EXACTLY what is going on with the Constitutional Convention that was mooted last year by the three Unionist parties at Holyrood? The project was launched by Wendy Alexander as her "big idea" to seize the initiative from the new SNP government – which has set up its own National Conversation on constitutional reform. The Constitutional Convention at least has the merit of being backed by a vote of the Scottish Parliament.
Unfortunately, several months on, we seem to have no clear notion
of where the project is going.
Initially, there was a series of meetings between the leaders of the main Holyrood opposition parties, and then a similar meeting attended also by th
e Secretary of State for Scotland, Des Browne. On each occasion, the Scottish Government was deliberately excluded. But the remit and composition of the proposed commission remains vague – "to support and develop devolution in the context of Scotland's place as an integral part of the United Kingdom".
We know that Wendy Alexander wants greater powers for Holyrood – including greater fiscal autonomy – as a means of blunting the SNP's appeal. The Scottish Tories and Lib Dems may go along with that. But what is the view in Downing Street? We do not know. When Gordon Brown made his big speech on constitutional reform, on becoming Prime Minister, the one area he ignored pointedly was Scottish devolution.
At the weekend, there were press reports of a meeting on 28 January between Gordon Brown, Alastair Darling, Jack Straw, and Des Browne to discuss the Constitutional Convention. These detailed reports claimed the Prime Minister wanted the body to be re-named a "working party" or "review" and for its composition to be determined at Westminster rather than Holyrood. Given Mr Brown's normal desire to micro-manage, this scenario is plausible.
However, Number 10 has now issued a statement rejecting this version of events and claiming that the Prime Minister does not want to control the Constitutional Convention. That is a wise decision. Any attempt by London to interfere would play directly into the SNP's hands and further undermine Ms Alexander's hold on her job.
The obvious purpose of any constitutional review is surely to examine the working of the Scottish Parliament over its first decade and recommend improvements, in particular how to make Holyrood more accountable by devolving greater powers to fund itself. That remit suggests the composition of any Constitutional Convention has to be determined in Scotland.
It also follows that the recommendations of such a body should be the subject of a referendum. Which brings us back to the old question of why there should not also be a vote on the independence option. And if so, why are we having two constitutional reviews and not one? If the politicians want the voters to take them seriously, it is time they stopped playing games.
The full article contains 479 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
