Humza Yousaf’s talks with Rishi Sunak focused on powers to hold a referendum. Without them, his party has nothing to offer
Source - Daily Telegraph 26/04/23
Yesterday, Humza Yousaf visited Westminster for talks with Rishi Sunak. The police investigation into the SNP’s finances is still ongoing; an auditor for the accounts has yet to be found; two of its most senior figures have been arrested (and subsequently released without charge) in the last month. And what is the issue foremost on the leader’s mind? The power to hold a second independence referendum, of course. Talk about fiddling while Rome burns.
Yousaf went through the usual motions, accusing the government of undermining devolution. Cynical observers might conclude that Yousaf is seeking to deflect the public’s attention from the collapse of his party by concocting a row with London. However, I favour a second explanation; it is quite possible that the SNP has elected as its leader a man who hasn’t quite grasped the basic fundamental tenets of devolution.
The first minister’s spokesman told journalists that he had “raised concerns around UK government attacks on devolution, including the foreign secretary’s clumsy intervention on Scottish Government activity abroad and comments on devolution from Lord Frost”. Apparently, preventing the SNP from using foreign office resources to set up meetings to undermine the interests of the United Kingdom is out of order, but Scottish ministers opining on issues explicitly outside the remit of the Scottish Parliament – from foreign affairs and defence to international development – is just fine. It’s the cruel Westminster government insisting the SNP sticks to the devolution agreement that’s undermining it.
As for Lord Frost’s comments in these pages about repatriating some devolved powers to Westminster, is the official view of the SNP that members of the UK legislature must express no view on devolution or Scotland? How far does this ban extend? If peers cannot express an opinion, can ordinary members of the public? Must every opinion meet the strict criteria of nationalist approval before it is disseminated?
Surely the best defence against arguments for returning powers would be to wield them effectively. Of course, that defence is not available to the SNP, which has a woefully inadequate record in office. But only the most blinkered of devolutionists would support the ratchet approach to devolution, where there must never be any reversal of devolved powers under any circumstance.
Of course, as SNP leader, Humza Yousaf really has no choice but to seek more powers, and raise the issue of a second independence referendum with his boss in Downing Street. No one in that position would survive long were he not to advocate a rerun referendum at every opportunity, even if he knows he’s on a hiding to nothing.
But in doing so, Yousaf betrays his own ignorance of what devolution is all about. We have a definitive ruling by the Supreme Court that referendums on matters already reserved to Westminster are illegal. If Yousaf wanted to be seen to respect the devolution settlement, this would include respecting the terms of The Scotland Act, which set up the Scottish Parliament in the first place.
But he doesn’t. Those who campaigned for devolution in the 1980s and ’90s did so in the belief that it would lead to better decision-making and better policy for Scotland. In the SNP’s case, many supported devolution only because they hoped it would lead to independence, and to hell with better services and policies.
This in turn is why Yousaf seems to have spent little time trying to understand what underpins devolution. Unionists have much to celebrate in the political legacy that Nicola Sturgeon bequeathed to her successor, but the most important part of that legacy is that, thanks to her decision to seek the advice of the Supreme Court on the legality of a second independence referendum, Yousaf has already, just a few weeks into his leadership of the Scottish Government, run out of road.
He cannot, as his predecessor did, buy time by repeatedly promising another vote because everyone would know it can’t happen. More mature politicians with broader political outlooks would resign themselves to focusing on the day job and seeking to improve those services and policies that are actually devolved to Edinburgh. But instead, Yousaf continues to bleat about reserved matters.
If Yousaf remains in office long enough to be present at the next meeting between first minister and prime minister, it is Rishi Sunak who should complain about Yousaf’s constant undermining of devolution.
Comments
Post a Comment