Graeme Smith: The big question - what kind of Scotland do we want?

WHEN the Scottish Government’s consultation on the independence referendum closes this week and with continuing doubt remaining on key issues of process, at least one conclusion can be clearly drawn.

It must not be left to the elected politicians alone to frame and conduct the debate on Scotland’s future – a debate that has become increasingly febrile, with claim and counter claim over “flawed consultation processes” and with a growing suspicion that party political considerations rather than optimum outcome are driving much of the agenda.

At the STUC’s recent congress in Inverness, the 400 or so delegates agreed to embark on large-scale, vigorous and wide-ranging debate across Scotland both within our own ranks and in co-operation with other civil organisations.

From the adoption of its pro-Home Rule position in 1918, the call from STUC General Secretary Jimmy Jack for a “Workers Parliament” during the UCS work-in, the Claim of Right in the late 1980s, to its statement in 2007 that it was “not persuaded by the economic case for independence”, the STUC has traditionally favoured further powers for Scotland, but has not advocated independence.

During the 1980s and 1990s when campaigning for the creation of the Scottish Parliament, the STUC was able to say with real confidence that its chosen course represented the settled will of the large majority of its members. Today the situation and the issues are more complicated. Scottish unions have changed significantly in the past two decades. The same is true of Scotland’s communities. It is simply not enough for the STUC, or other democratic organisations, to make quick, top-down or generalised assumptions about what members think.

Many unions have begun the process of gauging members’ views and, whilst none would suggest that deliberations are nearly complete, some unions at our congress were able to report interesting initial results.

Aslef, the train drivers’ union, spoke of there being little enthusiasm for independence amongst its members, whereas a significant majority of the firefighters polled by the FBU have taken the opposite view. Whilst there will be a range for reasons for such differing opinions, it seems likely that the views of many will be influenced by the experience in their own industry and by other work-related concerns. For example, some train drivers’ opposition to independence may stem from their consistent opposition to the fragmentation of the UK’s rail services and they have also been critical of the Scottish Government over the potential break-up of the ScotRail franchise.

On a more general level, in a poll of its more numerous and more diverse membership, Unite the Union found that nearly two-thirds of members reported support for a third option of enhanced devolution to be put in the referendum. Importantly, the majority of these supported enhanced devolution as their most favoured choice rather than as a “consolation prize” for those who would otherwise support independence of the status quo.

This apparent appetite for an enhanced devolution option to be considered as part of the referendum reinforces the STUC’s view that for the UK Government, or indeed the Scottish Government, to rule out a second referendum question at this stage would be a mistake.

There is an obvious and understandable pressure from commentators, not to mention many politicians, to “see the detail”of any proposed third option. The Devo Plus initiative, promoted by various politicians and the think-tank Reform Scotland, sought to plug that gap and is a useful contribution to the debate. But there is a general feeling, at least among unions, that the option as presented focuses too narrowly on a particular potential fiscal arrangement without first addressing the more fundamental question of “What kind of Scotland do we want?”

For trade unionists the response to that question includes greater economic justice, equality, industrial democracy and social protection. It is through this prism that the merits of independence and the status quo should be judged and around these criteria that the detail of an enhanced devolution option might be created. Seen in this way our debate over the coming months can be an exciting opportunity to reawaken debate on social justice and to talk about the sort of Scotland we want to see.

• Graeme Smith is general secretary of the Scottish Trades Union Congress