Rewriting the Home Rule Book
Rewriting the home rule book
Scotland may have a new blueprint for going it alone. But, argues a leading Nationalist, power will only be repatriated if we all sign up to independence as a political process
By Michael Russell
SOME 677 years ago, at the end of the first Scottish wars of independence, the treaty of Northampton confirmed Scotland as being, “separate in all things from the Kingdom of England, whole, free and undisturbed in perpetuity, without any kind of subjection, service, claim or demand”. There are still some hard-line independistas today who want to roll the clock back to just such a state, just as there are also those who remain completely tholed to the “boasted advantages” that they claim continue to flow from the Union of 1707.
Somewhere in the middle is the rest of Scotland, increasingly dissatisfied with its governance despite (perhaps because of) recent devolution, but uncertain as to whether granting still more powers to our rather lacklustre current set of politicians would solve those problems. They are the people – around 60% of voters – who regularly tell pollsters that they expect Scotland to become independent, but who place that event at a comfortably distant date. They are by no means hostile to radical change if it makes their country work better for them and their families, though they do not often make the connection between that position and political nationalism.
Of course much depends, as in any poll, on the question and independence is a difficult concept to explain on a flash card. There are many types of independent countries, and becoming like prosperous Ireland (the Nationalists’ favourite example) is very different from emulating poverty-stricken Bangladesh – always the comparison used by Labour and Tory politicians.
Even among friends there are divergences. On St Andrew’s day, when the new Independence Convention – a loose alliance embracing the Scottish National Party (SNP), Greens, Scottish Socialist Party (SSP) and individuals from civic Scotland – was launched last week, the public messages of support held out prospects as different as an old Labour nirvana (favoured by John McAllion), a statist social democracy (Alex Salmond’s vision) and a cultural powerhouse, the view espoused by Elaine C Smith in the most passionate contribution of the evening. Such a contrast tends to confirm that securing independence is really about finding the means to achieve desired ends, rather than an absolute end in itself.
Nonetheless, opinion polls indicate that presently around a third of Scots would vote positively in any referendum which sought to establish a fully independent country sitting in the UN between Saudi Arabia and Senegal. Two-thirds are as yet unconvinced, though as David McCrone and Lindsay Paterson showed in a seminal academic paper in 2002, individuals regularly switch between the two positions with only a small diehard group entrenched on either side .
In fact, most people move to favour independence as easily as they move against it depending on the political circumstances of the time. During the last 15 years support has been as high as 50% and as low as 25% though in recent times, backing for the principle party of independence, the SNP, has swung between a narrower, and lower, set of parameters perhaps because independence now appeals to those on the centre and right of Scottish politics as much as it does to those to the left of Labour, where the SNP are presently positioned.
These are changed days compared to the 1970s, when support for the SNP far outstripped support for full independence though there was a strong impetus towards some more limited degree of constitutional change. In fact, even the SNP were hard-pressed to describe what they wanted, having moved from seeking “dominion status” in the 1930s to talking vaguely in the 1970s about a variety of types of “home rule”.
What seems to have created the modern phenomenon of large scale, if not yet majority, support for the much more radical option which now exists across the political spectrum has been, paradoxically, not a feeling that Scotland is under siege but one which has been buoyed by the resurgence of Scottishness in all walks of life. In other words devolution may well have provided the slippery slope, or at least the potential take-off point. The decline in respect for and confidence in British institutions has been a large part of that process as has been the increasing visibility of Scottish ones. The rollercoaster of public support for independence continues to peak not at times of Scottish disadvantage, but when confidence is rising.
Presently, the problems of our parliament and the Labour failure to deliver on their promises are dragging down national optimism and with it, enthusiasm for further change. But if that situation were reversed, interest in new national possibilities would revive and it is perhaps in anticipation of such a moment that the Independence Convention has been formed – particularly as it sees its job as providing positive information in a way that rises above the ennui of Scottish party politics .
Such a role is needed, for up until now the key players have presented a slightly negative approach, often – as in last week’s publication of a new SNP blueprint for independence – defining national freedom by the opportunity it gives to stop things happening: things like illegal wars, dawn raids on immigrant families, and the building of new nuclear power stations. Desirable as such proscriptions may be, they can make the whole idea seem downbeat and dogmatic. Independence would be better presented as gaining the ability to do things – to implement more radical and competitive economic policies, to enshrine smaller government, to construct the world’s first post-oil society, to invest in our culture and create a participatory democracy. To liberate, in the best sense of that word, a people and country to create a more forward-looking, more prosperous place.
But how could Scotland become such a place? Pessimists point to the fact that major constitutional change seems to occur in Scotland only once every century. Moreover, the effects of such change always take much longer to show through than anticipated, thus delaying support for further progress.
The Union of 1707 – much hyped for its potential to solve economic and social problems – took about 50 year to bed in. In 1885 the post of secretary of state for Scotland was re-established. Yet, though much was expected – particularly in terms of prioritising legislation – little improved until the early 20th century . Not until 1997 did Scotland again make a major leap forward, after generations of debate, and our present disappointment at the result remains tangible.
However, such an analysis misses a vital point. Even given the initial difficulties of innovation, between these milestones much incremental change occurred and it is to that more subtle process that we should look. Just as between 1885 and 1997, there was a massive repatriation of powers from Westminster, so, progressive amendment to the Scotland Act to allow for fiscal autonomy, the assumption of broadcasting regulation and the power to make commercial treaties (as in devolved Flanders) would be the obvious next steps on which to seek consensus. There are already signs of cross-party and public support for such improvements.
A Scottish parliament armed with such powers would be a more independent institution which reflected a nation comfortable about treating independence as a process rather than as an event and more interested in what is best for its citizens rather than with sterile ideological shadow-boxing, political scaremongering and infantile name-calling.
None of this would prevent Scotland choosing, at any time, to go further and faster and the imperative of declining oil reserves and a worsening environment may well start to focus minds on the need for the more urgent application of our skills and resources to our own problems. Such additional impetus would most likely come from the election of a nationalist-led government required by its manifesto and its membership to make more rapid progress once the direction had been confirmed by the people of Scotland in a referendum. We may experience a frisson of remembered loss when we recall that the bells of Edinburgh rang out Why Should I Be Sad On My Wedding Day as the Act of Union came into force, but that is nostalgia. For those who want Scotland to move forward as sure-footedly as it can, the real task is to create a different emotion; one that blends confident anticipation of a more successful future with a clear-headed, accurate assessment of our own abilities.
So far that has not happened but perhaps the Independence Convention can find the way to do so, for only a sustainable nationwide surge of that emotion will persuade the great middle ground of Scottish life to choose full control of their own resources and an appropriate 21st century means to decide on their own individual and collective destinies. In other words, to choose independence.
Michael Russell is a former SNP MSP and former party chief executive
04 December 2005
http://www.sundayherald.com/53158
Scotland may have a new blueprint for going it alone. But, argues a leading Nationalist, power will only be repatriated if we all sign up to independence as a political process
By Michael Russell
SOME 677 years ago, at the end of the first Scottish wars of independence, the treaty of Northampton confirmed Scotland as being, “separate in all things from the Kingdom of England, whole, free and undisturbed in perpetuity, without any kind of subjection, service, claim or demand”. There are still some hard-line independistas today who want to roll the clock back to just such a state, just as there are also those who remain completely tholed to the “boasted advantages” that they claim continue to flow from the Union of 1707.
Somewhere in the middle is the rest of Scotland, increasingly dissatisfied with its governance despite (perhaps because of) recent devolution, but uncertain as to whether granting still more powers to our rather lacklustre current set of politicians would solve those problems. They are the people – around 60% of voters – who regularly tell pollsters that they expect Scotland to become independent, but who place that event at a comfortably distant date. They are by no means hostile to radical change if it makes their country work better for them and their families, though they do not often make the connection between that position and political nationalism.
Of course much depends, as in any poll, on the question and independence is a difficult concept to explain on a flash card. There are many types of independent countries, and becoming like prosperous Ireland (the Nationalists’ favourite example) is very different from emulating poverty-stricken Bangladesh – always the comparison used by Labour and Tory politicians.
Even among friends there are divergences. On St Andrew’s day, when the new Independence Convention – a loose alliance embracing the Scottish National Party (SNP), Greens, Scottish Socialist Party (SSP) and individuals from civic Scotland – was launched last week, the public messages of support held out prospects as different as an old Labour nirvana (favoured by John McAllion), a statist social democracy (Alex Salmond’s vision) and a cultural powerhouse, the view espoused by Elaine C Smith in the most passionate contribution of the evening. Such a contrast tends to confirm that securing independence is really about finding the means to achieve desired ends, rather than an absolute end in itself.
Nonetheless, opinion polls indicate that presently around a third of Scots would vote positively in any referendum which sought to establish a fully independent country sitting in the UN between Saudi Arabia and Senegal. Two-thirds are as yet unconvinced, though as David McCrone and Lindsay Paterson showed in a seminal academic paper in 2002, individuals regularly switch between the two positions with only a small diehard group entrenched on either side .
In fact, most people move to favour independence as easily as they move against it depending on the political circumstances of the time. During the last 15 years support has been as high as 50% and as low as 25% though in recent times, backing for the principle party of independence, the SNP, has swung between a narrower, and lower, set of parameters perhaps because independence now appeals to those on the centre and right of Scottish politics as much as it does to those to the left of Labour, where the SNP are presently positioned.
These are changed days compared to the 1970s, when support for the SNP far outstripped support for full independence though there was a strong impetus towards some more limited degree of constitutional change. In fact, even the SNP were hard-pressed to describe what they wanted, having moved from seeking “dominion status” in the 1930s to talking vaguely in the 1970s about a variety of types of “home rule”.
What seems to have created the modern phenomenon of large scale, if not yet majority, support for the much more radical option which now exists across the political spectrum has been, paradoxically, not a feeling that Scotland is under siege but one which has been buoyed by the resurgence of Scottishness in all walks of life. In other words devolution may well have provided the slippery slope, or at least the potential take-off point. The decline in respect for and confidence in British institutions has been a large part of that process as has been the increasing visibility of Scottish ones. The rollercoaster of public support for independence continues to peak not at times of Scottish disadvantage, but when confidence is rising.
Presently, the problems of our parliament and the Labour failure to deliver on their promises are dragging down national optimism and with it, enthusiasm for further change. But if that situation were reversed, interest in new national possibilities would revive and it is perhaps in anticipation of such a moment that the Independence Convention has been formed – particularly as it sees its job as providing positive information in a way that rises above the ennui of Scottish party politics .
Such a role is needed, for up until now the key players have presented a slightly negative approach, often – as in last week’s publication of a new SNP blueprint for independence – defining national freedom by the opportunity it gives to stop things happening: things like illegal wars, dawn raids on immigrant families, and the building of new nuclear power stations. Desirable as such proscriptions may be, they can make the whole idea seem downbeat and dogmatic. Independence would be better presented as gaining the ability to do things – to implement more radical and competitive economic policies, to enshrine smaller government, to construct the world’s first post-oil society, to invest in our culture and create a participatory democracy. To liberate, in the best sense of that word, a people and country to create a more forward-looking, more prosperous place.
But how could Scotland become such a place? Pessimists point to the fact that major constitutional change seems to occur in Scotland only once every century. Moreover, the effects of such change always take much longer to show through than anticipated, thus delaying support for further progress.
The Union of 1707 – much hyped for its potential to solve economic and social problems – took about 50 year to bed in. In 1885 the post of secretary of state for Scotland was re-established. Yet, though much was expected – particularly in terms of prioritising legislation – little improved until the early 20th century . Not until 1997 did Scotland again make a major leap forward, after generations of debate, and our present disappointment at the result remains tangible.
However, such an analysis misses a vital point. Even given the initial difficulties of innovation, between these milestones much incremental change occurred and it is to that more subtle process that we should look. Just as between 1885 and 1997, there was a massive repatriation of powers from Westminster, so, progressive amendment to the Scotland Act to allow for fiscal autonomy, the assumption of broadcasting regulation and the power to make commercial treaties (as in devolved Flanders) would be the obvious next steps on which to seek consensus. There are already signs of cross-party and public support for such improvements.
A Scottish parliament armed with such powers would be a more independent institution which reflected a nation comfortable about treating independence as a process rather than as an event and more interested in what is best for its citizens rather than with sterile ideological shadow-boxing, political scaremongering and infantile name-calling.
None of this would prevent Scotland choosing, at any time, to go further and faster and the imperative of declining oil reserves and a worsening environment may well start to focus minds on the need for the more urgent application of our skills and resources to our own problems. Such additional impetus would most likely come from the election of a nationalist-led government required by its manifesto and its membership to make more rapid progress once the direction had been confirmed by the people of Scotland in a referendum. We may experience a frisson of remembered loss when we recall that the bells of Edinburgh rang out Why Should I Be Sad On My Wedding Day as the Act of Union came into force, but that is nostalgia. For those who want Scotland to move forward as sure-footedly as it can, the real task is to create a different emotion; one that blends confident anticipation of a more successful future with a clear-headed, accurate assessment of our own abilities.
So far that has not happened but perhaps the Independence Convention can find the way to do so, for only a sustainable nationwide surge of that emotion will persuade the great middle ground of Scottish life to choose full control of their own resources and an appropriate 21st century means to decide on their own individual and collective destinies. In other words, to choose independence.
Michael Russell is a former SNP MSP and former party chief executive
04 December 2005
http://www.sundayherald.com/53158
No comments:
Post a Comment