New politics (Scotland)

The term "new politics" was previously used by the US Democratic Party to refer to their policy platform in the 1950s, particularly under the leadership of Adlai Stevenson II. It is unclear whether the Scottish and American uses of the term are linked.

While the Scottish National Party (SNP) has been the primary political vehicle for Scottish home rule since the 1930s, the term "new politics" was more closely associated with the Scottish Constitutional Convention (SCC), established 1989. This included delegates from trade unions, local authorities, churches, and members of both the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties. The election of Tony Blair in 1997, who had campaigned on the manifesto pledge of a devolution referendum for Scotland and Wales, entrenched the term within New Labour's wider narrative.^[1]

Academics and politicians were quick to adopt the term and variations on it. Pre-emptively reflecting on the era, Rev. Kenyon Wright asked in May 1998 whether the new Scottish Parliament would "be the pioneer of the new kind of politics that the new era so desperately needs".^[6] His interpretation of new politics was post-nationalist, implying increased European integration.^[1]

Meanwhile, Prof. Michael Keating of the University of Aberdeen linked the "new politics" of 1990s Scotland to forward-thinking nationalist revivals occurring simultaneously in Catalonia and Quebec.^[7]

In his writings, the Scottish Parliament's inaugural First Minister, Donald Dewar, strongly emphasised new politics' principle of public participation in policy-making, following the results of the 1997 devolution referendum.^[8]

As part of new politics' emphasis on "consensus", in October 1999 the then-leaders of Scottish Labour and the SNP, Donald Dewar and Alex Salmond, shared a pro-Euro platform alongside members of the Liberal Democrats. Similarly, the 1997 devolution campaign was headed by members of the Labour, Liberal Democrat, and Scottish National Parties.^[1]

Part of the SNP's initial distance towards "new politics" was that, while broadly supporting Scottish devolution, the party's fundamental vision has always been of a fully independent Scotland. Hence, while still part of the Union, the party did not view devolution as anything particularly "new". Under the leadership of Gordon Wilson and Jim Sillars, the SNP withdrew from the SCC in the early-1990s because of its unwillingness to discuss Scottish independence.^[9]

The Conservative Party had long opposed Scottish devolution, and therefore were unwilling to join the Constitutional Convention nor adopt the term "new politics".^[9]

Professor James Mitchell was one of the first to retrospectively critique the term in a 2000 article in Parliamentary Affairs. His critique largely rested on the idea that, as the "child" of Westminster, the devolved Scottish Parliament and subsequent political culture were not overwhelmingly different from that of the UK. Moreover, an emphasis on cooperation in government could not surpass the real and often bitter party competition between Scotland's three main political parties, the SNP, Labour, and the Conservatives, as well as their core ideological differences.^[1]

Writing eight years on from Mitchell, however, Dr. Robin T. Pettitt of Kingston University argued that within the Scottish Parliament, "legislative power is far more spread out ... than it is in Westminster", leading to "a less hostile political environment". Given its semi-proportional electoral system, he described Scotland's devolved institutions as a "halfway house" between the Westminster system and the Nordic model. Pettitt argued that against initial controversy surrounding the term, the verdict is still out on the efficacy of "new politics".^[10]

Some media commentators at the time were also critical of the term, in particular Andrew Neil, then-editor of The Scotsman. Neil disagreed with the SCC's vision of a consensus-driven Scottish Parliament, arguing that "If there is to be a new politics in Scotland, then it must be the politics of fresh thinking, of good ideas celebrated and bad ideas shot down. It must be robust and full of life and invention, not dreary and consensual."^[11]