Analysis: Saying No to independence is not enough
"We need to redefine Scotland's role in the Union" Picture: Jayne Wright
FOR the first time in five years, the constitutional question is now a live issue in Scottish politics. Faced with seismic political change over the past five years and the relentless rise of the SNP, no-one is in any doubt about the scale of the challenge facing Scotland and the unionist parties.
Time is running out as they come to terms not only with a referendum in 2014 but a political landscape that has been transformed out of all recognition and where identity politics is playing an increasingly important role.
The future of Scotland should not be the monopoly concern of one party. But that is increasingly how it appears as the SNP continue to dominate the political and constitutional agenda. While the option of a second question remains open, we are still talking about a narrow debate involving the Union and the idea of independence. This has to change. We need to redefine Scotland’s role in the Union. As part of that, we have to acknowledge time is limited and four things have to happen before the end of the consultation period.
First of all, we need an idea that takes us beyond the uninspiring and narrow options of devolution plus Calman versus independence, These are extremes that currently exclude one significant alternative – devo-max or autonomous Scotland or Home Rule within the Union, which I now prefer, especially in the light of history involving both Keir Hardie and Gladstone. This alternative embraces maximum devolved powers, with key issues of defence and foreign affairs and some Treasury matters remaining with Westminster, and full fiscal autonomy – the raising and spending of taxes in Scotland.
Opinion polls show that, without being debated to any great extent, this idea has captured the imagination of the electors. The reasons are straightforward enough. People love their country and want identity, nationality and diversity better recognised; the maximum number of powers exercised by the Scottish Parliament; to say No to independence, and at the same time, remain part of the UK. It would be a constitutional and political outrage if this alternative was not given serious consideration by all the political classes in the period up to the referendum. These are the very basic outlines of an idea that require a great deal more work.
Second, we need to build a credible and substantive case for Home Rule.
Third, there needs to be a campaign to drive the issue forward, building support for this alternative but also alerting people to the need to respond to the consultation paper and show politicians at Westminster and Holyrood that their views should not be ignored.
Fourth, there has to be a technical and legal dialogue about how all this could be captured in a ballot paper. Cynics argue it is too complicated, it will just muddy the waters, the Scottish people can’t deal with more than one question, which is both patronising and insulting to electors. These arguments are about tribalism and a lack of intellectual effort, nothing more. It is up to the Scottish people to decide the questions they want to be asked. Electors need to be taken seriously and treated like grown-ups.
Alex Salmond can’t corner the market on options for our future, and have his political cake and eat it. He can’t have both independence and Home Rule, nor can there be a question where you can tick both boxes!
This is an opportunity to strike at the heart of SNP thinking. But saying no to independence is not enough. Home Rule within the Union starts to address this issue in a new and refreshing way.
Email to a friend
Print this page- Family mourn death of Glasgow ‘fight’ schoolboy
- Rangers takeover: Duff & Phelps threaten legal action against BBC
- Today’s youth not fit to be employed, says car firm Arnold Clark
- Rangers administration: Fans fear Duff & Phelps claims could scare off Green
- Rangers takeover: triple penalty punishment enough, says Johnston
- Alistair Darling leads ‘No to independence’ fight over tea and biscuits
- Scottish independence: SNP flip-flops over Nato
- Scottish Independence: SNP ‘won’t be Yes campaign’s only voice’
- Today’s youth not fit to be employed, says car firm Arnold Clark
- Scottish independence: Alex Salmond’s pledge to sign up 1m voters
Looking for...
Featured advertisers
Jobs
Search for a job
Motors
Search for a car
Property
Search for a house
Weather for Edinburgh
Saturday 26 May 2012
Today
Sunny
Temperature: 8 C to 21 C
Wind Speed: 20 mph
Wind direction: North east
Tomorrow
Sunny
Temperature: 11 C to 21 C
Wind Speed: 12 mph
Wind direction: North east
Comments
There are 48 comments to this article
Page 1 of 4
cutommy
Monday, February 20, 2012 at 04:18 PMIs it not time for Scots to realise that the independence referendum is not a party political matter. I have been a socialist for more than 50 years, and I am proud to be an ardent supporter of Scottish Independence. Even if Scotland elects a Labour MP to each of the 59 constituencies in Scotland, they would still be a tiny minority at Westminster. Every piece of legislation affecting Scotland requires the consent of English MPS. When, with the assent of English voters, a Labour administration is elected, any small gains achieved are immediately reversed when the next Tory government is inevitably elected. The only way the Scots will attain a socialist social democratic government is by taking control of our own destiny. Scotland's voting record over the last half century suggests that we desire a left of centre agenda. This will never be achieved if we continue to rely on English voters to deliver it.
Independence for England
Tuesday, January 31, 2012 at 01:01 PM#43 "In the last 80 years, the only UK government elected which was not the choice of English voters, was the labour administration of 1950" That's not true. At the 2010 general election England voted Tory and yet we have a Lib Dem coalition thanks to Scottish Welsh and N.Irish MP's. We nearly had a LabourLib Dem pact (the Lib Dems first choice) but the numbers didn't quite stack up!
Ron Greer
Monday, January 30, 2012 at 11:49 AM41 Spot on, we don't need devolution, what we need is our country back.
Ron Greer
Monday, January 30, 2012 at 11:47 AM37 Nabodican Well on that basis Denmark might as well be a part of Germany and Norway( and indeed all 200 other non separatist, but independent nations with a seat at the UN) should renounce its position and agree to be ceded back to Sweden. So,if Scotland decides to achieve the status of Denmark( half the size of Scotland with 5 million people) within the EU or that of Switzerland( half the size of Scotland, with 5 million people and mountains 4 times as high) outwith it, will that suddenly make Denmark and Switzerland narrow-minded separatists too?
allymax
Monday, January 30, 2012 at 04:43 AMHenry, I'm sorry, but I've got to mark you down for the most incorrect, supercilious, and boring 'paper' \ article there's ever been. You said, " no-one is in any doubt about the scale of the challenge facing Scotland and the unionist parties."... Sorry Henry, but the problem for all the unionist party's, (and even a wee bit to the SNP), is 'exactly' that they all have 'doubts' as to the 'scale of the challenge' that lays ahead for them; they're all scared witless; to a lesser, or greater degree. Unionist party's to the greater degree, and SNP to the lesser degree; but only because they (SNP), have the reigns of power, and feel they have some semblence of 'control' over this 'Scottish political juggernaut'.......................... Then you said, " Time is running out as they come to terms not only with a referendum in 2014 but a political landscape that has been transformed out of all recognition " Henry, this is the politics of revolution; politics is the first casualty; and everything moves so fast there's nothing we recognise as fundamentally of 'politics'; it's all alien to us, and it's moving so fast we've kind-a given up being concerned to the 'accidental' nature of all the new 'political traumas' ushered into the headlines and msm. We may be watching, but unconsciously, we've turned off ! It's because the 'political landscape' has changed that we have only been left with what we can grasp as 'normal', a politics of identity; and there-in lays your 'politics of identity'....(at least you got one thing right, but it was out of context, so no banana for you !) We seem to recognise the political players, but the actual politics they are now concerned with is all just too much for us now. We don' t really understand the breakneck speed of politics in Scotland; we're not really getting to grips with what's going on because it's continually rushing past us. The rate-of-change is astoundingly irreverent, and merciless. Just when we think we've got a grasp on when the independence referendum is going to happen, a new 'disaster' hits us, 'the question'. And everyday there's another 'astounding headline'; Calamity Cameron is to blame for most of these, granted, but still, how can we, the people, manage to live of politics alone ? " The future of Scotland should not be the monopoly concern of one party. "...... Like I said Henry, this is a revolution, since when did democracy ever reign supreme in a revolution ? As for the rest of your paper, it's nice sentiment, but sentiment never won a revolution !
cutommy
Saturday, January 28, 2012 at 11:15 PMIs Scotland a nation or a region? Most Scots would instinctively claim that Scotland is a nation. But what does this mean? Surely any nation worthy of the name would be prepared to determine its own future. In electoral terms, Scotland is only a region within the UK and is dwarfed by other regions like London and the English Midlands. For this reason Scotland is always governed by parties elected by voters outside of Scotland. In the last 80 years, the only UK government elected which was not the choice of English voters, was the labour administration of 1950, and it only survived for 18 months. Indeed in the vast majority of elections that took place during this period, the Scottish vote was irrelevant in terms of which party formed the government. In summary, England was governed by a party supported by a majority of its voters in 78.5 out of 80 years. Scotland on the other hand, was governed by a party that did not enjoy the support of Scottish Voters in 32 out of 80 years. (Source: House of Commons Research Paper 0461. 28th July 2004) Is it time to ‘BE A NATION AGAIN’? In the referendum scheduled for 2014, Scottish electors will be asked to decide: 1. Should Scotland become a Sovereign Nation in control of its own destiny? Or, 2. Do we wish Scotland to remain a region, ruled by an agenda set by the electorate of our southern neighbours? Will Scotland be better off with independence? This question occupies the minds of many Scots. It is highly unlikely that you will hear, in the period leading up to the referendum, a truly unbiased opinion on this subject. Politicians, Economists and Journalists are no better at predicting future events than the average man or woman in the street, otherwise we would not be in our current economic mess. One thing that we do know is that Scotland has an abundance of one of the scarcest and most precious resources on the planet. FRESH WATER. It is also agreed by most commentators that Scotland has a surplus of ENERGY. Including RENEWABLE ENERGY. Devolution or Devo-Max? Remember this, devolution, in the form of the Scotland Act, was granted by the UK government and equally can be repealed by a future UK government over which we have no control. If you doubt that this could happen, just look at the experience of Northern Ireland where Stormont was abolished in March 1972. In 2014 we will have a historic opportunity to decide as a sovereign nation to enter into a new partnership with our nearest and valued neighbours in England, Wales and Ireland. It is quite normal to have friendly relations with your next-door neighbours, without giving them the right to choose the colour of your front door.
furian
Saturday, January 28, 2012 at 05:36 PMO dear.........The freak show has started and we have a crusader on a mission to save Scotland from the evil forces of independence and SNP !!!!!!........ If this is the best than can be mobilized to defend the Union and the Soul of Scotland.from itself..........well, the breakup of UK will then come faster than anyone can imagine ! Great Britain was once an empire - today it is only a disgraced memory where the Queen repeatedly has had to apologize for atrocities committed by her ancestors in the past- slavery, wars etc.... UK' s present politicians still have the mindset of old colonialists and want to lecture other countries- just to end up in the political ditch, isolated and being laughing stock for the rest of the world. It is pathetic and sad to watch the so called " unionists" lose all dignity and pride in their fight for a long lost cause - as it is pleasure to watch Scotland emancipate and progress towards independence and modernity in the 21 th century.
richardm
Saturday, January 28, 2012 at 05:17 PMHard to see how devo-max or even federalism is ever going to work. The mimimum price of devo-max would be the exclusion of Scottish MPs from exclusively English matters. England's population and economy would account for 85% of the whole. Were there to be a separate English parliamentgovernment - or indeed ScottishWelshNorthern Irish MPs excluded from English votes - there is every possibility that politically England would differ from the UK as a whole. ScotlandWalesNorthern Ireland would either have to tag along with England, which wouldn't be popular; or the UK government would not have the neccessary mandate to rule England; or any new federal UK wide government would be too weak vis a vis England. Whichever way it would soon fall apart.
dgg
Saturday, January 28, 2012 at 04:50 PM#37 nabodican: *no-one* is rules by the UN, it's a cooperative body supported by its members. If you're concerned about being rules by Europe then it doesn't matter a fig wither you vote or not, because Scotland in Europe would probably have a similar status to UK in Europe. Actually given most European's attitudes to the UK (currently that means attitudes to Cameron) Scotland might get a better ride than Westminster currently does. Cameron is either treated as a bit of a prat or as a bit of a gnat - likely to be swatted in due course - because he's pandering to his right-wing Conservative enemies.
well informed
Saturday, January 28, 2012 at 02:21 PM37 Independence means having a choice whether to be in or out of the EU or UN or Nato or any other organisation!!!! Independence is choice! Devolution is denial of choice!!!!
well informed
Saturday, January 28, 2012 at 02:19 PM36 How do you know the English pound will even exist after 2016? How do you know that Cameron wont take the whole of the UK over to the Euro before then? YOU DONT!!! and neither does anybody else not even Cameron!!!
nabodican
Saturday, January 28, 2012 at 12:53 PMIt strikes me that what Alex Salmond wants is "separation" and not "Independence" because he still wants Scotland to be ruled by the EU and the UN. This being the case I will certainly placing my cross in the "don't agree" box.
The Answer
Saturday, January 28, 2012 at 12:26 PMI notice 'not very well informed' thinks the English pound will crash once scotland is independent - then why is salmond going to use the English pound upon independence? ...... don't bother answering 'not very well informed' . I treat your posts with the contempt they deserve.
well informed
Saturday, January 28, 2012 at 11:52 AM33 Clearly no answers either then! You certainly cant debate if yer no willing to answer a few questions!
The West Awake
Saturday, January 28, 2012 at 11:44 AM33 - Jeez, if English Reason thinks this is a bar-room brawl now he should wait till the loonies and spoilers wake up and get here! This is obviously going to be todays "heat rather than light" article. Like him I will be p'ing off when the "28 weks later" brigade come out their lairs.
Page 1 of 4
Your view
Please sign in to be able to comment on this story.