Duncan Hamilton: Now we have a question, but we still lack a constructive debate

Published on Sunday 29 January 2012 00:00

THIS has felt like a very big week in Scottish politics. It was the week when the question of independence was returned to those who matter: the people.

After weeks of technocratic arm-wrestling between the UK and Scottish governments on process, finally it is about more than Sir Humphrey v Sir Hamish.

With the publication of the Scottish Government’s preferred question and a clear understanding of the timing, two major questions are answered. There are others to be resolved, and they matter, but after years of commissions, conversations and consultations, ten words – “Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?” – now command centre stage. Buckle up folks, this is it.

There are challenges aplenty for both camps in the coming tussle. Let’s not be naive: no campaign, let alone one as long and important as this one, is going to be free of dirty tricks, media manipulation, vested interests and party political manoeuvring. But for the Yes campaign, what matters above all – and particularly at the outset – is a central and unerring commitment to the bigger picture. The relentless negativity which has defined the case for the Union cannot be allowed to dominate the narrative of what will now unfold.

This is about Scots trying to make history: a wholly peaceful, democratic re-emergence of a modern, vibrant, independent country. It will be driven by ambition and aspiration, not grievance. That is a remarkable and inspirational story, and Scots need to know when they vote that they are being asked to be part of a collective vote of confidence in each other.

For the Yes camp have something which their opponents palpably lack: a vision. It may be incomplete, it may not have the answer to every detail of every policy (ever seen a campaign which did?), but its central proposition is ultimately about positivity and hope.

By contrast, the emerging No campaign is hopelessly confused. It currently offers neither a solid case for the status quo nor an agreed position on an alternative vision. To offer nothing other than corrosive negativity is an appalling failure of political leadership. Some of the half-baked scare stories have been belters. To be clear, and despite what you may have read, the pandas are going nowhere, sterling is a fully convertible currency and so will remain the currency of an independent Scotland, and Spain has helpfully described the claim it would veto Scottish membership of the EU as “absolutely false”. It is dire and desperate stuff.

But most perplexing is the stance of the opposition parties, each with a proud history of radicalism. The Liberals claim to believe in federalism, but resolutely refuse to make that argument as part of the greatest debate on the constitution since the Union. The party championed (through the Steel Commission) a model of fiscal autonomy which looks and feels uncannily like what is now called devo-max. But whether panicked by the radicalism of that report, or under pressure from the Cameron government, that has since been ditched.

All and any questions on the Lib Dem position are now dead-batted with “Ming Campbell is chairing a review of policy”. Not good enough, not by a long way. Not least because that would be the same Ming Campbell who last week intemperately dismissed the proposed configuration of armed forces in an independent Scotland as “a militia in all but name”. Doesn’t give much hope for the reasoned and careful case for devo-max we might have hoped for, does it?

Beyond that, there is actually a decent case for federalism; it is at least a substantial and intellectually coherent option which offers unionists a modern alternative to unreconstructed Westminster sovereignty. Yet since devolution it has become the Lib Dem policy which dare not speak its name. Why?

And Labour? Well, again there is a quite stunning sense of inactivity. Labour crowed about being the party to have delivered devolution. I thought it was the voters, but let’s leave that be for the moment. Donald Dewar was, after all, the “Father of Devolution”. And yet, on this biggest moment in Scotland’s recent constitutional journey, we have a Scottish Labour Party which looks caught in the headlights. Labour appears to have forgotten how to be radical.

What is so hard about championing fiscal autonomy or devo-max within the Union? It offers immediate redemption for Labour in Scotland – a chance to be relevant again. If the polls are right, that option starts favourite to win. So why not embrace it, define it and own it?

The job of opposition parties is surely to use the space and time of not being in government to think, to challenge and to develop alternatives. With the Scotland Bill yesterday’s news, Labour needs a radical, pro-Scottish stance on the constitution. Without that, the Labour movement in Scotland will simply continue to wither.

Political parties are usually desperate to dominate the middle ground. Yet on this question, opposition parties steadfastly refuse to propose a radical, relevant constitutional option short of independence. Just as the proposals of the Scottish Government deserve to be challenged, so too does that remarkable silence.

Comments

There are 4 comments to this article

Order by:

• Newest first
• |
• Oldest first

Page 1 of 1

• 1
• Show all

4

billalba

Sunday, February 26, 2012 at 11:15 AM

#3 You obviously have no idea what the SNP debate is or has been about....you are using the internet to make silly ill informed statements...try using it to do a wee tiny bit of research.

• Report Unsuitable

3

ntsinc

Sunday, January 29, 2012 at 10:30 PM

It is a bit rich to talk about the 'corrosive negativity' of the No Campaign when much of the SNP's campaign is extremely negative and based on the premise that everything that is wrong is the fault of English and that Scots who oppose their party are 'unpatriotic'.

• Report Unsuitable

2

Goodbye London Labour

Sunday, January 29, 2012 at 05:20 PM

#1: How true. I would like to see Alex Salmond challenge Cameron to a live debate on TV devoted to the McCrone report. Cameron called Alex a feartie, but faced with a debate on McCrone, I reckon that Cameron would be petrified to even face the cameras. VOTE YES!

• Report Unsuitable

1

Hearthammer

Sunday, January 29, 2012 at 10:34 AM

We lack a debate because the unionists can't think of ONE good reason to stay in the UK! Simples!

• Report Unsuitable

Order by:

• Newest first
• |
• Oldest first

Page 1 of 1

• 1
• Show all

Logged in as:

Comment here. Start typing your comment here:

Post comment

Please adhere to our Community guidelines

Your view

Please sign in to be able to comment on this story.