It is a constitutional two-step that is wearyingly familiar: the Scottish government puts forward a proposal it presents as an innovative solution to a pressing problem, if only Westminster would allow some flexibility and grant it the necessary powers … and the UK government responds immediately in the negative.
The tune may vary – be it a deposit return scheme, gender recognition reform, or indeed the opportunity to hold a second referendum on Scottish independence – but the steps are the same every time.
And so on Friday the Scottish government’s challenge to their UK counterparts to decriminalise drugs for personal use, or devolve to Holyrood the powers to do so themselves, met perhaps understandable cynicism. Surely the UK government would say no? It did, categorically, within the hour – so why make such a show of asking in the first place?
Context is all, and it is worth noting that the announcement, flagged by Scottish ministers and their supporters as radical and ambitious, was made on the day that the first minister, Humza Yousaf, celebrated his first 100 days in office.
During a turbulent early tenure, dominated by the continuing police investigation into SNP finances, Yousaf has been keen to distinguish himself from his predecessor, Nicola Sturgeon. Despite running his leadership contest as “the continuity candidate”, he has scrapped or substantially revised a series of her government’s flagship policies.
But on her pledge to challenge the UK government’s veto on Holyrood’s gender reform bill, he has stood firm. Regardless of the substance of the bill, Yousaf has said, the precedent of Westminster blocking legislation passed by a majority of the Holyrood parliament is a dangerous one.
The Scottish government says it is profoundly concerned about what it sees as increasingly unguarded attacks on the devolution settlement, and an exercise such as today’s confirms there is no room for negotiation as far as Westminster is concerned. Labour’s response similarly gave short shrift.
It links with a question posed repeatedly at the SNP’s recent independence convention: if it is indeed a voluntary union, as the UK government claims, then how do you leave it when Westminster continually refuses another vote on the subject?
The SNP has increasingly been basing its argument for independence around the democratic principle that Scots should have the right to be asked the question again.
The response from the prime minister’s spokesperson on Friday afternoon, shooting down the drug reform proposals while admitting he had not actually seen the report, only bolsters these arguments about Westminster’s unthinking intransigence, particularly, Yousaf will be hoping, for previous SNP voters now drawn to Labour.
But those closer to the drug policy sector suggest it is possible to over-interpret the constitutional context. Elena Whitham, Scotland’s drug policy minister, made the announcement flanked by key members of the Global Commission on Drug Policy, which is holding its AGM in Edinburgh.
It suggested that the timing of the announcement was more to do with seizing the opportunity of global support, and being able to place the Scottish government’s demands within the international context of growing support for decriminalisation.
Nonetheless, the frustration among charities and specialists is plain that improvements that could be made now are overshadowed by wrangling about Westminster’s obstinacy. And with the next drug death figures due on 22 August, the Scottish government remains under huge pressure to deliver on its “national mission” to save lives.
