Could the coronavirus inquiry change the shape of Britain?

As Britain’s coronavirus inquiry reaches its final conclusion, major political and constitutional questions remain in limbo in Edinburgh.

Has decentralization helped Scotland’s response to coronavirus? Did that hinder you?

Wouldn’t it have been better if Scotland, as an independent nation, could decide everything on its own, including decisions about borders and finances?

Should the British government have been able to take the most important public health decision, such as a lockdown, for the whole of the UK, or at least the whole of Great Britain?

Or is the current constitutional framework, which leaves health matters in Edinburgh and reserves control of borders and the wider economy to Westminster, best suited to dealing with the pandemic?

After three weeks of hearing evidence in Edinburgh, the chair of the inquiry, Baroness Hallett, must decide whether and how to answer these questions.

This section of the study included a lot of discussion about the behavior, morals, and character of prominent politicians.

There were headlines about Nicola Sturgeon’s withering assessment of Boris Johnson as a “clown” and Scottish Secretary Alistair Jack’s blunt dismissal of Ms Sturgeon’s tears.

But do their actions actually matter to the inquiry’s aim, which is to ensure the UK is better prepared for the next pandemic, rather than apportioning blame for the failures of the last one?

It is unlikely that any of the politicians who have given evidence will be in charge during the next public health emergency, so perhaps Baroness Hallett’s job is not to worry too much, but to respond to the emergency. It will look at the infrastructure of government as it relates to preparedness and response. Who said what to whom?

For example, the study raises the idea that the UK government could have invoked the Civil Emergencies Act 2004 to control public health decisions on a UK-wide basis when coronavirus first emerged. We are hearing evidence regarding this.

Giving evidence in the last module, Michael Gove, who as Cabinet Office minister was responsible for liaising between the devolved administrations in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast and the UK government during the pandemic, said such measures would have been “draconian”. He said he believed it.

But he said it was worth considering whether other mechanisms should be used to allow the UK government to “override some of the independent decision-making” of the devolved governments during a national emergency. He suggested that there might be.

The devolution framework for Scotland and Wales was established by politicians elected after a long debate in the House of Commons, on the authority of the Scottish and Welsh people who voted in favor of self-government in a referendum in September 1997. designed.

Since then, further powers have been devolved to the Scottish Parliament. This is partly because the British establishment remains reeling from high levels of support for independence after Scottish voters voted 55% to 45% to remain in the UK in 2014.

Eileen McHargue, professor of public law and human rights at Durham University, said there was now a “recognition that decentralization is under attack”.

A quarter of a century into the era of decentralization, the idea that Whitehall could easily take back control in an emergency is “totally unrealistic”, she argued, adding that the pandemic has challenged decentralized life and governance. He pointed out that it traversed countless sides. Not just health, but education, social services, justice, prisons, etc.

However, Professor McHargue added that the existing collaboration mechanisms between the UK government and the devolved administrations had problems even before the arrival of Covid-19, which he described as “a real weakness in the devolution arrangements”. ing.

Paul Cairney, professor of politics and public policy at the University of Stirling, agrees that existing “co-operation mechanisms” between the UK and Scottish governments are insufficient.

“The agreements and procedures are neither legally binding nor useful in emergencies,” he wrote in a 142-page report into the UK’s coronavirus inquiry, which included the 2020 Conservative Cabinet. It also described the “deteriorating” relationship between the ministers and SNP ministers.

This is a reminder that personality can actually be important in the operation and interpretation of the underlying structures of government.

And it’s a reminder that the investigation’s ability to arrive at the full truth about how the process worked is undermined by the destruction of potential evidence.

Although they give different reasons, Ms Sturgeon’s and Mr Jack’s actions mean the same thing. Both deleted messages they knew would prompt a public investigation.

This should not be a partisan issue.

If it is a scandal that Ms Sturgeon did those things, it is certainly a scandal that Mr Jack did them, and vice versa.

That assumes that the investigator should have the right to see them at all.

There is another, perhaps unpopular, perspective on whether politicians of all stripes are actually entitled to more privacy than is granted in this type of investigation.

Until a few years ago, many of the conversations now under scrutiny were sometimes casual, sometimes serious, and sometimes both, murmured over the phone or in the hallway, and forgotten. There would have been no other traces left.

In an era when many informal interactions in society have moved from the oral to the written, those elected to lead us, and those appointed to support them, need to make sure that every word of the discussion counts for good governance. Will we be able to have the full and frank discussion that is necessary? Will it be released eventually?

Without the ability to share private jokes and relieve pressure, can teams build good working relationships in dark times?

Even if Baroness Hallett holds such a view, she shows no sign of it in her occasional interventions, and is unimpressed by some attempts to explain why messages are missing. It sounded like they weren’t receiving it.

Of course, we don’t really know the judge’s view of the evidence presented before her.

But we know that she faces a very sensitive task, both politically and judicially.

Depending on her nomination, Baroness Heather Hallett could play a key role in the highly controversial, highly complex and seemingly never-ending debate over Scotland’s place in the UK.