Why calls for common cause on Scottish independence ring hollow

A pro-independence supporter outside the BBC Scotland HQ in Glasgow. Picture: John Devlin

According to The Scotsman, “they don't back a second independence referendum or more devolution, [but] say nothing should be ‘off the table’ in a top-to-bottom review of the way the UK is governed”.

Quite apart from the lack of clarity about what’s on and off that long-suffering table, there’s a lot wrong with that innocent-sounding proposition.

Is it likely serious constitutional change will emerge from a ginger group of ‘radicals’ untroubled by membership of the world’s second largest unelected chamber?

How can a new Constitutional Convention realistically exclude the option of Scottish independence - when supporters may include up to 40 per cent of Scottish Labour voters?

Why should Scots wait - again - while Wales and English regions with identity, but no scintilla of grassroots demand for devolution finally find their voice?

Precisely who is listening? Clearly not Boris ‘devolution disaster’ Johnson, but what about Sir Keir Starmer, the man so ready to court controversy that he told Labour MPs to abstain on the English Covid tier system and looks set to repeat his bold stance when the Prime Minister’s ‘Thin Deal/No Deal’ or – whisper it – extension finally emerges?

Doubtless their Lordships and Baronesships have honourable intentions, but their Back to the Future idea only only serves to show how completely politics have changed since the days of Canon Kenyon Wright.

For one thing, the middle-ground has evaporated. True - the prospect of ‘something close to federalism’ does waft beguilingly across front pages every weekend, like a Ghost of Christmas Past, played with energy and conviction by Gordon Brown.

This weekend was no exception. But if the former Labour leader is right and Scots would vote against independence in a second referendum, why not have one?

Ah yes, there’s Covid, its aftermath and Brexit.

Now, there’s no denying, Covid is a serious, limiting factor - though not serious enough to stop Mr Johnson pressing ahead with Brexit or start Sir Keir calling for its postponement on public health grounds. Indyref2 must wait for the pandemic to be under control - but the double standards of unionist opponents will have escaped no-one.

But there’s a bigger obstacle to the revival of the Scottish Constitutional Convention (SCC).

In the 1980s, its leaders got away with excluding independence as an option (and thus the SNP too for a while) because Labour activists had a genuine commitment to some sort of home rule.

Back then, Labour thinking dominated local government, trade unions and civic society. When there was finally a Labour government at Westminster as well led by two Scots, the stars were aligned for devolutionary change in a way they would never be again.

Not just because England’s flirtation with Conservatism has seen Labour lose its former industrial heartlands and all hope of an easy or lengthy return to power at Westminster, but also because the Scottish end of that fleeting alignment has also profoundly changed.

Today Scottish Labour rules neither local government nor civic society.

Indeed, trade unions took a significant step in October, when an STUC briefing to MSPs stated "the case for a second independence referendum becomes unanswerable" if the UK Government passes the Internal Market Bill after rejection by Holyrood.

Just such a scenario - the last straw for Scotland’s trade unions - is likely to happen later today.

The pro-union consensus is falling apart. So it’s not realistic or politically possible to try and hobble Scotland’s democratic progress towards indyref2, or rule out the single constitutional arrangement that now chimes with most voters - even before the chaos of Brexit begins.

But that doesn’t mean the idea of another Convention is entirely misplaced.

A London-based ambassador asked recently what plans are being hatched to ensure the Brexit divisions that currently bedevil England are not visited upon Scotland after independence. That is a good question.

There’s been very little proper discussion about democratising the nation-building project. Mostly that’s because no mainstream party except the SNP and Greens will breathe life into the independence option by visualising a post Yes vote scenario.

But things might move quickly after May’s elections and a Yes vote in a 2021 referendum is entirely possible. So, it may be wise for someone in the Labour Party to start thinking the unthinkable.

Deciding every aspect of a new country will be an enormous task - too big to leave to one parliament or political party with a poor history of including its own grassroots members.

Will the SNP immediately dissolve into new parties if independence is achieved? In the short run, that seems unlikely.

Nicola Sturgeon will have proved herself capable of navigating Scotland through a stormy referendum. Will voters be anxious to dump the captain when no other was willing to even set sail?

Genuine political diversity may not emerge naturally in the first independence elections, so it might be wiser to build it in, with a new constitutional convention peopled by randomly chosen members of civic society - not a hand-picked cross-section of the great and good.

A series of citizens’ assemblies could revitalise decision-making and engagement when Scotland has finally made its mind up - either way - on the big issue of independence.

But until that rubicon has been crossed, calls for common cause ring hollow.

Why calls for common cause on Scottish independence ring hollow - Lesley Riddoch

Comments