Murray Ritchie: How to square the constitutional circle

Published on Saturday 11 April 2009 20:13

WITH the death last week of Sir Neil MacCormick Scotland lost a powerful intellectual force for the SNP's brand of inclusive, moderate nationalism.

The party's 75th anniversary celebrations were muted in respect for the man who earned a worldwide reputation as a constitutional lawyer and whose vision of independence was clear and uncomplicated.

MacCormick argued for the continuation of the Union of the Crowns and the removal of that one little clause in the other Union, the Treaty of 1707, which stipulates there must be one parliament for all of Great Britain.

In other words, he supported a Scotland where the Queen continued to be head of state in what would effectively be a United Kingdom of independent states – as before in history – all integrated socially and culturally and even in some limited respects politically, but none the less independent. In effect, he supported a confederal Britain.

We may soon be hearing a lot more of the MacCormick vision because much of it is shared by Alex Salmond and Michael Russell, the constitution minister. Indeed, if Salmond and Russell have their way proposals for a confederal Britain in some shape or form will almost certainly be on offer when Holyrood is asked to consider the independence referendum bill due in the new year.

Were the bill to succeed then Scotland would be asked to vote on the kind of constitution MacCormick would probably have drawn up. His version of independence would not, of course, appeal to everyone, least of all Unionist last-ditchers or hardline republicans, but it would certainly be a strong option for many voters in a referendum.

The reason is easy to spot. Despite the foghorn voices of some Unionists, few independence supporters want isolation or the "break-up of Britain". Rather, they want a warm relationship with England in a transformed United Kingdom where sovereignty is restored to Edinburgh with an independent Government free to take its own decisions on its own terms. In other words, they want Salmond's "normal" country. Salmond and Russell know they will be best served by producing a blueprint which encompasses such sympathies as an option. Independence will still be what's on offer, but we'll be invited to look at it in a different way.

After a decade of devolution the only thing all parties agree on is that it is time to move on. Before long the Unionist-only Calman Commission will pronounce. We shall see then if, as the SNP believes, it is no more than a stalling operation. Calman's members all support more powers for Holyrood while arguing against anything amounting to truly radical change or which might satisfy the SNP.

We can predict that Tory and Labour ambitions will be minimal as usual but what of the Liberal Democrats and their rather timid leader, Tavish Scott? These are the people who have spent a century preaching British federalism but when offered the next-best thing, confederalism – whose shape they could strongly influence – they look ready to hide. Real and radical old-time Liberals like Gladstone and Grimond would be ashamed.

Gladstone wanted Irish MPs out of Westminster and was defeated by inflexible Unionism. When Grimond argued for federalism he saw it as an escape from the dead hand of Unionism. Scott seems to take the opposite view. Being an apparently default Unionist he distrusts federalism as the gateway to independence. Someone should take him aside and explain how the circle can be squared.

MacCormick's reconstituted UK would see Scots still able to study at English universities and use English hospitals and the other integrated areas of national life as we know them now. If an independent Scotland was to remain in the EU – and MacCormick vanquished the argument that it could be kicked out – we would continue to work closely with the continental states. So why not with our closest neighbour? The logic is surely unanswerable.

MacCormick was one of the few Nationalists to accept – or be offered – a knighthood because he saw Britain's monarchy as a non-political force which could be used to the advantage of the campaign for Scottish independence. If an independence referendum meant kicking out the Queen it would have no chance, he believed, almost certainly correctly. A Scottish republic, while attractive to some, was something which could wait for another day.

Salmond, therefore, is right to argue that whatever the merits of a republic the time to consider it is not now if your are in the business of winning an independence referendum. Independence matters more to most nationalists than republicanism. You can have independence without a Scottish republic but you can't have a Scottish republic without independence.

Barring an exciting surprise from Calman Holyrood's arithmetic will remain against the SNP until some deal is done to facilitate the promised bill next year. The most likely outcome remains a multi-option referendum with MacCormick-style independence set alongside Calman's Unionist-backed new powers, whatever they turn out to be.

Which is where Scott and his band have the chance to be interesting. Backing a choice including some form of confederation offers them the chance to change Scotland and therefore Britain like never before simply by being true to themselves. I think I know which way grassroots Lib Dems would vote. I wonder if their MSPs have the guts to give them the opportunity.

So much could change in the coming 18 months. We could have a Tory Government in London next year which would help the SNP just when the worst of the recession might be passing. As Salmond knows well, you should only call a referendum when you think you can win it. Get the question and timing right and you're half way there.

Kenny Farquharson returns later this month