A Unionism That Does Not Deserve to Prevail

Regarding Mr Miliband’s hapless interview with BBC Scotland David, like James Kirkup, expresses what is the conventional view in London:

But, as James Kirkup notes, the Scottish Labour Party is a serious issue. It is the only check on Alex Salmond, which makes it essential to the future of the union. And it’s important for Labour’s electoral recovery, not that you’d realise that listening to the senior party. As I revealed on Sunday, Labour shadow minister Ivan Lewis displayed extraordinary complacency about Scotland at a fringe event, implying that Labour will return to power in Holyrood as a matter of course, no effort required. Miliband’s ignorance only compounds that sense… Labour’s seemingly uninterested Westminster clique have presented Alex Salmond with an opportunity that he’s much too canny to miss.

Up to a point. The fate of the Scottish Labour part is not especially relevent to the fate of the Union. It is true that Unionism needs new and improved leaders (perhaps the Prime Minister might care to visit Scotland occasionally?) but that is a rather different thing. Were I invested in the squabble to lead Labour in Scotland I would vote for Tom Harris since he’s the candidate with the greatest clue but the party members, as is traditional, seem unlikely to listen to me.

More importantly, Messrs Blackburn and Kirkup appear to suggest that beating the SNP matters more than anything else. I submit that this is not the case and that the argument lies elsewhere. It is a question of the governance of Scotland and how that may best be done. The constitutional wrangling is part of this discussion but only part of it even if, admittedly, it is an essential aspect of these considerations.

A Unionism that is uninterested in good governance is not a Unionism that deserves to prevail. And I submit that any conservative desiring a Scottish Labour revival is not interested in the better governance of Scotland. The future of the Scottish Labour party is not a serious issue except in as much as its return to power will most probably result in worse, not better, government. Why this should be thought a good thing is a mysterious thing indeed.

And this is the problem with an Anything, Anyone But the SNP type of Unionism (especially when promoted by residents of London): is says, when you boil it down, that this Unionism is not actually interested in Scotland qua Scotland nor in what’s in Scotia’s best interest. Instead it makes the Union some kind of sacrament, to be honoured regardless of circumstance and in spite of any evidence suggestig this is a foolhardy enterprise. If Scotland, by this line of thinking, must suffer under Labour then that’s preferable to it flourishing (even within the Union) under the SNP. This is a road to madness.

The constitution will take care of itself (not least because the people will be the judges). In the mean time it would be useful if Unionists ceased making quite such a fetish about the Union alone and instead talked about policy and measures that might make Scotland a better, more prosperous, cheerier place. Perhaps a vigorous and combative Scottish Labour Party is part of that process but history suggests that’s not something any conservative or liberal should count on, far less welcome.