The HERALD | Tuesday 17th June 2025

It was Barack Obama who summed up the extent of tribal division in US politics when, in 2015, he observed that not even becoming a literal lifesaver for many of his fellow citizens would guarantee agreement on Capitol Hill.

Already deep into his second term as President, he opined that: “The degree of polarisation that currently exists in Washington is such where I think it’s fair to say if I presented a cure for cancer, getting legislation passed to move that forward would be a nail-biter.”

It was a comment borne of obvious frustration, and not wholly in jest. In the decade since, political polarisation, already deep-rooted, has only become even more entrenched. And not just in America but around much of the rest of the democratic world too, including here in Scotland and the UK.

To say that we live in polarised times is just a statement of the obvious. But recognising the extent and depth of the tribalism which now engulfs us is perhaps a necessary precursor to understanding how we can get to a better politics.

Firstly, we should deal with the way the issue itself is talked about in political debate. We hear a lot about the “politics of division”, as if having a difference of opinion is, in and of itself, a bad thing.

Division is, however, in one sense the very essence of democracy. Without a healthy, vibrant and honest difference of opinion there would be no need for elections, referendums or political parties.  Having opposing views is an essential component of democracy, and efforts to decry what is branded the politics of division are often little more than an attempt by some to drown out or delegitimise the views of those with whom they disagree.

So it is not division itself we need to combat, but rather the way in which that division is manifested, where too frequently these days, having or expressing a simple difference of opinion leads some to believe they are incapable of relating in any way to those who hold opposing beliefs.

In short, we need to learn, or perhaps relearn, how to disagree more agreeably.

Personally, while I am deeply interested and invested in the political process, as I believe all of us should be as concerned citizens, I am not affiliated to any political party. That is because I know that no party has a monopoly on good ideas. I am happy to endorse what I see as good policy, wherever it comes from.

The causes which I personally hold dear and am committed to, such as urban and community regeneration and empowerment, women’s health and education, are all ones which could benefit from input from across the political spectrum. So I am more than happy to listen to and engage with all shades of opinion on that basis.

However, such freedom is not always available to those who do pursue politics, as elected representatives or otherwise, through the lens of party affiliation.

For them, the idea of backing another party’s policies is often anathema. Not necessarily because those policies are bad ideas, but because in doing so they would be casting themselves in the role of, at best, a maverick, and at worst, a disloyal troublemaker who risks being ostracised or denied promotion.

Party politics needs, on one level, to be adversarial in order to work. As the late Charles Kennedy put it: “To run an effective political party, you need a degree of tribalism; it’s the glue that holds everyone together.”

That tribalism is a frustrating, if understandable, consequence of the democratic system we have, where almost every issue, it seems, must be contested on a binary basis, It sometimes seems to me that here in Scotland that polarisation is, if anything, even more deep-rooted than just about anywhere else. We are impacted by the same culture war-type divides that are coursing through much of the rest of the democratic world, be it on gender or on a host of other social issues.

And, like other countries, those social issues and the positions taken on them feed through into our national politics. But, with the debate about our country’s constitutional future never far from the surface, we have another deeply contested issue layered on top of all the others.

So, what is to be done? For a start, I believe that we need to do more to positively engage younger people with the political process, and to show them that it is possible to hold opposing views whilst still respecting and understanding the views of others.

So, while I am not tied to any party, I am happy to engage with all, especially when it comes to younger activists, on whom the future of our politics depends. That is why I recently agreed to sponsor a networking event for the Scottish Young Conservatives – something I would also be happy to do for others. Young people from all political persuasions should be supported, encouraged and listened to.

If nothing else, we need to ensure that the next generation of would-be political leaders is not so completely turned off by the toxicity of debate that they decide not to even enter the arena of public service.

That is why I am delighted to be taking part in a new initiative, in cooperation with the John Smith Centre at the University of Glasgow, which is aimed at demonstrating to younger people that it is indeed possibly to disagree over some of the most fundamental issues we face as a nation and a society, whilst still respecting the views of opponents.

The initiative will see experienced politicians from opposing parties engage in discussion and debate in front of an audience of senior school pupils. And I’m especially pleased that the first event, in what I hope can be rolled out as a Scotland-wide initiative in due course, will take place next week at my own old school, Kilmarnock Academy.

We can, and we must, do better as a nation in the way we conduct our debates, and I believe this initiative can be one small but important step on that journey.

Click to view article online.