Independence, devolution – and the tensions within this United Kingdom

I watched inside Holyrood as sundry politicians praised the departing Welsh leader, during questions to Scotland’s First Minister.

Shona Robison, standing in for the ailing Humza Yousaf, said that Mr Drakeford had been a “friend and an ally” for Scottish Ministers. He had worked to defend the devolutionary structure.

READ MORE: Brian Taylor: Slipping Scottish school standards: Who's to blame? All of us

For the Conservatives, Douglas Ross was tempted off message a bit by noting, a mite sarcastically, that the SNP had repeatedly drawn attention to problems in Wales when it suited them for comparative purposes. Still, he too praised Mr Drakeford.

As others joined in, a separate thought struck me: just who is now defending the devolution of power and responsibility in this Union?

Much more broadly, these are decidedly troubled and uncertain times. Conflict, of course, in Gaza, Ukraine and elsewhere.

Little sign of sustained economic growth although inflation seems to have peaked. Interest rates still relatively high. Some very tough Scottish budget choices next week.

To emphasise, I have never witnessed such persistent disquiet and anxiety among the populace in more than 40 years as a journalist. I am sure it dates back to the banking crash of 2008.

It is no surprise, in addition, that these aspects of uncertainty are matched by tension within the constitutional set-up which governs our lives.

To be clear, I am not dealing directly, at this point, with the prospect of independence. That still seems somewhat distant – although by no means absent from political discourse.

Rather, I am considering the present structure of the UK. A monarchy with a new King. A United Kingdom parliament with varying degrees of power devolved by statute to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

There is undoubtedly a connection between fractious dispute over policy and questions raised over that existing power structure. Political leaders under strain may naturally tend to question their environment, the wider body politic.

Mark Drakeford (Image: PA.)

That, if you think about it, was the provocation for Brexit. The people, mainly but not exclusively in England, were discontented over issues such as immigration. That resulted in a political challenge to EU membership.

We may set aside for a moment the point that little in the way of any discernible alteration to immigration practice has resulted. Let us simply note that policy discontent bred constitutional revolt.

That is true in a wider sense of the post-imperial United Kingdom. The UK retains a global status – but one that is under strain because of shifting economic and power balances.

En passant, I might note that one reason the UK state resisted Scottish independence was that it might palpably weaken that residual state in global eyes, perhaps even affecting such matters as permanent membership of the UN Security Council.

But back to tensions within the UK. We may, I think, discount regional structures in England. Despite aspirations in some quarters, these remain branches of local government rather than any form of challenge to the UK constitution.

Look elsewhere. Wales presses for more power. Half the population of Scotland back independence. The UK Government reasserts its control. And, always, there is Northern Ireland.

Let us consider these. When there was a functioning Executive in Belfast, they often joined Scotland and Wales in challenging London. Not necessarily from policy symmetry, but more commonly from the exercise of competitive power in pursuit of cash.

Now, as one Scottish Minister put it to me, Wales and Scotland work as a tag team, taking turns to prod Whitehall and Westminster.

But the two are different. Mark Drakeford stands for Wales – but also for GB Labour. Humza Yousaf stands for Scottish interests as he perceives them. For the UK, he is by far the greater threat.

Hence the recent endeavours by the UK Government to contain him and his movement. Hence the veto on Holyrood measures such as the Gender Recognition Bill.

READ MORE: COP 28: Why Scotland should go first on climate change

Hence too the complaints from the Foreign Secretary, Lord Cameron, over meetings held by Mr Yousaf with other leaders at COP28, without a UK official present.

Mr Yousaf says the objections are “petty and misguided”. That the vast majority of his engagements fell within those UK rules.

But he knows, of course, that this is part of a pattern. The UK Government is taking a harder line, stressing the limits of devolution.

One senior Scottish Minister characterised this as “muscular Unionism” – and suggested it was endemic. That even previously co-operative officials were now nit-picking and obstructive.

Inter-governmental relationships were, I was told, “the worst since Holyrood was established.”

Tory sources insist they are simply restating the balance. Emphasising the UK dimension which was always there – but was perhaps sometimes neglected or over-looked.

One senior source told me: “The SNP pushed their luck too far. And we let them get away with it. No more.”

At Westminster, this very issue is currently under detailed scrutiny by the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, enthusiastically chaired by the SNP’s Pete Wishart.

I expect his committee to continue taking evidence from a wide range of witnesses, drawing upon the experience garnered in 25 years of devolution.

So what might change? There might well be a new UK Government after the next General Election, expected next year. (Technically, the date could be deferred to January 2025.) Would a UK Labour Government make a difference to the structure and practice of devolved governance?

Anas Sarwar assured me that it would. The Scottish Labour leader told me that he and his party would “seek to reset the relationship, with two governments working together, rather than fighting each other”.

There is, however, a notable degree of scepticism within the Scottish Government.

One senior source told me there were two competing views. On the one hand, a broad expectation that relationships might improve somewhat.

Against that, a political calculation that Sir Keir Starmer’s focus would not be primarily or even substantively upon Scottish matters. That it might, indeed, be in his interests to assuage England rather than Scotland.

Truly, uncertain times.