Tim Luckhurst: More and more Scots want an end to devolution

Voters will not tolerate another layer of bureaucracy in the most over-governed nation in Europe

Since devolution, writing about Scotland has felt like filing news from a remote parish in Eastern Europe. At a festive party an old friend from London asked whether I had noticed the appointment of Britain's ambassador to Moldova. True to the form which my 12-year-old daughter terms "ultra-sad", I had to admit that I had. What depressed me was his response to my counter-inquiry: did he think the SNP would win the Scottish general election? He was not aware that 2003 is an election year in Scotland.

It is, and to those who care, three things look certain. Turnout will be abysmal, almost certainly below 50 per cent and, in the opinion of several home-rule supporting Labour politicians, possibly below 40 per cent; the Scottish National Party will make significant advances, although few support its demand for independence; and the confident assertion that devolution expressed the "settled will" of the Scottish people will be hard to sustain.

While political Britain debates the likelihood of Iain Duncan Smith surviving England's local elections, Scotland is experiencing a crisis of confidence. It is agreed that the first term of the Scottish parliament has been a huge disappointment, but there is no consensus as to how things might be improved.

Lord Steel of Aikwood, Presiding Officer of the parliament, took advantage of the festive news-drought to promote his own ideas. His conclusion is that a unicameral body was a mistake. Scotland needed an upper house.

Ignore the determination with which devolutionists insisted that Holyrood's committee structure would make a revising chamber unnecessary. Forget that Lord Steel vehemently opposed the creation of a Scottish upper house when the Scotland Act was scrutinised in the House of Lords. Sir David has spotted a flaw in the legislature over which he presides: it is not very good at making laws.

His proposal will not prosper. There is an element of sense in his view that a bad parliament, dominated by the sectional interest of the Scottish Labour Party (he calls the country a "political monoculture") might be improved by introducing checks and balances. But his Lordship's pomposity, growing more pronounced each day, has undermined his influence. And, to that antipathy must be added Holyrood's reputation for profligacy. Having seen MSPs spend wantonly on personal allowances and a new parliament building, voters will not tolerate another layer of bureaucracy in the most over-governed nation in Europe.

Many of those Scots who bother to vote will punish devolution by supporting a party that does not believe in it. They know that the SNP leader, John Swinney, lacks distinction. He is what Scots call a "numpty" but, crucially, Swinney is not a Labour numpty, and that negative attribute will help him in 2003.

The SNP are still unlikely to win a majority. Idealists who mistook it for a principled decision may have missed what the Labour Party was up to when it designed the system for devolved elections. The mixture of first past the post and proportional representation was designed to make separatist victory almost impossible. The likelihood is that Labour incumbency will endure, particularly since their coalition partners, the Liberal Democrats, have removed any point in standing as a separate party by agreeing to support Labour in the new parliament. These paragons of principle have even agreed a legislative programme, though they had no intention of sharing it with voters until a mole leaked the terms.

So, there will be a swing against Labour. But a blend of apathy and national understanding that Labour always wins in Scotland because Labour always makes the rules, will ensure more of the same. Devolution will not improve, and Lord Steel, who is to retire in March, will not get his longed-for seat in an unelected revising chamber.

There is an opportunity here. Scottish Conservatives could offer a real alternative by standing on an abolitionist ticket. They would not win, but they would give devo-sceptics a reason to vote, and so compound what should be an acutely embarrassing episode for Mr Blair. But the Scottish Tories have spurned this opportunity. Like the quislings which many of their former supporters now believe them to be, Scotland's Tory leaders are determined to do nothing to rock the devolved boat.

Why should English voters care? Because, while Mr Blair's Government is routinely lambasted for its failure to reform public services, grasp the euro-nettle or display an iota of independence in its relationship with Washington DC, a lunatic myth has grown about its handling of constitutional change. Devolution, say Labour's friends, has been a glorious accomplishment. This is a lie. In May there will be an opportunity for something more valuable than a game of spot-the-vote. Those who have swallowed the line about Scotland's new democracy and plan similar experiments throughout the English regions will be forced to contemplate reality. As Lord Steel's contribution unintentionally reveals, devolution has not delivered better government.

To the majority who remain committed to the British state, that was its only legitimate purpose. In 2003, the 400th anniversary of the union of the two crowns, separatist advances may just grab their attention.

TimLckhrst@aol.com