Former First Minister, Henry McLeish, says that politicians at both Westminster and Holyrood need to embrace a new era of politics

A new year should be the chance for a fresh start and a resolve to find bold and imaginative ways to meet the problems the future will bring. Disappointingly, but perhaps not surprisingly, the assertions and attitudes of politicians at Holyrood and especially westminster show that they are still unable to move on the important question – what is Scotland’s place in the United Kingdom?

There is no doubt that 2007 was a remarkable year in which the political landscape of the United Kingdom was transformed, yet it has been notable that political parties and politicians are reluctant to come to terms with the dramatic developments and do not appear to understand the “new politics”.

The current gaping disconnect between London and Edinburgh is harmful.

Only time will tell whether this - and the change in the Scottish mindset in which traditional loyalties to party, class and country and the Union are shifting – will be permanent. A distinct possibility is that as they become more sophisticated in the practice of devolution and the use of proportional voting, Scots will develop a political “split personality”. The clearest demonstration of this is the election of the SnP Government, with its platform of separation from the UK, when the overwhelming majority of Scottish voters have declared they are anti-independence.

Does this mean that, depending on the nature of the UK Government, Scots seem prepared to wield their votes to gain the best advantage for their country? As we enter 2008, will Scots set aside traditional ties and even ideologies to vote differently in UK and Scottish elections? And after a period of seemingly effective Nationalist Government, sufficient voters may well be prepared to support full independence in a future referendum or we might simply have the Quebecois scenario, where Nationalist forms of government and saying ‘no’ to independence in referendums has become the established politics.

Thus the battle for Scotland is under way, with Unionism and Separatism head-to- head, and much of it is already happening below the surface of mainstream politics.

At the start of 2008, it is not overstating the case to say that the maintenance of Scotland within the Union can only be achieved if politicians across the Unionist spectrum, especially at Westminster, are prepared to be open-minded, face up to uncomfortable truths, shed out-dated prejudices and realise the need for new political thinking and ideas. As part of all of that, they need to accept pragmatic ways forward around modern notions of diversity, sovereignty, nationality, democracy and identity.

In particular, Westminster needs a better understanding of nations and sovereignty. why is there an obsession with the sovereignty of the Westminster Parliament and a reluctance to consider shared sovereignty or sovereignty in different sites or territories? This would allow us to look beyond sovereignty to a political and constitutional settlement for the UK involving shared power, not devolved power.

There is also a need to look to European integration and multi-level governance and to have a clearer view of national aspirations and transnational integration.We need to learn from Europe.

North and south of the Border, we need to develop a body of political thinking which provides the substance of the argument and a platform for promoting a bigger vision, a deeper debate, a more inspired and informed agenda and, more importantly, greater political and constitutional options for the future of Scotland and the Union - in particular, more choice for the Scottish people.

Despite the efforts by Westminster and the SnP to polarise the debate around status quo devolution and independence, the National Conversation established by the First Minister does allow the possibility of opening up a debate on a “third way”.

The search for a “third way” would be welcomed by a majority of Scots

The search for a “third way” would be welcomed by a majority of Scots

The debate in Scotland cannot be removed from the wider UK debate about the constitutional future of the Union. One effect of the “new politics” of Scotland should be to stimulate the debate at Westminster, in England and throughout the Union.

In this context, the “meaning of independence”, in an increasingly interdependent and dramatically changing world, requires more effective scrutiny. we need to look at political spaces and take a far more flexible view of territory and borders and seriously ask why the aspirations of many nations, including Scotland, cannot be met through new concepts and structures which stop short of independence.

The “England question” also deserves more serious consideration. It is frequently argued that the English regions lack the clear-cut cultural and community identities and historical characteristics that help to define Scotland, northern Ireland and wales and entitle them to a special status within the Union. even if this were true, there is undoubtedly a case to be made for more devolved economic powers and responsibilities being part of the solution
to the english question, while at the same time reinvigorating the UK economy. In europe, this new strand of thinking is based on the idea of “adding value” to existing structures of government and territorial politics...this is looking at devolution through the prism of the “competitive region or nation”. Faced with these new global and European challenges, the emergence of the knowledge society and the accelerating pace of economic and technological
change, Westminster is less able to influence events. There is now a very positive case for the Union to be more flexible and modern and to look upon the nations and regions of the UK as having more economic potential if only they could be given more responsibility and economic powers to lessen their dependency on Westminster and assume more responsibility for their own futures. A renaissance of new ideas and innovation in building long- term competitive economic advantage in the regions and nations of the UK is long overdue.

The regions of England need to be empowered and this may provide a real stimulus to building a debate on the political and constitutional future of a country where 50 million people are totally governed from London. Devolution is the solution, not the problem - and centralist diehards need to realise this.

Constant reference to “Britishness”, appearing to ignore the diversity of the constituent parts of the UK, actually undermines the broader reality it seeks to reflect. Diversity and pluralism are strengths and, if dealt with intelligently, could shape a different kind of Union which harnesses more effectively the energy, enterprise and enthusiasm of the people. The Scottish sense of identity has been constant over the generations, while there has been a loosening of party political and class loyalties, affiliations and allegiances. People do not regard the Union as a formal entity, in the same way as politicians and academics, but have a greater sense of it as being social, economic, cultural and monarchical. As a result, they do not necessarily respond to perceived threats to the Union in the way politicians expect. The younger generation is more adaptable and combines the need to express its nationalism and identity with a more idealistic European and global agenda.

But after a decade of ambivalence, how does the Government regain control of the European agenda and deal with the parliamentary approval of the new Lisbon Treaty of Reform?

How does the Government re-engage with the constitutional debate about the future of Scotland and the Union and the emerging aspirations of Wales and Northern Ireland?

what are the implications of the inward migration from Central and Eastern Europe and the growing impact on the labour market?

How does the Government handle the issue of illegal immigrants from outwith the EU and the difficulties and pressures created by asylum seekers?

How do we prevent the “War on Terror” further dividing communities, escalating strains and tensions and undermining trust?

These are huge, controversial and sensitive issues which can generate deep divisions and bitterness in communities and often bring out the worst aspects of human nature and extreme and irrational political views.

The issue of the Union is not whether it has been good for Scotland over the last 300 years. It is whether the Union in its present form is fit for purpose in the 21st century. There are two fundamental issues: the politics of Scotland and the future of the Union.

There is a “third way” scenario that sees Scotland move radically forward in a completely transformed Union but stops short of independence.

The “Mother of Parliaments” should recognise that transferring powers is not a sign of weakness but of strength and confidence in the constituent parts of the United Kingdom. without that, the paradox is that the impetus for the break-up of the Union may be created at the very heart of Unionism itself.

That is why it is too important for our politicians and our political parties to take refuge in entrenched attitudes or, worse, to hurl insults across outdated political barricades.

Tag it: