Sir Tom Devine: 'Nicola Sturgeon's legacy will be defined by delivery or not of independence'

But he said their conclusive evaluation would be based on her ability or not to hold a successful independence referendum.

Speaking to The Herald on Sunday, Professor Devine, pictured below, was asked how he thought historians of the future would regard Ms Sturgeon – who is set to become Scotland’s longest-serving First Minister next Wednesday. By then she will have been in office for seven years, six months and five days overtaking the record set by her predecessor Alex Salmond.

Professor Devine said she and her government faced the huge challenges of the pandemic and public opinion is that they did very well though he believed those assessments may be too high.

“I think there will be a very positive evaluation, not least because of her longevity as First Minister and let’s not forget the first female First Minister of Scotland. But I am thinking of comparisons between her and those of who have gone before. I do think Alex Salmond would give her a run for her money,” he said.

“But the big difference between her and Salmond is that – leaving aside any private differences between them – she is much more cautious than him and a great deal more pragmatic.

“You get the impression – and I think that was revealed during the pandemic –that she is very much in command of her brief. In terms of the first ministers before Salmond, she easily outdoes them all in terms of governing capacity, the ability to keep her party together, and also not least for the SNP in keeping the independence flame still alive.”

READ MORE: Salmond issues warning if Indyref2 doesn't take place in 2023

He added: “But obviously her major legacy will be – for good or ill depending on one’s point of view, depending on if you are a unionist or a nationalist – is whether she will ever have the chance to have another independence referendum. So any judgment on her at the moment is interim. The big question, therefore, is the outcome of a referendum and for nationalists a positive result – and the converse for people who are committed unionists.”

The First Minister has promised to hold a second independence vote by the end of next year using Holyrood legislation if Prime Minister Boris Johnson continues to refuse to agree to a new vote.

Asked whether she had done enough to deliver a referendum, which she has repeatedly promised supporters since the Brexit vote in 2016, he said he thought she had “very limited if any room for manoeuvre” given the UK Government has failed to agree to a new vote.

“The SNP have been shackled by the [UK] Government,” he said.

“David Cameron was probably the last Prime Minister to work the old system of an informal partnership between Holyrood and Westminster. What has happened during Nicola Sturgeon’s tenure is that the current government has moved towards UK supremacy.”

READ MORE: 'Scotland will have to keep Trident for 10 years to join Nato as a new state'

He pointed to Brexit and said the Conservative government had failed to take account of the  “sensitivities” of the devolved governments – with both Scotland and Northern Ireland voting to remain in the European Union.

Devine, emeritus professor of history, at the University of Edinburgh, said Ms Sturgeon has been “the most adept politician in Scotland by a long stretch” since the resignation of her predecessor Mr Salmond.

He said in terms of the SNP’s main goal of independence she had been successful in keeping the “flame alive”, pointing to support regularly at more than 50 per cent in most years since the 2014 vote. “She has to take  a lot of credit for that as she should also for leading her party to its currently unassailable position in Scottish politics,” he said.

“She has her critics in the press and from the usual suspects, but the evidence is unambiguous that a clear majority of the Scottish [people] appreciate the kind of moderate social democratic policies  she and her party have pursued.”

However, Professor Devine said there were shortcomings, too, in her leadership as First Minister. He said he thought Ms Sturgeon and her government had not done enough to tackle poverty and inequality, while on education he thought school pupils’ performance in comparison with those of other countries had fallen.

“I think during her period of office the administration of the SNP has been ultra cautious. There’s the question do they have enough control over the major levers of power? But despite that I think there could be less caution and perhaps more success in those areas,” he said.

He added that looking at Scottish education from the perspective of international standards suggested it has been relatively mediocre in performance.

Professor Devine also said that in his view another shortcoming of Ms Sturgeon has been a failure to promote debate inside her own party.

He said that while to the leader the highly-disciplined nature of the SNP may seem like an advantage – as there was little internal strife on public display – such a situation was not good for democracy.

“Debate in the SNP is very limited. It’s a party which has probably been most disciplined in modern Scottish political history,” he said. “That has obvious advantages.

"But I don't think it's a good thing for democracy if there’s not a rammy from time to time in a governing party. If there is one good thing you can say about Westminster there is plenty of public dispute and questioning of government by members of their own party. You don’t have that in Scotland and I think it is good for democracy.”

He pointed to the government not allowing Holyrood committees to elect their own conveners, adding this “seems to be a metaphor for the general command structure that exists in SNP governance”.

Few ‘big hitters’

PERHAPS related to the absence of a healthy debate inside the SNP, Professor Devine also said another area where Ms Sturgeon had not excelled was in promoting “big hitters” in her own party and preparing potential successors.

He said Finance Secretary Kate Forbes, one of his former students, did look like she has “considerable future potential”.

Professor Devine added that apart from the investigation around Mr Salmond and the subsequent fallout from the row with her predecessor she hadn’t “put a foot wrong” in terms of the process of administration of government.

“There should have been much more delegation to other senior figures and other men and women in the party,” he said. “During the pandemic is was basically the Nicola show and I think that’s an error as no First Minister or Prime Minister – no matter how effective they are – can endure forever. A primary task for them, it seems to me, is to ensure that there is a continuation by fostering the young.

“Salmond had quite a few heavy hitters in his Cabinet. I’m not certain she has the same in terms of depth or quality. A leader has confidently got to look to the future, and foster talent and give them exposure. Her dominance is unquestioned. There is no need, in my mind, for her to be constantly centre stage.”

And he issued a warning to the First Minister and the SNP, pointing to the sudden downfall of Labour which was once as dominant as the SNP in Scotland.

“The fact the SNP is so dominant in the electorate long after the breakthrough in 2007 gives the party great confidence,” he said. “But that great confidence might verge with the absence or relative absence of effective opposition into hubris.

“She should think carefully about the origins of the growing rot that preceded the implosion of the Labour Party in Scotland and that hegemony was as great as the SNP’s. Although the implosion didn’t take place until 2015, the political cancer was developing way back into the previous century. And the main problem was the smug taking the electorate for granted.”