Breaking up isn’t hard to do

October 25, 2011 by
Filed under: Politics, Public policy 

I am greatly relieved that Philip Stephens wrote this piece in the FT today. The last time I commented on political affairs north of the border I faced a mini barrage of criticism, so I had been holding back on my dismay about the apparently unstoppable tide of Scottish independence. Philip’s excellent column gives me some cover.

Let me first say that whether or not Scotland leaves the UK is ultimately a matter for Scots. I respect the intentions and motivations of those who want independence, among whom I am sure there are many Scottish RSA Fellows. But as someone who would be deeply sorry if Scotland became a separate nation, I also agree with Stephens that the argument is currently being lost almost by accident.

It is difficult to know who to blame more. In defiance of the theory of loss aversion, the Conservative (and Unionist) Party is apparently substantially more motivated by repatriating some regulatory powers from Brussels than by saving the UK. Anyway the Party has almost zero credibility in Scotland. The UK Labour Party simply doesn’t care. If that seems like a bald statement, you must judge people by what they do not what they say and what almost every ambitious Scottish Labour politician over the last twenty years had done is the same – they have moved to London. And the Lib Dems are tainted in Scottish eyes both by their collaboration with previous Labour administrations in Scotland and now by being a part of the Westminster Coalition.

With the SNP and their strategically brilliant leader Alex Salmond in almost hegemonic political control and now awash with money, independence (or independence-lite which is probably a more accurate description of what the nationalists call devolution-max) seems inevitable when the referendum comes. You would have thought there would be signs of a ‘no’ campaign mustering but my Scottish friends tell me there are none. Beyond apathy and tribalism there are two deeper reasons why such a campaign may be difficult to develop.

The first is that in stark contrast to the inclusiveness of the rainbow coalition which comprised the Scottish Constitutional Convention (a body key to winning the case for devolution in the nineties) Tories, Labourites, and Lib Dems in Scotland must feel that if they joined forces they would only manage the not inconsiderable feat of looking even more unattractive than they already do.    

The second problem is what on earth would be the top line argument of the campaign to keep the union in its present form? Virtually no one in Scotland wants to wear the mantle of unionism but to say instead that you are a bit of a unionist is like hoping people will warm to someone who admits to  being only an occasional wife beater. The other tactic, which is to scare people about loss of public service entitlements or jobs, may be ever so slightly less powerful when the economy is tanking and the UK Government is perceived to be imposing the deepest cuts in three generations.

This will probably only reveal my gross naivety, but if I were crafting a campaign I would make it about choice. At the moment Scots can choose to be Scottish in most things, British in some things and European in a few. As anyone who has been to Scotland recently knows, the idea that the current constitutional settlement denies Scots a distinct identity or different policies is laughable. So my campaign would say ‘don’t let the nationalists tell you – you choose who you want to be’.

If I was running a subtheme it might be to ask what the effect on the Scottish coffers would be if tax powers are devolved and the many tens of thousands of middle class Scots who currently work in England during the week paid their taxes to a separate Whitehall Treasury (I really have no idea how much money this is but it would be interesting to know).

Anyway, I won’t be part of any campaign; my support would be bound to make it even more unpopular. But when the referendum happens and the Scots exercise their legitimate right to choose, I will be hoping against hope that a country I love and about which I feel genuine British pride (it was after all the cradle of the enlightenment) doesn’t become a foreign land.

Share

No related posts.

Tags: , ,

Comments

8 Comments on Breaking up isn’t hard to do

  1. Dave Boyle on Tue, 25th Oct 2011 8:18 pm

    2. Gerry Hassan’s been blogging superbly on these issues for some months, and Neal Ascherson’s been on the money for many a year. Both have recently made similar points, that Scottish independence will force progressives within England to actually engage with that construct, rather than mainly ignoring it, and hoping the celtic army, like Blucher’s, would appear over the hill and save the day for their vision of Britain.

    My own fear that independence would lead to a near permanent conservative hegemony – which is not something I’d expect anyone not in England to give much care for – has substantially lessened thanks to their essays, and whilst the task of building that new England will be a long and not without risk, it news to be faced really very soon because – for all the reasons you state, and a whole host more, independence seems much the likeliest outcome of the referendum when it comes.

  2. Wiard Sterk on Tue, 25th Oct 2011 8:54 pm

    3. There is lots of talk about the viability of an independent Scotland (Dev Max or full), but little thought to what would be left of the United Kingdom. Would that be a country called England & Wales (Northern Ireland is hardly ever mentioned in this context, for fear perhaps of reawakening the conflict), for ever Tory blue but with a red Labour pimple on its western flank? The problem with the current status is that devolution, like the reform of the Lords, was stopped in its tracks. There are no Assemblies for English regions, which would have provided some balance and ensured that devolution was also an English issue and not something that just concerned the other three nations. Maybe the answer to your concerns is looking for a federal model, with assemblies established in England along the lines of the RSA Regional structure perhaps… ?

    As for the EU, Edinburgh and Cardiff have long bypassed Westminster on their way to Brussels and the current fixation on full or partial withdrawal is primarily an English matter.

  3. Jean on Tue, 25th Oct 2011 10:47 pm

    4. Some of the debate this last year in Scotland has been about identity with the SNP and independence supporters feeling the most relaxed about multiple overlapping identities. Some of these include Scottish, British and European and there’s no expectation that that will change under a new constitution.

    Political debate in Scotland refers much more often to Scandinavian countries than Westminster politics does and this is particularly true in relation to identity. It is noted that a person in Gothenburg may feel Swedish, Nordic and European but that doesn’t mean that they seek the re-establishment of the Kalmar Union.

    Identity is of course an important part of coming together as a nation but as far as Scottish independence is concerned it is far from the most relevant – it’s much more about organising society, education, the economy in ways best suited to peoples’ needs. The more that happens the more people like me will feel relaxed to have a partly-British identity that, until now, we have always felt a little uncomfortable with. That’s good news for everyone on this island.

  4. Ian Christie on Tue, 25th Oct 2011 11:01 pm

    5. Completely agree with Matthew’s post and with Dave B. above. As a 25% Scot, I would mourn a decision by the Scots to break from the UK. But at the moment that is where we are heading, with incalculable consequences for England and the rest of the UK. Matthew is right to note that the Conservative and Unionist Party is anything but that, with a substantial segment of the Tories apparently unconcerned about losing Scotland from the UK and obsessed with leaving the EU and ending up, as a friend of mine once said, with no higher ambition than to be ‘in the slow lane of EFTA’.
    If a largely Tory England provided most of the Out votes in any new referendum on whether to leave the EU, and Wales and N Ireland mainly voted to stay in, then there would be a very powerful set of forces combining to dissolve the UK.
    As for the scope then to forge a new progressive movement in England, that has already been set back – potentially by several decades – through the loss of the referendum on AV, a catastrophic result for all those not relishing the thought of a permanent Tory majority in Parliament from FPTP voting. (And that should include all thoughtful Tories.)

  5. Jamie Young on Wed, 26th Oct 2011 9:58 am

    6. I’m not sure a Yes vote is the foregone conclusion of the referendum. My experience is that while Alex Salmond is extremely popular and people think the SNP have been very competent in government, there’s still a lot of caution about full independence. I think Jamie Cooke recently tweeted a Mori stat suggesting that 60% of Scots would vote against leaving the UK?

  6. Elizabeth McAndrew on Wed, 26th Oct 2011 11:23 am

    7. To be perfectly frank I am not really interested or profess to know anything about politics. However, I do know that I do not want a separate Scotland. I believe in unity. I even believe in a united Europe. If it were efficiently organised we could then have a real influence on world affairs. Alex Salmond is very very eloquent but how about being more specific on where, Scotland, a country with approximately 5 million of a population, with thousands currently unemployed, will find enough revenue for all that is required for a separation never mind to run Scotland. Look at the mismanagement of revenue on the needless Edinburgh tram system.You would think that after the waste of resources on the houses of parliament by the previous Scottish Government they would have ensured our money was not wasted a second time. Surely he is not depending on oil revenue and foreign countries locating their companies here. We would just end up with the same all same with them influencing government decisions the way the US has done for years with the UK. I do not know even one person who wants Scottish independence

  7. Andrew Anderson on Wed, 26th Oct 2011 11:42 am

    8. It is good that there is some intelligent debate on the issue South of the border and I welcome your affirmation that it is for the Scots to decide. I also agree with the comments from Jean.

    I don’t want to sound critical but I am genuinely interested to know why you write that you “would be deeply sorry if Scotland became a separate nation.” I think this is an issue that many in England who say they want to defend the Union (including Cameron) should reflect on in more depth.

    There is a strong argument that relations between Scotland and England, and between the Scots and the English, would improve if Scotland became independent (this has been the experience in the Republic of Ireland). There would be no reduction in the widespread social, family, economic and cultural ties between the Scots and the English. Are you “deeply sorry” that the Republic of Ireland is a separate nation?

    I am a Scot who has lived and worked in Brussels, London, Dublin and Edinburgh. I am very concerned by anti-English racism in Scotland which is a serious problem. I have also been concerned by the much milder but nevertheless unfortunate anti-Scottish sentiment which has been developing in England, initially as a right-wing tactic against Gordon Brown, but increasingly fed by inaccurate reporting and ignorant polemic (Kelvin MacKenzie) of different choices made by the devolved Scottish Government (tuition fees etc). I think all the peoples of these isles will benefit from Scottish self-determination and the opportunity it will facilitate to build better relations based on mutual respect.

  8. Livy on Thu, 27th Oct 2011 4:02 pm

    9. Being neither Scottish nor English I’ve never felt compelled to follow this issue as closely as people who are more emotional about it, so please forgive some fairly uninformed observations.

    The first thing that jumps out at me is what Scottish independence would look like where it actually counts. For example, the military, and particularly for our soldiers already stationed abroad. Would we really wind up in a bizarre situation where Scottish soldiers were fighting English wars? If we lost 5 or 6 battalions (I forget which), would we make up the difference with private security firms?

    Andrew Anderson:

    I have also been concerned by the much milder but nevertheless unfortunate anti-Scottish sentiment which has been developing in England, initially as a right-wing tactic against Gordon Brown

    Not being a Scott, I’ll take your word for it. But this point in particular always fascinates me whenever it’s made. I’ve always observed quite the opposite, that English nationalism is shockingly low by international standards, which could well be one reason Tories (despite having a strong incentive for quite some time) have never really played that card very forcefully, even when struggling badly in opposition. The other reason – and I’ll admit to being a tad cynical here – was the Gordon Brown factor you mention. There could have been a constitutional issue when he put himself in power, and to be fair, it wouldn’t have been an unfair objection. Then again they were happy to finally face a Prime Minister who had a chance of losing.

    Livy

Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!