Blair's age of Scottish Enlightenment

Published on Wednesday 14 July 2004 01:00

THE FRENCH beat the Scots when it comes to festival. Both countries produced an Enlightenment which went on to shape different parts of the world, yet the French Revolution is internationally celebrated and the Scottish intellectual revolution has been virtually forgotten.

Today, for example, millions will celebrate Bastille Day in France and beyond. All this in spite of the fact that the French Revolution was an utter failure, leading to a campaign of mass murder, an imperial despotism and, eventually, the restoration of the monarchy.

The Scottish Enlightenment wrote a doctrine of freedom which yielded the United States Constitution and British industrial revolution. Its texts have come to be seen as the basic truths of liberty - yet the grave of Adam Smith stands lonely and unvisited in Edinburgh.

The main reason why the French have all the fun is that their Enlightenment - involving grand figures such as Voltaire and Rousseau - is far sexier. It is now taken to mean the overthrow of aristocracy, and radical plans for equality. It was, fundamentally, about kicking ass.

The Scots, meanwhile, were far more dull. Smith, Adam Ferguson and Francis Hutcheson were academics primarily concerned with economic growth who preached tolerance and moderation. Their revolution has been less glamorous and slower-burning - but has delivered resounding success.

From the boom of modern China to Tony Blair’s reforms announced over the last few weeks, the Scottish brigade, and their ideas, are winning a posthumous victory over the French. We are witnessing the conclusion of a long ideological battle.

At the end of the 18th century, both the Scots and French intellectuals were thinking of alternatives to the injustices and instabilities of the old colonial trading system, which saw business as a matter of exploitation - war and empire, by other means.

The French Enlightenment proposed replacing the church with a new civic religion, where everyone would work together for the greatest good. Social progress, they believed, came about when an enlightened elite came to power and managed everyone else.

Crucially, many in the French Enlightenment had little faith in the masses. They feared that humans pursuing their self-interest become corrupt - and that, left alone, selfish instincts would prevail. It followed that strong government was vital for a strong country. The only question was who should hold power.

That so many people still believe this to be true (government virtuous, masses selfish) is testimony to the enduring power of the French Enlightenment. It is, of course, bunkum - as demonstrated every day by the Scottish Executive - but has nonetheless been the basis for socialist governments worldwide.

The Scots, by contrast, took a radically dramatic world view. They believed that people, if left alone, are essentially virtuous - and, if given the tools, would slowly work out what is best for themselves and their families. This would happen by evolution, not revolution. The "answers" to society, argued the Scots, are held by mankind in general - not by any elite purporting to represent "the people". The best way to improve a country is for government to uphold a few laws, then get out of the way and let the people do the rest.

The Scottish way required that, for a country to get better, the people must be given maximum amounts of freedom and choice. The Scottish position is, effectively, a faith in mankind.

Essentially, Scots Enlightenment stood for individual liberty and small government, while the French stood for power, and big government. The French wanted to seize power with a big bang; the Scots wanted to abolish power and let people adopt a gradual approach to the best government.

The Scottish model flourished in the United States, whose intellectual debt to Scotland - as seen in the pages of its constitution - is now annually acknowledged on Tartan Day. But in post-war Europe, it flopped - as elites and planned economies sprang up everywhere.

And these elites worked, for quite a long time. They set up the welfare state in Britain which is, to this day, used to prove that powerful government is a good thing (and the French were right all along). This was the first major argument against the Scottish Enlightenment.

The second was Margaret Thatcher. She openly proclaimed herself as Smith’s disciple, and set about introducing painful reforms which forged the prosperity which Britain today enjoys. But her divisive manner made enemies nationwide - and left the free market a swear-word in parts of the UK.

And, alas, in Scotland. In the run-up to devolution, it was frequently argued that Scotland is different because its communities are more cohesive than those in England and its people place more priority on looking out for the less advantaged in society. Tragically, this was used as an argument for the strong state.

Smith would have certainly recognised this description of his fellow countrymen. Give people enough liberty, he said, and such values will surface - you don’t need a government. Instead, of course, the "closeness" of Scotland has been used as a reason to hand power and money to MSPs.

Having an ignorant, untrustworthy population is the normal argument for a strong, virtuous political class. But Scotland has a famously ingenious population (who can be found running much of England) - which is partly why there is such dismay at the calibre of the average MSP.

The paradox is that Scotland - of all countries - has ended up lumbered with the French solution. Quite simply, it doesn’t fit. It may terrify the political class to admit it, but the more power is vested in the ordinary Scot, and the less MSPs interfere, the better this country is likely to become.

These are the laws of the Scottish Enlightenment, and they now have a new Downing Street convert. The ideology behind Mr Blair’s five-year plan is that there should be no central planners, or an elite, governing health, education and social housing provision in England.

Instead, there should be "choice" because the best system is produced by parents and patients - who, as a whole, are more cunning than anyone sitting in Whitehall. To make a collective decision, they need a market: and this is why Mr Blair is making schools and hospitals semi-autonomous.

The Scottish Enlightenment is not only breaking through the windows of 10 Downing Street but is shining on the former Warsaw Pact states who adopt a low-tax, small-government agenda. The same can be seen from Peru to Bangalore. The pendulum is finally swinging back towards the Edinburgh cemetery.

As Paris celebrates "liberty, fraternity and equality" today, it will proclaim an anthem which has lost none of its political appeal. The French may have had the best soundbites - but it is the agenda of the Scottish Enlightenment which makes them real.