While the SNP has got on with the job - as we said we would - of trying to add job-creating powers to the Scotland Bill, the same parties who said the SNP would be obsessed with a referendum have spent the past week obsessing about a referendum. Do those other parties not realise how strange this looks?
And, once parliament begins its work, the SNP will be getting on with the job of delivering on our various manifesto commitments. I am looking forward in particular to the new government taking forward our Scottish Futures Fund. This fund, with its five elements, has the potential to transform key areas of Scottish society with significant investment in creating opportunities for young Scots and tackling fuel poverty, among others.
But, back to the constitution. It has also been interesting to see the wider 'Unionist' response. Already there are indications that groups are being formed to make the 'no' case in the referendum. One, it seems, is to be called 'Stronger Together'. This emerging group (if it does ever emerge) is indicative of the problem facing the anti-independence cause - they will be arguing against independence in a way that ignores the reality of what independence would be. They will be attacking so-called separatism when separatism is not on the agenda.
As far back as 2007 Alex Salmond said the following:
"Independence will bring many opportunities for our nation, and with those opportunities also greater success and prosperity. And with independence I look forward to a new partnership with our neighbours in England - one where we will be equal partners, not surly lodgers.
In that new relationship the Queen would remain the Head of State in Scotland. The current parliamentary and political Union would become a monarchical and social union - United Kingdoms rather than a United Kingdom - maintaining a relationship first forged in 1603 by the Union of the Crowns.
Independence for Scotland in the 21st century would reflect the reality of existing interdependence: partnership in these Islands and more widely across Europe."
So what does this mean? Ultimately, that we will be stronger together, but as equals. Instead of an old Union based on the power politics of the 18th century, we will have a new, more modern partnership fit for this 21st century.
Independence will mean a relationship on these Isles that is brought up to date. It is a myth to suggest that the current arrangements are about a fair and equal partnership. Today, Scotland is subsidiary - in constitutional terms Westminster still calls the shots. In the areas of policy that are supposedly shared - for example the welfare state - Scottish opinion has next to no weight in the decisions taken at Westminster. The scandalous and systematic defence underspend in Scotland provides another vivid illustration. It is 'one size fits all' under current arrangements, even if the UK way is a bad fit for Scotland.
Sometimes it is useful to visualise these things. For me the Union today is illustrated as follows:
Whereas independence becomes:
There are two points to this. First, the independence illustration also reflects how many people in Scotland view themselves. Scottish first, British second and European third. In the important politics of identity, it is the independence offering that chimes with people's view of themselves.
And second, the Unionist defenders of the status quo will be attacking something that doesn't exist. Separatism may be a handy attack-phrase, but it is not what the SNP is proposing as even a quick examination of the various National Conversation papers and the independence white and green papers would demonstrate.
If Stronger Together is to be the rallying call for Unionism, it is a rallying call that will fail, because the SNP offering - stronger together as equals - has more resonance. With independence we'll be equal partners in Europe and equal partners on these Isles, on those many issues where we choose to work together.
As the SNP manifesto for the election says, at its most basic independence is the ability to take our own decisions. Does anyone doubt that an independent Scotland would choose to continue important partnerships with our nearest neighbour? For the 'no' side to pretend otherwise is their first strategic mistake. Once again they will be taking the Scottish electorate - the most sophisticated in Europe - for fools. And that is, quite simply, bad politics.



Good stuff, Stephen. I'm not sure, however, that 'Stronger together as equals - vote independence' will add up in the minds of the electorate.
ReplyDeleteObviously we need to reframe the debate but, given that we will have relatively little access to the disseminating organs of the media, I fear that most will still regard independence as 'seperatism'.
The most important legacy of this astounding victory might be that it influences the direction of travel of the other parties in Scotland to the extent that, come the referendum, we find that the battle is between fiscal autonomy and independence.
Good post - I like the diagram but wonder if using a triangle - like the Assessment is for Learning or some more-flow-chart-y visual aid is MORE helpful (a triangle but with the Saltire as first among equals as it were - at the Head).
ReplyDeleteThe issue of media access is crucial: reframe the debate online, network, twitter and make all the communication channels hyperaccessible and at the forefront of people's view of information gathering. ONLINE streaming NATIONALIST radio might be an option (with more than politics, of course), funded by Adverts from commercial supporters - perhaps online streaming video.
I am probably teaching my grannie to suck eggs.
I'm wary of rocking boats at this wonderful moment in our history, after a dazzling victory which we owe in signifcant part to your work, with the economy the primary focus and the independence referendum a key priority for the second half of the term.
ReplyDeleteWe must proceed delicately with advancing the argument for independence, recognising the wide variance within the Scottish electorate on key aspects of this.
But I'm unhappy about the flag diagram and the metaphor implied in it, which can be interpreted in many ways, not all of them positive, at least from my perspective.
I don't think of myself as Scottish first, British second and European third, nor do I see the Union Jack, with all its connotations as a composite flag with heavy imperial overtones sitting at the top, the middle or the bottom of any diagram of preferences.
If I ranked my allegiance and my identity - insofar as they can be represented by flags - it would be Scottish flag first, the European second and the Union Jack nowhere, other than as the flag of another nation, no more or less significant than any other flag.
The independence debate has to consider a broad range of views, but if in the process we try to be all things to all shades of opinion, we run the risk of standing for nothing, and even alientating some core support.
Take care with flags, Stephen - they arouse strong, and not always positive emotions.
Angus Macleod has written his 'Commentary' in today's Times based almost entirely upon this blog post Stephen:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/scotland/article3016514.ece
One point about your post-independence (if it happens) diagram. The 'Union' flag would necessarily have all elements of the Scottish flag removed. As an English nationalist, I couldn't care a stuff what the 'Union' flag would look like, though. It's a foreign flag to us, just as it is to our pro-independence neighbours. I just hope Mr Salmond's comment about our two countries having a social, rather than political, union comes to fruition.
ReplyDeleteSurely some form of federal or con-federal solution would be best with sovereignty returned to the grass-roots and parliaments created in Scotland, Wales, England, NI and, of course I would add Cornwall.
ReplyDeleteI have no scintilla of Britishness in me. I abhor the Union Flag and all it stands for. The wretched rag should be pulled down wherever it is found and burned. I have no objection to the cross of St George, on the other hand, which is the aesthetically-pleasing flag of an ancient and occasionally respectable nation with which Scotland is at peace.
ReplyDeleteI've just read the article on the front page of the Times on James Mitchell's research into the attitude to independence by leading members of the SNP.
ReplyDeleteI have to admit it dented my incredible faith in the SNPs ability to see Scotland progress along the road to greater autonomy, not because I disagree with the idea of a looser relationship with the British state, but because as a strategy for the referendum it is fraught with danger.
It’s obvious that the public response from David Cameron will be "You can have your referendum on independence but you can't change the British constitution to suit yourselves" and he would be right. No British government could deliver on such a referendum because it wouldn't just affect Scotland. It would require referenda in the other component parts of the UK.
The SNP has already won a concession on the issue of Scots sovereignty. Glegg’s remarks to the Constitutional Affairs Committee acknowledges this. The SNP government should pocket this and in its public statements continually affirm the Scottish Constitutional Tradition of popular sovereignty. But in the referendum I believe it needs to stick to something Cameron can deliver which is either formal independence of more powers. I believe that, paradoxically, it would be easier for Cameron to work with a yes for independence than a yes for confederation.
I've never had a problem with the gradualist approach, but the flag analogy is mince!
ReplyDeleteI'm not greatly concerned with the precise details of the constitutional restructuring to be proposed in the referendum. I'm willing to trust the SNP leadership to gauge the maximum degree of autonomy that they can suggest in the referendum, and still win.
But we need an "Independence question" as well.
I'd suggest something along the lines of -
"The people of Scotland are sovereign. No Parliament can claim sovereignty over Scotland. The final decision on constitutional matters is for the people of Scotland to take." Agree/Disagree
Stronger together,weaker apart is a powerful message and I agree that the SNP needs to counter this. The independence lite approach looks like the way to go, at least as a first step.
ReplyDeleteOne worry at this time is the format of a referendum.
Would it be all or nothing?
A 3 choice question looks to be a possibility, but here there is the chance of a 3 way split, with the status quo coming out slighty ahead, despite a majority for some sort of progress.
Unless an alternative vote style system is used, which opens up other problems.
Stronger together ; weaker apart is
ReplyDeletefearmongering
Counter it with a positive message, facts and vision.
What the heck else does one do.
It's the fear campaign, we've seen it can be beaten.
But the message has to be out within a year and that message has to be simple and it has to be repeated and repeated positively. Ask Obama.
I have to say I am a bit disappointed in this current strategy, as an English born citizen of Scotland I have no desire to see a future independent Scotland still sending its citizens to engage in attacking foreign countries. What an embarrassment for a country to be involved in international gangsterism like this and what's more surely a big benefit of independence would be the economic savings gained through not engaging in attacks abroad. Yes, future cooperation on certain issues (train times etc) would be an advantage but 'defence' and foreign representation are not two I would choose.
ReplyDeleteDear Stephen,
ReplyDeleteSecond attempt - your profile thing is unhelpful to say the least....
The flag analogy doesn't work for me. As far as I am concerned it should have two points. The Saltire at the top and the UN flag underneath. If we go into the EU, then that should get equal billing, rather like Rosa Alba suggested.
I hope you are not trailing here to find out whether we will accept something like independence-lite, which is, as you probably know, an oxymoron.
I’m not saying there isn’t some validity in exploring what could be retained but, as a strategy against the charge of separatism, fudging independence gives the opposition massive opportunities to undermine the argument for independence for the following reasons.
ReplyDeleteIt has the potential to demoralise or split the wider independence movement and I notice newspapers already looking for splits. It conveys a lack of nerve or confidence in independence. We will be open to the argument of why Scots should take such a big risk and go through so much upheaval if nothing much will change. It leaves us wide open to Cameron, et al, saying: “No. It’s a strait in or out. There will be no half way house.”
If, given what’s happened in Ireland, Greece and Portugal, the Scottish public are rightly worried about taking such a big leap into the unknown then this kind of tweaking of what independence means could leave them cold and be perceived as evidence that we don’t get their concerns and are more obsessed with constitutional niceties.
I think it would be better at this stage for the SNP, through interviews by leading SNP figures to newspapers, TV, etc, to start to encourage a wider discussion on what a Britishness freed from the constraints of being submerged in the UK state could be like. Things like commitments to ensuring the new V&A Gallery in Dundee would go ahead would be an excellent example. SNP staff should maybe put effort into thinking of more examples like this.
An 'Equal Partners' approach is a good one.
ReplyDeleteEmphasising co-operation in areas such as defence.
Personally, I don't agree with the monarchy or having nuclear weapons, but I think we should keep the Queen and remain within NATO at first.
Why risk scaring away any potential voters? These are issues for another day.
For referendum questions, then a YES/YES format might be the way to go. Similar to the devolution question with added tax powers.
Campaigning for a double YES vote seems like a positive approach.
eg
1. FFA or Devolution Max. - YES/NO
2. Extend these powers to independence? YES/NO
I am a lifelong supporter of the SNP and passionate in my belief in Scottish Independence, but I welcome the realism in this blog regarding our post-independence constitution and our relationship with the rest of the UK.
ReplyDeleteAs a party and as a government we need to clarify to the Scottish people exactly what it is that we mean by independence.
Being British is a geographical fact! We share this island with our neighbours to the south and after independence we will still be British in the same way as the Norwegians are Scandinavian and the Portuguese are Iberian. Therefore it makes perfect sense to share a number of institutions with rest of Britain following independence. Exactly which institutions we share and to what extent is (and should be) up for debate, but an Irish-style full separation is just not feasible, desirable or practical in Scotland's case.
We now need to establish what it is that we are offering the Scottish people with regard to independence then put it forward in a referendum with a simple yes or no choice. No third option!
I find it ironic that, after finally persuading the Scottish electorate to approach the idea of independence with a more open mind, the SNP then undermine this dramatic advance by sounding as if it has no faith in the idea itself!
ReplyDeleteNo Union = No Union flag.
ReplyDeleteI am a citizen of Scotland and the EU.
The United Kingdom as a nation is a relic of Empire and is doomed to go the way of the Empire. The British Government, so keen to be a world leader and punch above its weight, will drown in its own debt and Scots, English, Welsh and Northern Irish citizens will eventually balk at paying in treasure and blood for the hubris of the Westminster elite. There will be a united Ireland. Whether the demise of the UK comes before or after the demise of Great Britain is largely up to the Scots.
ReplyDeleteAs a long-term SNP member I am committed to independence (full Scottish sovereignty within the EU). I am enough of a realist though to see that a majority of Scots are not yet ready to take the plunge and 5th May was a vote for a competent Scottish Government, not independence. However, now is not the time to take our eyes off the prize and confuse the electorate with obfuscations such as independence-lite. Is the party now afraid of independence? We should not be bounced into a referendum (not even, perhaps, in this parliament). We should use this parliament (and the next) to garner more powers for the Scottish Government so as to shorten the leap of faith we will ask the Scottish people to take when we hold a referendum on full Scottish independence, when WE are ready. Independence-lite should definitely not be seen as an end in itself when the full prize is winnable within 2 or 3 parliaments.
You need to read this Stephen.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.openunionism.com/2011/09/15/introducing-one-dynamic-nation/
Why is there no grassroots PRO independence campaign website out there?
The earlier one is set up the better.