With elections due in May, we are now heading towards our third Parliament. But there is a fundamental question many still ask.

Devolution: has it been worth it? At the end of the day, has it made any real difference? Has it lived up to our hopes and our expectations?

I have no hesitation in saying: yes, it has been worth it. Yes it has made a difference. Yes, it has lived up to (at least some of) my expectations.

One can't expect so recent an institution to change everything overnight and, as I've argued in this column in the past, we probably won't see the real benefits of devolution until our first minister and prime minister are of different political hues. The real fun is going to start when we have Alex Salmond in Edinburgh squaring up to Gordon Brown in London, or Jack McConnell up here and David Cameron down there. Only then will the fur really start to fly.

But in each of the two Parliaments we've had so far, there has been a single issue that has, for me, summed up the importance of devolution. The first was the abolition of the infamous Clause 2a (known as Section 28 in England) the existence of which had, effectively, made second class citizens of people on the grounds of their sexual orientation.

The second was the ban on smoking in enclosed public spaces, the first anniversary of which we were celebrating earlier this week.

These were not soft, fluffy issues of the "motherhood and apple pie" variety. On the contrary, each took on some of the most powerful and malevolent forces in the country. It would have been easier, all things considered, for the politicians simply to look the other way and do nothing. But they didn't. Instead they did what was clearly right.

In the case of Clause 2a the Scottish Parliament challenged some of the most reactionary forces in our country: people who believe they have a right to shine torches into others' beds, people use religion to justify discriminating against their fellow human beings on the grounds of what they find there. Several of the churches were lined up in defence of the clause as were powerful media and business interests..

But the Scottish Executive of the day and the Scottish Parliament held firm and in 2001 the clause was repealed in Scotland, with England following on shamefacedly some two years later.

The second Scottish Parliament took also took on powerful enemies. Last year the smoking ban faced concerted and well-funded opposition. The tobacco companies, having more sense than to do much of the campaigning at their own hand, managed to persuade the licensed trade to ride to their defence. Again huge amounts of money went into high-profile campaigns. Again, bless them, the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament kept their nerve.

The smoking ban has been a huge success. The difference between going into a pub today and going into one just over a year ago is profound. We've even been able to take my elderly mother out for a bar meal — she'd never have considered doing that before the ban.

A few smokers are staying away from pubs altogether. But most smokers are far more aware that, while they have a right to smoke, other people also have rights including not having to smoke if they don't want to.

It would appear that smokers' dislike of standing outside in all weathers is leading to more of them giving up and those who do are reporting that it's much easier to stick to their guns where they're no longer tempted to light up in the pub.

Gradually over the next few months, the rest of the UK will introduce smoking bans until the whole of the British Isles is smoke-free.

It probably wouldn't have happened without Scotland taking the lead. Now let's see what the third Parliament will bring.

Printer friendly version

Email this article to a friend