WHEN Holyrood was established in 1999, hopes were high for a new type of politics. What many thought might be achieved in time was more freedom of thought and action, less rigid party whipping and a better quality of debate than that we saw most of the time on the TV from Westminster.
In short, what was wanted was a sort of day-to-day version of the lofty sentiments – wisdom, justice, compassion, integrity – engraved on the head of the Scottish Parliament mace which from the beginning has faced MSPs whenever they are in session.
The first mistake was to commence the business of the new parliament within days of the initial election. Brimming with electoral testosterone, the members set about the business of devolved Scottish politics in the confrontational style of that old-fashioned place they either were used to or still aspired to.
Moreover, the outcome of the 1999 vote resulted in a coalition government which could only deliver the joint Labour/LibDem programme with an element of compulsion being applied to doubters in both parties.
Tories to Westminster in 2010 (not that Labour under Blair and Brown were much more respectful to Holyrood); the deepening constitutional divide; the appalling imposition of the hardest of Brexits on a country that did not vote for it and steady undermining of the Parliament’s powers; the refusal to recognise Scottish electoral mandates, and the coarsening of discourse as a result of the social media normalisation of abuse and the deepening partisan stances of the press have all made it harder and harder to do things differently.
The need for returning to some of the original ideas remains clear, however, and that is why I welcome Kate Forbes’s decision to spend some time forward-thinking about policy and writing about it in this newspaper, too. We need to rekindle the desire to have, at least in part, a politics of ideas. Kate and I will find ourselves agreeing and disagreeing according to the subject, I am sure.
READ MORE: Kate Forbes calls for fishing ban proposals to be dumped
Her first column put forward some important reservations about the proposal, which is still out for consultation, to designate new Highly Protected Marine Areas.
Those worries from her constituency perspective are echoed by some keen conservationists who want to see the same laudable objective of marine environmental recovery taken forward by localised agreement – an approach that has worked elsewhere when there has been conflict between national government and local communities with traditional rights and livelihoods focused on harvesting local resources.
Increased debate within and across parties and the country can only be productive, however, if there is a willingness to embrace and respect it as a positive development and an agreement by politicians and the media not to use it as a stick which to beat others, a desire to speak constructive terms and an acknowledgement that at the end of the process, there has to be a conclusive decision.
Democracy, while it can and should thrive with civilised debate, is also about making and implementing decisions. Continuing dissent is a rare tool and one to be used very sparingly indeed.
None of that is going to be easy to achieve. The sheer nastiness of the current Tory approach – based, as I have pointed out before, on brutal delegitimisation of both the SNP and the concept of independence and now extended also to contempt for the Scottish Greens – will mean that they and their media cheerleaders will react with scorn and horror to the idea that shouting and sneering have no place in the Parliament.
Government will also have to get used to the idea that the undoubted genius of civil servants in thinking up 25 good reasons to reject any non-governmental proposal must be tempered by a willingness to listen and reflect.
The new government has within it several members who have shown considerable skill in taking forward difficult legislation, including the new First Minister, and the lessons from that can serve this cause well. No law is fully and finally formed when it is introduced to the Parliament. Much can be improved by careful scrutiny in committee and in the chamber.
The aim should always be to make the final act better than the initial bill, and that constructive approach needs to apply to everything that is proposed by Government and opposition alike. Most importantly of all, we should embrace two things that are essential in any process of renewal. The first is to forge forward, not look back. The second is to lead by example, no matter the risk.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel