Conversation Conservation?

In my last post, I mentioned an SNP policy which, if I were John Swinney, I'd be looking to draw a line under. Now, it would, I have to say, be categorised as a 'courageous' move, and it would perhaps cost friends. It might even look like I intended to lead a sacred cow to slaughter, but the reality is rather different. One aspect of SNP policy is not working anywhere near as well as it should, and despite being seen as the way forward, is in fact doing nothing to help realise SNP aims.

I am talking, I'm afraid, about the National Conversation.

Now, of course, the Unionist parties want it scrapped because it dares to refer to the 'I' word, and decry the use of taxpayers' money to meet SNP aspirations. To me, this is an odd criticism: I thought it was the idea that governments used the powers they had to put their principles into practice, and that this was the point of, you know, standing for election in the first place. Of course, the SNP finds this somewhat easier than the other mainstream parties as it actually has ideas, aims and beliefs that go beyond winning an election, but there you go. And that's not why I'm suggesting that it be brought to an end.

Rather, I believe that it's not advancing SNP aims at all.

Of course, the official story behind the Conversation is that it's a consultation on the future of Scotland and the constitution, and that other options can be discussed as a part of it. So far, only one alternative has come forward and it's emerged from a different process. The Referendum Bill 2010 is still on course to be tabled after Christmas, the timing of the vote - should the Bill pass - is already known, and we can assume that we know what the question is. No changes or alternatives have emerged from the Conversation, and any other proposals will only get discussed at Stages 2 and/or 3 of the Bill, which that renders any further discussion academic: unless one of the other parties stages the mother of all turnarounds, it'll get killed at Stage 1. So frankly, the Conversation isn't delivering.

So what else is it about?

Getting the meat and drink of independence discussed? Papers are coming out, ideas about what an independent Scotland are coming forward, but they're getting swallowed. The press will occasionally run with a proposal, with a view to taking it to pieces. Seeing as the press is generally anti-independence, this is to be expected and should really cause no surprise or alarm. To get a clear message across, independence supporters require an actual referendum campaign: this pre-referendum approach isn't working, as readers opening their copy of the Scotsman and seeing Mike Russell's proposals for a post-independence foreign policy being derided by the copywriters can surely testify. The quick headlines are getting printed, but the actual mechanics aren't getting through.

Getting a suitable platform for Ministers to put the case across to members of the public? This could be done without the National Conversation brand: it is the policy of the Government to advocate Scottish independence. Therefore, Ministers doing that are carrying out Government policy, whether they have a National Conversation banner behind them or not. Putting the banner there is akin to the McLeish Executive adding the slogan "Making it Work Together". What, precisely, did that achieve?

Persuading people of the merits of independence? On this yardstick, the Conversation can't rank as anything other than a dismal failure. In only one poll (carried out last year) since the Conversation's inauguration has even a plurality of respondents favoured independence, and that was 42%:40% - nowhere near the high watermark of 2006 where there was an actual majority of poll respondents in favour. If the opinion polls are a barometer of the National Conversation's efficacy, then the signs are poor.

Forcing the hand of the other parties, to put forward viable proposals for a stronger Holyrood, which would serve as a suitable milestone on the road to independence? We have, of course, had the Calman Commission, but it's doubtful whether this required the actual framework of the National Conversation for it to be established. Rather, it was simply an attempt to spike the SNP's guns. In terms of viability, it seems to have dropped of Labour's radar altogether, the Tories (unsurprisingly) appear decidedly cool on the proposals and the LibDems in Scotland are banging their head against a brick wall trying to get it moving forward, even though it stops short of their own Constitution policy. Ironically, it's the Scottish Government who is the keenest to get it (or at least, parts of it) implemented right now. And as a measure of the seriousness of the Calman proposals, an SNP offer to include them as an option in the referendum has been spurned by opposition parties. The Calman process presently appears to have been an even bigger waste of time, money and effort than the National Conversation, and it's a process which could just as easily have taken place without the Conversation being there.

So on five different measures of success, the National Conversation falls short on all five. Now, for me, this is frustrating: I want independence and I want the real consultation and conversation that comes with a referendum on the matter (I also want to know why asking the electorate a direct, formal question and then taking the answer on board is showing contempt for public opinion, but I don't see me getting an answer to that one).

In short, the National Conversation's failure to achieve any of those objectives and so move the SNP and the Scottish Government closer to their policy is nothing short of exasperating. We need to draw a line under it right now, and we need to find a better way of getting the idea across.