Ruth Wishart is undoubtedly A Good Thing (to borrow Sellers and Yeatman's phrase of approval), and it was certainly a good thing she was Chair of the lively debate that led on from the observations of Henry McLeish, Tom Brown, (these joint authors of "The Road Divides; New Politics, New Union" Hamish Macdonell (author of "Uncharted Territory, Scottish Devolution 1999-2009" and Charlie Jeffrey (joint editor and contributor to "The Scottish Parliament 1999-2009: The First Decade").
These three books on the topic are as different and diverse as their authors and approach, but perhaps unsurprisingly similar in some at least of their conclusions. Tom Brown asserted that unless the character and psyche of Scotland changed, we were doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past.
A forthrightly Freudian analysis, this reviewer was reminded of Carol Craig's efforts to jolly Scotland into a more "positive" frame of mind. Brown's repetition of the urban myth of the Scottish (sometimes British) individual diagnosed with depression in the U. S. and only rescued from hospitalisation when it is realised they are simply being Scottish/British.
Neither Brown nor Craig appear to consider one person's "negativity" is another person's realism, and that this may apply to nations as to persons. Stereotypes, Brown bemoaned, are still with us, meaning stereotypes of Scots and Scotland, seeming to ignore those applied to Poles, Asians, etc. He then veered toward the anxiety producing vision of passport controls applied at Berwick and Carlisle, before members of the audience checked this hyperbole.
Hamish Macdonell argued that what was needed was attitudinal change rather than psychological. The first ten years of the Scottish Parliament had been difficult, and perhaps if we had looked more closely at the possible difficulties, people would be less disappointed by the results so far.
Despite, or perhaps because of this, Scots show a reluctance to move beyond the status quo of the present; there is as yet no demonstrable desire for complete independence from the UK.
Henry McLeish observed that Scotland's history consisted more of memories than of dreams, implying that we may have aspirations we have yet to achieve. McLeish is convinced that power will continue to devolve in the context of an increasingly optimistic (and, by implication, self-confident) debate.
Charlie Jeffrey was perhaps the most realistically optimistic speaker (whether this had anything to do with his self-definition as "token English person" is difficult to judge). He suggested that popular expectations had been inflated but nevertheless the Parliament could be judged a success. It has restored legitimacy and consent to the political process in a UK context, through the constitutional framework in which the Scottish Parliament sits.
A debate which presents only the stark options of independence and the present devolution settlement fails to reflect either the current climate of opinion in Scotland or present political reality. Even the SNP on its "National Conversation" web-site acknowledges the possibility of greater powers for a Scottish Parliament within a UK framework.
As might be anticipated a lively debate ensued, managed ably by Wishart and an indication that whatever confidence Scots may lack, it certainly isn't in debating possible futures for their country. Although some positions were predictable and to some degree tribal, it was interesting to discover a degree of broad, shy consent for increased powers for the Scottish Parliament.
Arriving at this point among an increasingly apolitical electorate would undoubtedly be a greater challenge, and it is likely that those framing and defining such powers will, like Oscar Wilde, spend much time removing semi-colons they have previously inserted. If the past ten years have taught the Scottish people anything, it is certainly how long such a time can be in politics.
Copyright Bill Dunlop 2009
First published on EdinburghGuide.com 2009