ON this day 300 years ago, the Act of Union came into effect, cementing a marriage of sorts between Scotland and England. On this day 10 years ago, the British people went to the polls and by a huge majority voted Tony Blair's Labour government into power. Any celebration of either event today is likely to be distinctly muted. Mr Blair, who has already outstayed his welcome in Downing Street, is expected finally to announce his resignation within weeks. As for the Union, it has rarely looked so shaky since the day the treaty was signed and the bells of St Giles Cathedral rang out the tune to "Why should I be so sad on my wedding day?". There is an irony here, bitter or sweet depending on your viewpoint. Without the Blair government, there would have been no devolution settlement for Scotland and Wales. Many in his own party opposed it and the deciding argument was that it would draw the sting of nationalism and shore up the Union. But for a stitch in time saves nine, substitute another sewing metaphor: the unravelling seam.
What went wrong? There is much in the Blair legacy for him to take pride in: the minimum wage, peace and a political settlement in Northern Ireland, lifting many children out of poverty, better maternity rights, more nursery education, low inflation and unemployment, a stable economy. After nearly two decades when Scotland's predomi-nantly left-of-centre electorate felt disenfranchised, the political weather seemed set fair for Labour. But disillusion set in, aggravated by the death of Donald Dewar, controversy around Henry McLeish and disappointment in the calibre of MSPs. The sense that Scotland had been sold a pig in a poke was reinforced by the decision of the talented Scots who now pack the cabinet to stick with Westminster politics. Jack McConnell's arrival at Bute House brought a period of stability but little spark. And when many of Labour's grassroots supporters in Scotland were affronted, first by the disastrous invasion of Iraq, and subsequently by hasty decisions over Trident and nuclear power, instead of giving voice to that dismay, Mr McConnell chose loyalty to his leader. In return, instead of ringing endorsements, he has been undermined persistently and briefed against by factions within his party.
In recent months, as Mr Blair's authority began unravelling and the government was mired in the cash- for-honours investigation, the situation has deteriorated further. In his seeming determination to reach his 10th anniversary, the Prime Minister has put his legacy above his party's fate. In Scotland, it has left Labour staring down the barrel of defeat. The more major decisions were pushed through against Scottish mainstream public opinion, the more questions were asked of the relevance and benefit of the Union. And instead of taking the constitution out of the argument by promising to review the devolution settlement, it, and Iraq, have been allowed to dominate the campaign to the virtual exclusion of all the policies controlled by Holyrood.
Any balanced assessment must conclude the Act of Union has served Scotland well. While respecting Scotland's distinctive judicial, educational and religious institutions, it permitted a Scotland freed of trading constraints to prosper and enabled Scots to play key roles in the shaping of Great Britain. The late twentieth century brought a long, slow decline, temporarily offset by regional aid and inward investment. Now there are signs of fresh growth but Scotland's deep disenchantment with the Blair government, following the wilderness years under the Tories, highlights the question of what sort of nation we want. Like most Scots, The Herald remains to be convinced that constitutional divorce is the answer. However, even the best marriages benefit from periodic renegotiation.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article