ARE we Scots to be trusted? A daft question, I hear you say, and maybe it is. But it's one that is going to be asked again and again in the coming months as Scotland starts a new conversation about its constitutional future. I believe the answer should be a resounding "yes" and that Scotland should take on far more responsibility for its own affairs. My worry is that our politicians won't have the guts to put that case with the true conviction it deserves.
Later this month we'll see Alex Salmond publish his plan for a referendum on Scottish independence. It will be hailed by the SNP as a milestone on the nation's glorious march to freedom. And, of course, it will be nothing of the kind. There is simply
no majority in the Holyrood Parliament for such a referendum and the plan will be ditched almost immediately.
Salmond knows this full well. As revealed in this newspaper last week, he has a Plan B. MSPs of all parties are to get together to decide what new powers should be given to the Holyrood Parliament, short of full independence. It will be like a re-run of the cross-party Scottish Constitutional Convention that drew up the blueprint for devolution in the late Eighties and early Nineties. The new Convention's task will be to come to a consensus about the right way ahead.
Good luck to them. They're going to need it. Because this is going to be a demanding test of the mettle of the Scottish nation. It will reveal what Scots really believe about their own capabilities and how much responsibility they want over their own lives. And it will force Scots to face up to hard decisions about where we stand in the multi- national alliance that is the United Kingdom.
Right now there will be some people rolling their eyes at the very thought of another bout of 'navel-gazing' about Scotland's constitutional future. They will argue that it's a distraction from the 'real' business of politics. They could not be more wrong. This is a necessary process. Just like an individual, a nation has to live an examined life. It has to take into account the ways it has changed, as well as changes in the world around it. After 10 years of devolution, the time is right for that re-examination.
It helps enormously that the question we face now is not a straight choice for or against independence. That one has been parked for now. This time round it is a choice between shades of grey, not black and white.
The divvy-up of powers between Holyrood and Westminster, decided a decade ago, was not an exact science. Personality clashes, turf wars and political rivalries shaped the decisions on what Holyrood would be allowed to do and what would be reserved to Westminster.
Donald Dewar was the man who fought Scotland's corner in endless cabinet subcommittees. They were chaired by Lord Derry Irvine, the man who stole Dewar's wife Alison almost 30 years before. Discussions were sometimes a little fraught. Dewar also faced rabid opposition from cabinet devo-sceptics Jack Straw and David Blunkett.
Many of the final decisions were the product of the political obsessions of that particular time in 1997-98. All the angst about the Parliament's tax powers - restricting them to varying the basic rate of income tax - was down to New Labour's lingering paranoia at being portrayed as the tax-and-spend socialists of old. Perhaps more importantly, no-one knew what Scotland under devolution was going to feel like. Would Holyrood be just a glorified Strathclyde Regional Council, as its detractors suggested? Or would it be seen by ordinary Scots as a true national parliament that had moral authority to make fundamental decisions about their lives?
That's why there were some glaring omissions when it finally became clear what Holyrood would be allowed to do. Not all aspects of Scottish criminal law were devolved to Scotland - drugs and firearms would stay the responsibility of Westminster. Aspects of health policy were also kept away from the MSPs - fertility treatment, embryology and abortion, for example. It's hard to escape the conclusion that Westminster took the decision that Scotland simply couldn't be trusted with these and other weighty matters - broadcasting, international relations, welfare and fishing, to name just a few more. The question now is whether Scotland is willing to prove Westminster wrong.
I have absolutely no doubt there is an appetite among ordinary Scots for more powers for the Scottish Parliament. This country has changed. It has grown in confidence and self-belief. It is comfortable with the idea of a more muscular form of home rule within the UK. My worry is that our politicians will not be equal to the task. They are trapped in their own narrow traditions and thirled to past promises. They may find limited agreement on some economic levers of power, and this would be welcome. But I believe the starting point must be a general presumption that Scotland should exercise any particular power, aside from defence, and it should be for Westminster to argue a case for keeping it. We need to start from scratch.
Are we Scots to be trusted? If we want to answer this question honestly, we're going to have to take a long hard look at ourselves as a nation. Then - the hard bit - we're going to have to convince our politicians to deliver what we want. I hope I'm proved wrong. I hope the new Convention proves to be one of Scotland's finest hours, with politicians putting aside their party orthodoxies and making compromises for the common good. I'm an optimist. But in my gut I fear this will be an opportunity missed.
