope it gave Boris something to think about as it is rather hard to define at this stage, in the second winter of his government, exactly what his Scottish policy is. In November he told his MPs that devolution had been a “disaster”, the “biggest mistake” by a former occupant of No 10 Downing Street, Tony Blair. When Boris’s remarks got leaked, his spin doctors were quick off the mark to deny this really was his opinion. But most other evidence suggests it is, and a quick trip to Scotland in a bleak March is not enough to suggest anything else.

This was at least consistent with further reports we have about Boris and his unvarnished opinions. Especially in the three smaller nations of the Union, they point to some sort of rough programme of policy as we move beyond Europe and its tiresome regulation. Many of us have wondered if novel forms of devolution might belong to a fresh political settlement. Like universal suffrage or the welfare state, they might show differences in detail from place to place, which everywhere are also in great part the same. Yet suddenly, it seems devolution may no longer belong to the settled constitutional order in the UK. It could go the way of British membership in the EU. And Boris will be the man who decides.

I’ll give an example. We have not yet heard the last of the Internal Market Act, which was passed at Westminster in December. It hands to central government the right to impose its own regulation on the devolved nations in place of the European regulation they have had to follow before, over and above any devolved rules they have ever had of their own. If you thought that, with Brexit, there would be greater co-ordination among various levels in the UK, forget it. Central government will impose whatever co-ordination there may be. This is how we could be forced to accept chlorine-washed chicken and other at-present banned products from the US, if London and Washington agree this should happen.

READ MORE: Tories ‘preparing for a Scottish independence referendum’ despite rhetoric

The centralisation will spread not only through time but also over space. A Shared Prosperity Fund is being set up for the UK as it also budgets for government departments to force their way into areas of responsibility previously devolved. The Scottish Office (and the EU since 1973) has run the fisheries in its waters for a century. Now it seems clear these will be transferred to some super-ministry in London, because of the requirements of Brexit. Complete novelties, such as freeports, will equally be controlled from London, even though they should have strong local connections that might easily be devolved.

A robust model of devolution would surely include healthy structures of regular consultation between the centre and subordinate departments scattered round the country. But recent announcements about replacing the Erasmus study programme, or about a tunnel under the North Passage or about limits on regional air fares, were all made unilaterally from London. There was never a thought that distant beneficiaries might have contributions of their own to make and even welcome a chance to tell the Government about them.

NOW that Brexit has taken place, there may seem to be less rather than more security for the Union. We know there were large differences in support for the outcome in different parts of the UK. The repatriation of EU powers also involved decisions on which powers should be retained at the central level and which could be devolved again. The new tasks have gone far enough to deserve a new name for use in public debate about them. So now we have a concept of “hyper-Unionism” to sum up Boris’s approach. It means a Unionism more forceful and vigorous than before, with little notion that the UK can be run as a sort of standing commission of its national governments. Instead, London will rule OK.

During the lockdown the Centre for Constitutional Change in Edinburgh, under Professor Michael Keating, has sponsored a series of papers and discussions on what this new UK might look like as it returns to normal (or not, as the case may be). Now he is about to publish a book covering much of this ground, State and Nation in the United Kingdom. Keating argues that the UK was never a nation state, because traditional Unionism was never uniform. The societies of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland preserved historic features that they were left to control with no interference from the centre. Yet England, the most powerful of the foursome, had no self-government of its own. So the UK “did not require a single people, a single purpose and a single understanding of the constitution”. Some other nation states, diverse in their nature, still had a constitutional construct of fixed ideologies and institutions. But the UK remained diverse, pliable and flexible.

Johnson’s career before he got to No 10 showed no deviation from this UK norm, yet as Prime Minister he is its greatest enemy. He admits deviations from his ideas only when his attempts to put them into practice prove them to be completely impracticable. Northern Ireland has shown this approach in action, with plans and then policies that are dictated before being contradicted by the practical business of government. It already looks as if this strategy will lead before long to the dissolution of the Anglo-Irish union and the reunification of Ireland. The parallel case of Scotland is rather different. We have a longer history of national – though not sovereign – government. It has been going for more than a century and become steadily more comprehensive, generally with the agreement of the political parties. So there is a clear and stable concept of Scottish government to which all subscribe.

Now under Boris it is looking less clear and more unstable. He insists that Westminster remains sovereign. Regardless of what is thought or done at Holyrood, he wants UK departments to be able to step in wherever they like, if for nothing else than to demonstrate his government’s singularity and sovereignty. This sounds most like a scheme to undermine the Scottish government. If some region of Scotland wants a new motorway, then with a convincing case the money can be won from Westminster, regardless of what Holyrood says. A country with any sense will dissolve the Union rather than put up with this idiocy.