An Illusionary Convention

John Swinney is proposing a ‘constitutional convention’, but what he is proposing is no such thing. Understanding the original Constitutional Convention offers a real way forward for independence.

John Swinney's independence strategy will be debated this weekend. It declares an intention to establish a constitutional convention to “marshal support for Scotland's right to decide”. That is not a constitutional convention; that is a campaign organisation of which there are many.

'Marshalling support ' is what a constitutional convention does after it has done its core work which is to prepare, debate and decide on both the principles and structures of change and the transitional process. In effect it should cover much of what a White Paper would cover only do so with greater openness. This is what the Scottish Constitutional Convention did and the Scottish Parliament was based very closely on the proposals it produced.

We must hope that a serious constitutional convention will be established to prepare the plan for an independent Scotland – its constitution and civil rights, its currency and financial institutions, its international and defence positions, its transitional economic strategies. We are more fortunate than many new states in that we have an established legislature, legal system, a structure of social and educational services and a developed economy but there is also much on which we need to decide and prepare. Calling something a constitutional convention when it is not, undermines the planning for independence.

A useful starting point is to look at what the 1989 Convention was and what it did. I was part of the initiative to establish this as convener of the cross-party Campaign for a Scottish Parliament (CSP) and was a member of the Claim of Right Group and the Convention executive. The drive behind the proposal goes back to the experience of the 1979 referendum.

Labour had changed its position from opposition to support for devolution when the SNP gained over 30% in the General Election of 1974. To be fair, there were a significant number of Labour members who had always been genuinely supportive. But the actual proposals for the Assembly were then put in the hands of Whitehall and Westminster ministers.

What emerged was the weakest they thought they could get away with and it got weakened further with lobbying. It was initially to get universities but the universities protested and that was removed. A backbench collaboration between Conservative and hostile Labour MPs voted through an amendment requiring a referendum and a minimum 40% of all registered voters.

This experience made many activists in Scotland – Labour, SNP, Liberal and others – determined that in the future the substance of proposals for a Scottish legislature would be made in Scotland and presented to Westminster as the 'settled will'.

The SNP members involved hadn't abandoned independence. I had been an SNP vice-chair for many years. But we knew that the chances at that point of getting independence in one jump were not good. We also knew that to be credible a Constitutional Convention would have to include Labour but it was not till after the 1987 election when Thatcher again won in England while Labour won fifty seats in Scotland, that we thought there was a chance.

But rather than come from a modest cross-party group, we set up the Claim of Right on which there were a small group of 'respected' people from different backgrounds to make the case for a Convention.

“A starting point could be to set up a respected and experienced group to prepare a report on the policy options for the establishment of an independent state”

We were fortunate in getting Sir Robert Grieve, a distinguished planner and first chair of the Highlands and Islands Development Board, to be chair and Jim Ross, a retired senior civil servant with a real commitment to Scottish history, as secretary. The report made both the principled case and the recommendations on membership and objectives.

All Scottish MPs and MEPs were invited to join. All local authorities were invited to send a representative. All political parties, the principal churches, the STUC, the Scottish CBI and Federation of Small Businesses and women's organisations were asked to be members. Only Conservative MPs and the CBI refused. And, of course, the SNP which had been among the first to agree to membership, had announced it was withdrawing without reference to its NEC or National Council. But that's another story.

The Convention did serious work on powers, structure and funding but the big controversy was on voting system. I have seen some comments that the Holyrood voting system was promoted by Labour with the intention of preventing the SNP ever getting a majority. This is rubbish. Labour still felt very confident about their ability to benefit from first past the post.

In the Convention executive, on which all groups were represented, the Liberals had made it clear that they would leave if there was no agreement on PR. Every other group supported PR. The problem for Donald Dewar was that he was not sure that he could get this through Labour's Scottish conference. He did, but that was thanks to the work of the STUC in getting the union votes. The voting system was based on the German one after a lot of discussion. Ironically this was SNP policy in the late 1970s.

Showing the ability of many different organisations to cooperate and reach agreement on Scotland's constitutional future strengthened the support for change and made it harder for the new Blair government to alter the substance of the Convention proposals or retreat on their promise to implement it in their first year in power.

What a great step for independence if this model could be replicated. But what we must remember is that thirty years ago, public support for a strong devolved legislature was over 70%. This enabled many civic groups to participate, confident that they were speaking for a majority of their membership. Independence is not at that level of support.

This does not mean that we cannot start a process but it needs to have substance and not be an election gimmick. A starting point could be to set up a respected and experienced group to prepare a report on the policy options for the establishment of an independent state and the transition process and the prospectus and timing for a genuine constitutional convention. This would have to be an initiative with integrity respected across the movement and parties.