Joyce McMillan: ‘It won’t work’ is not good enough
Anas Sarwar and Labour leader Johann Lamont need to strengthen their case
Independence debate is fully joined and hell mend unionists who have nothing positive to offer
THURSDAY morning and I am listening to a BBC Radio Scotland debate on the Scottish Government’s proposals for the forthcoming independence referendum, announced with a fine flourish on Wednesday afternoon at a press conference in the Great Hall of Edinburgh Castle.
The tone of the four assembled radio voices – for the four main Scottish parties, with Patrick Harvie of the Greens apparently lost in transit – varies a good deal. Stewart Maxwell for the SNP sounds confident and cheerful, while Annabel Goldie of the Tories seems relieved to have given up the burden of leadership, but the Liberal Democrat leader Willie Rennie is his usual dour and downbeat self, and Anas Sarwar, for Labour, sounds about as cheerful as a professional mourner at an old-fashioned funeral.
And whatever their tone, it becomes increasingly clear, as the programme wears on, that the three speakers for the unionist parties currently have only one message for Scottish voters – that if we listen to the siren song of Alex Salmond and his nationalists, then dire consequences will follow.
In the course of the programme, we are told that independence would be too risky, too expensive, and much, much too complicated to negotiate. We hear that complete independence in the modern world is impossible in any case, that the whole process would create too much uncertainty, and that we are, in general, just not quite up to it.
Now, for all that any of us knows, some of these predictions could turn out to be true.
One of the most comical features of the great independence debate so far is the sound of sceptical voters demanding “facts” about how an independent Scotland would turn out, as if Mr Salmond had a hotline to astrologer Mystic Meg.
What’s almost certain, though, is that if the unionist parties carry on with this relentless litany of negatives, the vast majority of voters will simply stop listening to them long before the two-and-a-half year referendum campaign is over.
And even if their campaign of fear and negativity is successful in achieving the “no” vote they crave, it will leave Scotland – the day after the referendum – with no prospect of a better future, and no idea at all of how it should move forward.
If the independence debate is to remain alive, therefore, and is not to become a huge turn-off for the vast majority of voters, it’s now absolutely essential that unionist politicians start developing their own positive vision for Scotland’s future in the UK, start advocating it, and fight for its inclusion in the coming referendum as if they cared more for that positive vision than for the momentary pleasure of inflicting a possible yes-no humiliation on Mr Salmond.
Nationalists will argue, of course, that there is no longer any such thing as a progressive unionist position, and some in both the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties seem determined to prove them right, insisting that the Scots simply spend the next two years choosing between outright independence, and the UK as it stands.
The last time anyone checked, though, all three of the unionist parties were in fact strong supporters of full fiscal autonomy for the Scottish Government, and of various forms of “devo max”.
Among the disingenuous arguments now being advanced for denying Scottish voters a third choice in the coming referendum is the assertion that these other options are “confusing”, and that no-one knows what they mean.
In fact, though, every Scottish politician knows that “devo max” means a system in which Scotland raises all its own taxes, and pays a subvention to London for those areas of spending – defence, pensions, some aspects of social security – which remain undevolved.
There is also a well-worked out proposal for “devo plus”, put forward by Reform Scotland, under which Scots, like citizens of American states, would pay some of their taxes to Holyrood, and the rest to the central government at Westminster.
In addition, there is the traditional Liberal Democrat proposal for a fully federal UK, which could help meet what seems to be an increasing demand for some kind of English parliament, to match the elected legislatures in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
And the notion that all or any of these ideas should be kept off the table for the next three years, while we focus exclusively on debating complete independence, seems at best ridiculous, and at worst downright undemocratic, particularly when, as some shrewd observers have noted, the kind of “independence lite” now being proposed by Mr Salmond – with retention of the monarchy, the pound sterling, and close military co-operation – is not nearly so different from devo max as some nationalists would have us believe.
The problem with Britain’s unionist parties, though, is that over the last dozen years they have gradually become so unused to developing and advocating genuinely progressive policies that they now seem almost incapable of responding in kind to Mr Salmond’s hopeful vision of an independent Scotland.
In the 1990s, the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties formed a powerful alliance with Scottish civil society to campaign for what was seen, at the time, as a huge and radical constitutional change in the British state.
Today, the Liberal Democrats are silenced by their Westminster coalition with the Conservatives, while Labour no longer knows where it stands, in the battle for democracy between citizens and overweening financial power.
These parties can, in other words – if they wish – maintain their flawed and petty decision of recent weeks to deny the Scottish people a full constitutional debate on all the options; and to insist that we simply choose between Mr Salmond’s Scotland, and David Cameron’s union.
If they do, though, it will be the worse for us, and the worse for them.
And once the dust of the referendum vote has settled, whether the answer is yes or no, voters will turn away from them in boredom and disgust and back towards the party which – whatever its flaws – at least dared to dream of a better future Scotland, and to sketch out a road map of how we might get to that future, from where we are now.
Email to a friend
Print this page- Alan Pattullo: Dignity, not sanctimony, is required at Parkhead
- 300 jobs at risk as Ryanair axes five Edinburgh routes
- Suzanne Pilley trial: I kissed her goodbye then never saw her again, says would-be lover
- Rangers administration: Craig Whyte’s promise to step aside and hand Rangers over to fans ‘ludicrous’
- David Cameron is playing into the SNP’s hands, says Michael Forsyth
- Scottish independence: Spectre of border controls raised by top Tory
- David Cameron is playing into the SNP’s hands, says Michael Forsyth
- Scottish independence: Alex Salmond hits back at Tory ‘Bourbons’ in battle over devo-max
- Scottish independence: Anti-Scottish jibes boost separation, Michael Gove warns Right
- The Rumour Mill: Monday’s football news and gossip
Looking for...
Featured advertisers
Jobs
Search for a job
Motors
Search for a car
Property
Search for a house
Weather for Edinburgh
Thursday 23 February 2012
Today
Light rain
Temperature: 7 C to 14 C
Wind Speed: 26 mph
Wind direction: South west
Tomorrow
Sunny spells
Temperature: 5 C to 10 C
Wind Speed: 29 mph
Wind direction: West
Comments
There are 41 comments to this article
Page 1 of 3
Enigma
Wednesday, February 1, 2012 at 01:39 PM40 Why shouldn`t he post to a Scottish paper, it`s still a free country isn`t it? in any case plenty of rubbish gets spouted in the Scottish press about what the English think or do, not to mention all the Scots who post in what you would regard as the English press ie Times, Telegraph etc. Whatever you think of Scousedave`s views, he is at least correct in stating that many English people, for whatever reason, would be happy to see Scottish independence, opinion pole evidence suggests more than in Scotland. How many times have I read postings on this site claiming the English will do all they can to thwart seperation? Damned if we do damned if we don`t!
Dandyhurl
Monday, January 30, 2012 at 05:22 PM32.Scouse Dave. The rubbishy clichés you write are all too old hat to bother about replying to, (and you could answer them yourself if you bothered to do any reading - which isn't very likely), but one question does arise from your post ... why are you sending it to a Scottish newspaper?
Kennedy Clan
Saturday, January 28, 2012 at 06:42 PM#22 The SNP weren't in attendance at the Constitutional Convention when the Claim of Right was signed because Labour refused to allow the convention to even consider independence. Labour and the other unionist parties also ruled out independence being considered by the Calman Commission, so the SNP took no part in that either. It is funny that people who refused to even consider the benefits of Scottish independence think they can now tell a majority SNP government how to consult the Scottish people. The voters put the SNP in the driving seat and Labour has only itself to blame for marginalising itself as just another unionist party. You would have thought the fate of the Tory Party would have acted as a warning.
Vickers
Saturday, January 28, 2012 at 01:09 PMI thank Joyce McMillan for putting shape to some major issues. No change, carry on as before does not seem to be a good option.As an undecided voter I was and am looking forward to a good, balanced and informed debate across Scotland about the way forward. However! We have a Labour Party that still seems to be uanble to deal with the fact that it does'nt have a given right to govern forever in Scotland, and seem capable only of saying we want things to stay as they were (I sense that its as simple as that - the Party cant get over its gut feeling that it would like to go back to the old days). And it is insulting of all parties (Westminser or Holyrood) to suggest that more than 1 question in a referendum would be too complicated for voters. I think perhaps the whole idea of devolution max or independence is just too complicated and challenging for some politicians - Labour, Lib Dem and Conservative. Oh it was so much simpler for them in the days when they could just turn up at Holyrood and look after the shop for a whilekeep things ticking over. Well - we need more than that from our politicians and I for one want a well informed and debated series of options to consider. All countries need some sort of visionan idea of where its going. Negative - 'oh it wont work, no change please', just isnt good enough!.
Ron Greer
Saturday, January 28, 2012 at 11:19 AM28 Yes, another one of your cop outs that adds to the independence cause. How about telling us what England gets out of the Union to justify all those subsidies to Ghillie-Jockoland? What has England got to lose?
Ron Greer
Saturday, January 28, 2012 at 10:57 AM32 Aye Dave you are right. What's England getting out of the Union for all the subsidies to Ghillie-Jockoland. Support the independence movement and you could end up with Trident on the Mersey. That completed, perhaps you could help out the narrow- minded separatists in Denmark. It has the same population size as Scotland, in a country half the size, and t has nor oil or coal. How it still has one of the highest standards of living in the world beats me--any ideas. Then there 's those other narrow-minded separatists in Norway,Scotland's nearest continental neighbour. There's less than 5 million of them too
marquis1
Friday, January 27, 2012 at 10:44 PMThe answer to the dilemma facing the Labour Party in Scotland is simple. Be what your name says - "SCOTTISH LABOUR". Join the campaign for Scotland to REGAIN its independence. In response former Labour voters like myself will return to the fold! Blindly following your political masters in London has no future!
Pilrig.
Friday, January 27, 2012 at 09:28 PM32 - "Scotland will spiral into an impoverished wasteland" writes SCOUSE Dave. Oh how I love irony !
Charles P
Friday, January 27, 2012 at 08:55 PMTolmie (25) Damn it man I wanted to use 'lick spittle' about English Lord Forsyth (used to be Scots) who held that position to Maggie Thatcher! He was so hated in Scotland they had to kick him upstairs to the House of English Lords in order that he would never have to stand for election again! Now every time he speaks his vileness, he is at last performing a useful function, upping the membership of the SNP! Don't be hard on Joyce McMillan, her heart's in the right place, but she has to look out for her job on this Tory Rag, jobs are scarce, and by the time Cameron is done---Ach! ye know the rest!
Scouse Dave
Friday, January 27, 2012 at 08:24 PM24 the answer is because the English £, and with very little industry or infrastructure (who is going to pay for that we wonder) scotland will spiral into an impoverished wasteland. Name me one other state with scotland lack of assets and meagre population who are successful? San Marino? Which is why most English people would love to see the back of the ungrateful moaning self deluded dreamers who are scots nats. PLEASE vote to get out now (and none of this devo "we are scarred to go it fully alone" rubbish).
The Tin Man
Friday, January 27, 2012 at 07:08 PMI get the feeling that the writer is not happy unless there is a huge and radical constitutional change in the British state every decade, for the sake of it.
The Tin Man
Friday, January 27, 2012 at 07:04 PMWhy would a 'no' vote result in no prospect of a better future? I take it that Joyce has indeed been consulting with Mystic Meg. Very, very negative of you, Joyce!
florian albert
Friday, January 27, 2012 at 05:38 PMOne more plea, from one more unelected individual, that the vote on Independence should be turned into something different. Is Ms McMillan totally unaware of the irony of an unelected journalist bemoaning the decision of elected politicians not to do her bidding ? Predictably she brings in the idea of 'civic Scotland' as though this entity represents the Scottish people in the way elected politicians fail to. Will voters turn to the SNP because they alone 'dared to dream of a better Scotland' ? Probably not. Voters want politicians to solve our endemic problems. Voters also know the difference betwen politicians and those who have appointed themselves to 'speak for' Scotland.
Buford Van Stomm
Friday, January 27, 2012 at 04:21 PM24 neoloon ==================================================== i'll field this one...it's because online cybernuttery is predicated by the nonsensical ability to put words in the mouths of anyone who disagrees with them and attempt to portray them in a negative light regardless of the reality of their opinion.
Buford Van Stomm
Friday, January 27, 2012 at 04:19 PM20 Broon Bairn ==================================================== Nicola Sturgeon...she will be the Edwina Currie of her generation.
Page 1 of 3
Your view
Please sign in to be able to comment on this story.