Call that a no confidence vote? It is not often one can praise the 1970s for displaying more style than today, but in the matter of great Commons occasions, the 1979 vote that brought down the Labour Government beats last night’s effort hands down.
Dear oh dear, class of 2019. Where was the knife-edge result? The raw anger, the shaken fists, the singing of the Red Flag? If March 28, 1979, was a West End show, this week’s effort was am-dram night at the community centre.
Perhaps the Commons had picked up on the mood of the country, which come the dawn on Wednesday stretched from confused all the way to alarmed and stocking up on tinned goods.
But who are we kidding about MPs and their aura-reading skills? As the Commons website puts it: “It is a core convention of the UK constitution that the Government must be able to command the confidence of the House of Commons.” What happens, however, when it is the country that is having its doubts about Westminster as a whole?
Read more: Brexit ding-dong followed Brexit ding-dong as Westminster continued the psychodrama
Such scepticism is nothing new to Scots. There would have been no devolution without the belief that some matters were better handled in Edinburgh than London. Mistrust and downright dislike for Westminster continues to fuel the independence movement. When it comes to being dismayed by events in SW1A 0AA, Scots have been there, done that, and got the Scottish Parliament to show for it.
We have also experienced seismic change in the country’s political make-up, going from what was a virtual one-party state under Labour to a more diverse representation. Party fortunes have risen and fallen, with the once-unthinkable, a comeback for the Tories, taking place.
These changes happened over a lengthy period. Crucially, faith in peaceful, political solutions to problems endured. Even when put to the test in the independence referendum. Yes there was division, some nasty incidents, and it was far from a carnival of civility and joyousness, but people were interested, felt involved. They believed their vote could change things. Hence the record number who voted. Turnouts of more than 84% do not happen if people feel disengaged from the political process.
Compare these attitudes, this mood, to the one now abroad in the rest of the UK and, yes, to some extent in Scotland. Michael Gove, Game of Thrones fan and Environment Secretary, is right: winter is coming, but to a far greater extent than he imagines.
For some time now there has been a distinct chill in relations between Westminster and the electorate, and it goes back further than the expenses scandal. What it comes down to is a feeling that the current generation of MPs are not much cop. No one wants the return of the patrician part-timers of old, but the trend towards professional politicians, with little to no experience outside politics, has not been healthy either. Brexit has exposed how few MPs are original thinkers and able strategists. Going by the last two years, you would not send some of them to buy a pint of milk far less trust them to handle Brexit.
This chill could harden into a Beast from the East front if the result of the 2016 EU referendum is set aside and a second vote held. Despite this, an increasing number of MPs, and Scotland’s First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, are swinging behind a second vote. Ms Sturgeon, in Westminster yesterday to rally the troops, said putting the issue back to the electorate was now the “only credible option”. Really? And she would have felt that way if Scotland had voted for independence in 2014 only for the result to be challenged, and the exit negotiations to become bogged down to the point where it was felt there was no other way forward but to have another referendum?
Read more: FM says indyref2 update in 'matter of weeks'
The arguments being deployed in favour of a second EU referendum – that Brexit turned out to be costlier and more difficult than expected, that people were generally not well enough informed – could one day be used against a Yes vote for independence. The FM should be careful what precedents she sets.
More likely, feelings of powerlessness and resentment among the electorate, the same emotions that contributed so heavily towards a Leave win, would intensify. And what would all these second referendum cheerleaders do if the vote comes back even more in favour of Leave? The bad blood will not disappear overnight.
Nor would the insinuation, sometimes open declaration, that Leave voters were just not very bright, or racist, be easily forgotten.
A second referendum would send a message to 17 million voters, including one million in Remain-voting Scotland, and to society as a whole that some votes can be set aside. You have heard of An Inconvenient Truth; the 2016 vote would become The Inconvenient Result. Democracy would be poisoned, the entire concept of a free and fair vote trashed. Brexit means Brexit may be guff designed to disguise cluelessness, but we should all be able to agree that a vote is a vote.
The cold front on its way is set to spread to other parts of the UK’s democratic landscape, starting with Mr Gove’s party. Who believes there will still be a Conservative Party as we know it in five years’ time, maybe sooner? The wounds are too deep to heal, there is no centre left to hold. Each side, pro and anti-EU, will have to go their separate ways.
Read more: Scottish Secretary faces fresh calls to resign over Brexit vote
Nor will Labour be able to enjoy the disarray from the comfort of a cosy, happy home. They are almost as divided on Europe as the Tories, and Jeremy Corbyn’s performance on Brexit will only intensify the loathing some of his MPs have for him. How long before that inevitable split?
There is one last chance for Westminster to start winning back the trust and respect of the electorate, and that is to find a way to break the impasse on Brexit and put together a deal that best serves the interests of the UK as a whole. That will involve the putting aside of party political interest. Like spring, there is no sign of that happening any day soon.
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 hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel