Joanna Cherry: Scotland is no 'banana republic' – but Holyrood could do better

A lot of criticism has come the way of the committee and the Parliament. Presiding Officer Ken Macintosh said: “If you look at the process and the way it has been carried out, I think you see a powerful parliament in action.”

Other politicians were very critical of the committee and suggested the way in which it had conducted itself undermined its findings. The criticisms spanned the political spectrum from nationalist politicians who dismissed it as partisan, to a Tory politician, David Davis, who claimed the committee didn’t have the powers it needed to get to the truth of the matter because MSPs don’t have the same “powers and privileges” that MPs have.

He claimed to be motivated by a desire to improve parliamentary democracy at Holyrood, but I think it’s fair to take that with a pinch of salt as most Tory and Unionist commentators are motivated by quite the opposite desire. We only need to look at Alister Jack’s cynical attack on Holyrood’s ground-breaking legislation on child rights to be reminded of that.

It also needs to be said that it’s a bit much for any Westminster Tory to criticise Holyrood for being a parliament where it is difficult to hold the executive to account. Boris Johnson unlawfully suspended the Westminster Parliament to try to avoid being held to account and his Government has continued to undermine and prevent scrutiny of its actions. This has included shutting down the select committee charged with scrutinising the UK’s future relationship with the EU and attempting to limit the extent to which the courts can scrutinise executive action by curtailing the right to judicial review and “reforming” the Human Rights Act.

However, the fact that the Union parliament is deeply flawed should not prevent us from looking to see how we can improve the devolved parliament even as we strive to turn it into an independent one.

While it is ridiculous to describe Scotland as a “Banana Republic” we should be big enough to acknowledge that recent events may have revealed some shortcomings in our current constitutional set-up. Independence is the goal but as we move towards the process that will bring independence about and prepare for the transition to statehood there is no reason why we should not try to improve our current institutions.

What we learn from recent events can also inform our decision about what the institutions of an independent Scotland should look like.

READ MORE: Patrick Harvie: There is an alternative to this toxic style of campaigning

Two aspects which emerge from the committee’s experience are instructive in that respect. Firstly, the majority findings of the committee raise the need to address the long-standing tension in the Lord Advocate’s dual roles as legal adviser to the Scottish Government and head of the Crown Office. It is not necessary to criticise the current Lord Advocate to see that there is at least potentially a problem.

As we approach independence with all the major constitutional upheaval that will involve, it might be useful to separate out these two roles and have a Director of Public Prosecutions at the Crown Office, thus freeing up the Lord Advocate to concentrate on his or her role as government legal adviser.

To do this we would need Westminster’s co-operation to amend the Scotland Act but given that it has gone along with criticism of the perceived tension in the dual role it is now nicely boxed into a corner where it will find it hard not to agree should the Scottish Parliament demand this change.

THE second issue also arises from the committee’s majority findings and relates to the parliamentary committee system. The majority concluded that the experience of the committee suggested Parliament may have insufficient powers to hold the executive to account and recommended the establishment of a commission to review the relationship.

When Holyrood was set up, it was decided there was no need for a second chamber because the committee system would be sufficient to ensure that legislation was properly scrutinised, and the government held to account.

While the issue of a second chamber can wait for independence, the experience of the last few months suggests that the powers of the devolved parliament’s committees to insist upon documents being produced and witnesses giving evidence need strengthened.

It would further strengthen the committees if their chairs were elected by MSPs rather than appointed by the government as they are at present. The independence this gives the chairs is widely considered the reason for the power of the Westminster select committees.

Former SNP MSP and Holyrrod presiding officer Tricia Marwick has suggested that we should do the same at Holyrood. It might also be useful to look at whether the functions of scrutinising bills and holding the government to account should be separated out and given to different committees.

In looking at how we improve our current constitutional set-up and frame the shape of an independent Scotland’s constitution, it is instructive to look at the recent report of the Citizens’ Assembly of Scotland, Doing Politics Differently.

The section of its report entitled “Vision” says that Scotland “should lead with integrity, honesty, humility and transparency” and that Scotland’s “authorities have a duty to publish information that is valid, accurate, reliable, verifiable and accessible to all. Scotland should be a country where the people and government communicate with each other honestly and respectfully … based on openness and accountability”.

The recommendations include the appointment of a “non-political independent review body to … deliver a more accountable parliament”. It also wants to see Government held accountable and consequences where policy goals are not met.

This is clearly a plea for more transparent decision making and greater scrutiny of government.

Finally, several politicians and journalists have said that the atmosphere around Holyrood is as toxic as they can remember it. In a radio interview, former first minister Henry McLeish said that the level of hatred which surrounds much that we do is not healthy for the Parliament, the government or the public. I know from bitter recent experience that this corrosive and toxic atmosphere is not confined to the Scottish Parliament.

Of late, many fine words have been uttered about the importance of taking the abuse of women seriously. For this to ring true, it needs to be extended to all women, not just those winning favour with the current establishment.

For some time I have warned that if we did not tackle the intolerance and the foul abuse that has been allowed to fester around identity politics, and the debate about reforming the Gender Recognition Act it could infect other areas of our public debate. That is why I put forward suggestions for a Citizens’ Assembly to look at these issues.

However, I fear the toxic spread has happened already. It is not too late to tackle these problems, but it requires action from the leaders of all our political parties. The election campaign which started yesterday provides the perfect moment to reset the tone of our public debate.