Eddie Barnes: What the new from of independence is all about

Published on Saturday 14 May 2011 10:43

With a referendum hill to climb, some SNP members are talking about a new sort of independence, but what does that really mean?

AT THE Scottish Parliament on Wednesday last week, the white roses were everywhere. The party's 69 new MSPs had all arrived with the flowers in their buttonholes. Dotted here and there were Labour members, who had come bedecked with red roses to mark the swearing-in ceremony which each new parliamentarian must perform. But never before had Scotland's Nationalist party so visibly displayed its dominance of Scotland's political landscape.

The Nationalists know the dangers of hubris now that they are the first party ever to govern with a parliamentary majority. Pressing flesh with his new colleagues, one minister noted: "We've said that we should continue governing as if we're a minority party. Our view is that it would be much better to win votes with 80, 90 votes." For the Nationalists know that, despite their stunning victory two weeks ago, they cannot simply sit back and lord it over their opponents for the next five years. The victory is merely the start of what is likely to be a three-year campaign to persuade all the MSPs around them, and the public at large, to back the plan for independence.

This week the scenes of celebration will continue when Alex Salmond's election as First Minister is formally confirmed. He will then hand out ministerial jobs to the lucky few among the massed ranks of MSPs behind him. And while the day-to-day grind of office will recommence as soon as he does so, with the small matter of an unaffordable public sector to handle, the majority the party won has now ensured that the referendum on independence, likely to take place some time in 2014, has come front and centre.

Salmond's team is keen to point out they are focusing on the present, and in particular on winning further powers through the UK government's Scotland Bill proposals. But, as one senior SNP thinker notes, the Scotland Bill is now yesterday's news. It is the referendum which is where the real business is. Independence is "inevitable", Salmond said last week. And the campaign has begun with what may at first seem a strange question but which has now assumed increasing importance. What exactly does independence mean these days? What form of independence does the SNP hope to persuade us to accept?

The question came to the fore last week after Professor James Mitchell of Strathclyde University released conclusions from a major new book, due out soon, based on exhaustive interviews with 70 senior Nationalists, and questionnaires with a total of 7,000 SNP activists - making it by far the biggest survey of Scottish Nationalist opinion.Professor Mitchell, who is close to most of the key figures in the party, concluded that what these SNP figures consider to be independence may be somewhat different from the popular view. Yes, a vote for independence would bring about a new sovereign state of Scotland, separate to what remains of the UK (known for now as rUK, or rest of the UK). But, Prof Mitchell's study notes, the SNP figures believe that this new state would remain tightly bound to the rUK. In this "confederal" system, Scotland could for example choose to buy into a UK-wide armed forces, a UK-wide monetary system and a UK-wide foreign service.

According to this analysis, all claims by opponents of millions being blown on new Scottish embassies and Salmond's face being minted on a new Scottish pound are way off the mark. "I would describe what they are thinking about as being much more of a confederal arrangement within these islands rather than the traditional concept of independence," said Prof Mitchell.

Prof Mitchell's book noting the SNP's support for a confederal approach was described as revealing a "rethink" in SNP philosophy last week. But, more accurately, it can be better described as the evolution of Nationalist thinking going back 40 years which, over that time span, has moved gradually from heresy to orthodoxy.

Two SNP intellectuals - the late Neil MacCormick and former presiding officer George Reid - have carried the mantle for this mode of thinking. Both came to the view early in their careers that Scotland was never going to follow an Irish-style route to independence. Instead, they championed the gradualist route of first supporting a devolved parliament and then supporting Scottish independence within Europe.

With the hoary gradualist vs fundamentalist feud raging, this was deeply controversial at the time. In the mid-1970s, Reid, then an SNP MP, is said to have been castigated by his fellow Nationalist MP Donald Stewart simply for attending a Westminster meeting on the European cause. Meanwhile, in a recent interview, Salmond noted that, back in the day, the SNP would have tortuous debates on whether, if devolution was to be delivered, the party should put up MSPs.

The big change in this fundamentalist view on independence came at the party's 1988 conference, says Mitchell, when the SNP agreed on a policy of independence within Europe. Others attribute the change to 1999 when the SNP's backing for the Scottish Parliament and the advent of devolution saw the party playing a key role in the new system. So the party's understanding of independence changed: to a separate nation linked into other power networks both within the British Isles and on the European continent.

As for the idea that a "confederal" arrangement is new, the history books show otherwise. In 1996, Reid used the party's annual Donaldson lecture to declare that, in a post-imperial age, the identities of England and Scotland should return to "separate, national roots".He said: "That is not to deny several hundred years of common history. There is absolutely no reason why Scots, English, Irish and Welsh should not - as with the Danes, Finns, Norwegians and Swedes in the Nordic Union - continue their specific relationship in some form of Anglo-Celtic confederation."

Two years ago, Angus Robertson, the party's defence spokesman, noted how this relationship might operate in practice, declaring how an independent Scotland could continue to share Scottish bases with rUK. "On the basis of mutual interest, it is perfectly possible to envisage circumstances in which we share basing, procurement and training facilities with the rest of the present UK - our foremost friend and ally under all constitutional arrangements - in exactly the same way as defence co-operation exists across Scandinavia." Justice secretary Kenny MacAskill also noted recently how an independent Scotland might continue to use services such as the DVLA, based in Swansea.

The SNP's point is that not everything in an independent Scotland has to have the word "Scottish" emblazoned all over it. Salmond's aides say there is no question that, despite all these links, they are still 100 per cent committed to independence and a new sovereign nation set apart from the rUK. But, they go on to note, those links mean that what they are not proposing is "separatism". Voters may be somewhat confused by all these fine distinctions, mostly engineered by Nationalist strategists to avoid negative linguistic connotations. There is a fear, say other Nationalists, about getting out and trying to explain their position for fear of misrepresentation and focusing attention on something which continues to be opposed by the majority of Scots.

"Part of the problem," says one SNP figure, "is that the SNP doesn't have the words yet to say what they mean." A "confederation" is too clunky. Another term, "sovereigntist-association", associated with Quebec nationalism, is even worse. Is it "indy-lite"? How about "opt in-dependence"? Or what about "easy independence", where Scotland buys itself a no-frills independence model and then decides whether to pay extra for troops, diplomats and Mervyn King?

With the SNP's plans now likely to come under proper scrutiny, there will inevitably be questions over whether the model stands up in practice. First, constitutional experts doubt whether such a confederal deal would really constitute independence. Professor Robert Hazell, director of UCL's Constitution Unit, notes: "My main comment is on the potential fuzziness. Defence, macro-economic policy and foreign affairs are key features of statehood. Does the SNP want Scotland to be independent or not?"

Second, such a confederation implies a deal: England, Wales and Northern Ireland would have to agree to share. Defenders of the Union are already noting that, post-independence, the key leverage which Scotland has over London - the threat of secession - would no longer apply.

Wouldn't England just tell Scotland to go swing? Might the English simply tell the Scots, for example, that they were taking their troops and going home? Mitchell insists this wouldn't happen and that the two newly separated nations would seek to co-operate. "I don't know a state in the world that wouldn't want to do that, especially with Scotland being so strategic. On military bases, when you have already got an infrastructure, the costs of relocating are so significant."

SNP sources acknowledge, however, that those rUK bases which did remain would not be allowed to be the base for aggressive action if the new Scottish Government opposed it (like over Iraq). Scotland Office minister David Mundell claims: "It is an attempt to have your cake and eat it. I have never subscribed to the view that Scotland couldn't be independent because of economic issues. It could be independent. But you can't then have a pick and mix approach to what you keep and what you discard. The point is that the SNP can't deliver any of these things because they will have to be negotiated by all parts of the United Kingdom." The pressure is now on from opponents and his own side for Salmond to explain matters clearly. SNP figures talk of a "new fundamentalism", whereby the government places more focus on how the powers of independence would transform the country, and less on simply proving the party's competence. Might Salmond's 69 grow impatient on the backbenches if progress is not seen to be made?

All the signs, however, are that the First Minister's team will take their time and stick to the plan. A referendum in 2014; perhaps a multi-option choice, with quasi-federalism on the ballot paper alongside independence, giving Salmond two chances to make transformational change. And then, with Labour going nowhere, a third term after that to seal the deal.

Prof Mitchell adds: "My take on this is that we are moving towards an ever looser Union. It is quite vague but it gives a sense of direction. There will always be a Union in some shape or form. Quite what shape or form it takes, though, is very different."