Opinion: Mark Smith: Unionists need to get over themselves. Difference with England is a good thing

In retrospect, that seems remarkable, but that’s how it was. I once asked the former Scottish secretary Malcolm Rifkind why the constitution wasn’t a bigger issue 20 or 30 years ago and why devolutionists like him weren’t pushing harder for change and his answer made sense. It just wasn’t dominating Scottish politics, said Sir Malcolm, and if it was, why weren’t 100,000 people marching down the street demanding reform?

Of course, they are marching now (or at least they were before the virus) and a lot of Scots have found the whole thing stressful. I suspect many unionists are, by nature, cautious people and instinctively prefer the status quo, so change or constant agitation for change is uncomfortable for them. They’ve been trapped in the back of the car while their parents bicker and squabble in the front – and we never reach our destination.

Which is why, politically, the last few weeks have been a relief for many unionists. Broadly, the Scottish and UK governments have followed the same policy on coronavirus (and often made the same mistakes) and Nicola Sturgeon has struck a collegiate tone. She’s also appeared to pull back from her usual approach of emphasising differences with Westminster, which, I suspect, is one reason her coronavirus approval rating is high among Tory and Labour voters as well as nationalists.

READ MORE: Scots trust Holyrood to stop new virus wave, but not Westminster 

There are some Tories and unionists, however, who seem to want the alignment between Holyrood and Westminster to continue at all times. For example, the Scottish Tory leader Jackson Carlaw questioned why Ms Sturgeon did not move from the “stay at home” slogan at the same time as the Prime Minster, the implication being she was up to her old tricks of looking for differences with Westminster for the sake of it.

But firstly, the First Minister was right to be dubious about “stay alert”: it’s a rubbish slogan. Secondly, she has worked closely with the UK Government – the SNP’s Mike Russell pointed out how extraordinary the co-operation is on coronavirus given the stand-off on everything else. And thirdly, to expect Scotland to align with the UK at all times is a bad idea, not only because the virus varies regionally but because total alignment misunderstands devolution. The SNP may have been guilty of seeking difference for the sake of it, but some unionists have been guilty of the opposite offence: seeking sameness for the sake of it.

What devolution shows is that the reality is in the middle and that difference within the UK is a necessary and desirable part of the system. Indeed, it was part of the case for a Scottish Parliament in the first place that it would be different from Westminster. It was said, for instance, that a less adversarial approach would be fostered by the U-shaped chamber and a high number of female MSPs. Then along came a female MSP from Irvine who was inspired to enter politics by a female MP from Grantham. Bang goes that theory.

But in other ways, Holyrood’s difference to Westminster has been critical to its development. When he was first minister, Labour’s Henry McLeish pursued policies irrespective of whether they were different from the rest of the UK, on free personal care for the elderly for instance. But part of the reason for Labour’s decline in Scotland was that his successor Jack McConnell avoided policies that might create differences with the leadership in London. It also explains the success of the SNP. Most people don’t value difference for the sake of it, but difference when necessary became a way to judge Scotland’s politicians.

At least initially, Alex Salmond seemed to understand this when he succeeded Mr McConnell. The emphasis of the SNP’s first administration in particular was on being responsible and competent in government, although Mr Salmond was not scared of taking off his jacket and having a fight with London when he thought he needed to.

But somewhere along the line, mainly because of the 2014 referendum, this balance between difference and responsibility was lost. The SNP and Nicola Sturgeon knew being different to London was popular with a large swathe of voters and in that sense reversed what Henry McLeish did. Mr McLeish pursued policies irrespective of differences with the rest of the UK, whereas it often felt like the SNP pursued differences with the rest of the UK irrespective of the policies.

READ MORE: Coronavirus: Politicians and facility bosses say Scottish Government must follow rest of the UK in care home testing

To some extent, coronavirus has re-tuned the parameters again. Nicola Sturgeon has been competent and responsible during the crisis and it was only when the PM, not the FM, changed tack in England that differences emerged. Not only is this how devolution is meant to be – regional differences when judged necessary by the different leaders – I suspect it’s how most voters would like it to be. We don’t want to be the same as England for the sake of it, and we don’t want to be different for the sake of it, we want to be different to England when it’s right for Scotland.

In that sense, difference is a good thing and nothing to be scared of, even for unionists. The problem is that a few of the most committed unionists, and Tories in particular, seem to view any difference as bad or an SNP plot rather than part of the process. Earlier, I summed up the 2010s with one word – chaos – but chaos and difference are not necessarily the same thing. Difference done the right way – the way it’s been done under coronavirus – is part of devolution. The aim is difference that’s dynamic but respectful. It’s difference when needed but not for the sake of it. It’s devolution done properly.

Our columns are a platform for writers to express their opinions. They do not necessarily represent the views of The Herald.