Debate about Holyrood has been non existent since 1997. That year saw a double blow for opponents of evolution as the referendum on a parliament was won heavily by those in favour of the idea and the election had seen every Tory (the only party opposed to devolution) seat lost. Since then the effect has been twinned; the Tories have taken years to get back on track, and still have a lot of work to do, and debate about the existence of the parliament has disappeared, Worse still for devo-sceptics, the Conservatives are now backing Holyrood and have long since given up their opposition to it. Up until very recently, only UKIP was opposed to the virtually untouchable parliament, now even they seem to be having to conform.
What is saddening for the union is that contrary to predictions made at the time, Holyrood has become a platform for independence to be achieved from, thankfully the most recent effort was beaten- 55-45 in September. However with the SNP in charge, or even in opposition, there will always be an effort to leverage more power from Westminster, thus creating imbalance and it leaves the nationalists in a position where they can take credit for what goes well and blame Westminster for what doesn't. A fine example is the NHS crisis of recent weeks. When pressed by opposition leaders Sturgeon blamed the lack of funding from Westminster (despite the fact that Scotland unfairly receives more than other parts of the UK thanks to the inept Barnett formula). Simple blame games like this have cultivated a toxic atmosphere in Scottish politics and it is entirely aided and abetted by the devolution set up.
Yet not one unionist party seems to realise or try and solve it. Only UKIP has taken on part of the issue, by saying it will reduce the Barnett formula and allow devolved assemblies to make up the difference through new tax powers. The proposal was roundly condemned by every unionist party and the SNP. There is an unhealthy alliance taking place here and on other occasions- if Labour, Conservative or liberal parties ever find themselves siding with the SNP, they should think long and hard about that position. What is increasingly worrying is the never ending list of pledges, to make Holyrood permanent and more powerful; this is what the SNP want and with that in mind, is it really in the best interests of the union? One of the parliament's founding principles was 'consensus'. No more rowdy Westminster, instead a nice semi circle where politicians agree on things. This has manifested itself in the toxic situation where debate on Holyrood's existence and its relevance are shouted down, with unionist politicians gladly siding with Nats. As with the response to UKIP's Barnett plans, unionists are to busy appeasing the SNP, than fighting for the future of the union.
If a party were to emerge, with a part of its manifesto saying it would either scrap Holyrood or hold a referendum on doing so, how much support would it get? what would its membership be like? This blog would predict around 8% in elections and polls and it would probably garner about ten thousand or so members. But size wouldn't matter, the very fact it existed would. Having a devo-sceptic voice in Scottish politics would add colour to the pro UK movement and would add health to a dangerously stagnant consensus on the existence of devolution. For the good of the union let us hope one forms or one of the existing parties adopts such a stance.
What is saddening for the union is that contrary to predictions made at the time, Holyrood has become a platform for independence to be achieved from, thankfully the most recent effort was beaten- 55-45 in September. However with the SNP in charge, or even in opposition, there will always be an effort to leverage more power from Westminster, thus creating imbalance and it leaves the nationalists in a position where they can take credit for what goes well and blame Westminster for what doesn't. A fine example is the NHS crisis of recent weeks. When pressed by opposition leaders Sturgeon blamed the lack of funding from Westminster (despite the fact that Scotland unfairly receives more than other parts of the UK thanks to the inept Barnett formula). Simple blame games like this have cultivated a toxic atmosphere in Scottish politics and it is entirely aided and abetted by the devolution set up.
Yet not one unionist party seems to realise or try and solve it. Only UKIP has taken on part of the issue, by saying it will reduce the Barnett formula and allow devolved assemblies to make up the difference through new tax powers. The proposal was roundly condemned by every unionist party and the SNP. There is an unhealthy alliance taking place here and on other occasions- if Labour, Conservative or liberal parties ever find themselves siding with the SNP, they should think long and hard about that position. What is increasingly worrying is the never ending list of pledges, to make Holyrood permanent and more powerful; this is what the SNP want and with that in mind, is it really in the best interests of the union? One of the parliament's founding principles was 'consensus'. No more rowdy Westminster, instead a nice semi circle where politicians agree on things. This has manifested itself in the toxic situation where debate on Holyrood's existence and its relevance are shouted down, with unionist politicians gladly siding with Nats. As with the response to UKIP's Barnett plans, unionists are to busy appeasing the SNP, than fighting for the future of the union.
If a party were to emerge, with a part of its manifesto saying it would either scrap Holyrood or hold a referendum on doing so, how much support would it get? what would its membership be like? This blog would predict around 8% in elections and polls and it would probably garner about ten thousand or so members. But size wouldn't matter, the very fact it existed would. Having a devo-sceptic voice in Scottish politics would add colour to the pro UK movement and would add health to a dangerously stagnant consensus on the existence of devolution. For the good of the union let us hope one forms or one of the existing parties adopts such a stance.