Opinion Shaping the debate
Henry McLeish
Henry.mcleish@
holyrood.com
After five wasted years in which the SNP and Alex Salmond have dominated Scottish politics and the unionist parties have failed to take seriously the political and constitutional future of Scotland, there is now the prospect of a real debate on Scotland’s future. David Cameron’s “Westminster, we have a problem” moment is having the unintended consequence of ending the phoney war and giving both Labour and the Conservative a wake-up call after the seismic changes that have been taking place since May 2007. Failure to heed the warnings of the May 2007 and the 2011 Holyrood elections could have grave consequences. Time is running out to build and argue a case for keeping Scotland in the Union, especially at a time when the Conservative government at Westminster is becoming more unpopular and when the issue of identity politics in Scotland is becoming more important. Saying “no” to independence is the right thing to do, but it is not enough. We need a new narrative, which for now is being called devo-max, one that embraces the idea of an autonomous Scotland. Scots are already warming to the idea and opinion polls show remarkable support, bearing in mind the debate so far is very limited, definitions of the concept are thin on the ground and to date it is not being advocated by any of the unionist parties.
Tis is encouraging because it conveys two
powerful aspirations. First, the overwhelming majority of Scots want to stay within the Union. Second, there is a desire to have an inspiring alternative to a resentful unionism and to an independence that, in a world of interdependence and austerity, seems less credible and more threatening. It would be truly remarkable in a modern democracy if we ended up scrapping over two options, neither of which commanded majority support in Scotland, while excluding from the debate an option that would defeat either of them in a referendum. What we really need is a debate that embraces
three important areas of constitutional and political change. In doing so, it would give us a better insight into the referendum and the questions that should be asked. First, do we want to see further changes to the governance and constitutional future of Scotland
and by implication the United Kingdom? Tis is the change question. Second, does Scotland stay in the Union? Tis is the independence question. Tird, do you support the idea of fiscal autonomy and maximum powers – the autonomous nation idea? Tis is the future of Scotland question. Tese are indicative expressions of what could be, not the finished article. Tis debate should be about the future of Scotland and its governance, not about the future of the SNP
idea and strengthening the hand of the First Minister for a more sensible ballot paper. Crucial to this will be the Scottish Government’s consultation paper which should hold the line on both the date of the referendum and the wording of the questions, despite the continuing pressure from Westminster. Early in the debate there are some clear signs of the dangers ahead. Tere is a growing and dangerous disconnection between the people of Scotland and the politics of those unionist parties seeking to represent their interests. Te Tories at Westminster are already using the fear factor. Only Labour, the Lib-Dems and others – including civic, religious, trade union and business Scotland – can rescue the debate and by definition the future of our country. In this process, the Conservative party has no significant role to play: it remains a toxic brand in Scotland. Saying “no” to independence is not enough.
“Time is running out to build and argue a case for keeping
Scotland in the Union”
and independence. It also means redefining Scotland’s relationship with the Union of the UK.
All of this requires great care and leadership
from Scotland and from Westminster. Tere are important questions of political substance to be considered before we settle the endless legal issues and the format of any referendum questions. Tere is a real danger that we will write the questions on the ballot paper to reflect a Scotland v England, Westminster v Holyrood and independence v unionism battle rather than concentrating on what Scotland needs. Te next few months will be crucial in building up a case for the autonomous Scotland
Opinion polls confirm that 65–70 per cent of the electors do not support independence. Te Union itself has to change and modernise. Scots have a shared history of which we can be proud. But what will a shared future look like? How do we deal with such issues as increasing divergence, the Conservatives and the “little Englander” mentality, our pro-European views, progressive centre-left politics, identity, nationality and difference, and the sovereignty of the Westminster parliament? Identity politics has arrived and we ignore the consequences of this at our peril. Tis is also a time for England to evolve.
Te defeat of independence will be only a step on Scotland’s journey. Maybe we need to think of the constitutional question in a different way. Independence and status-quo unionism have become so embedded in our popular politics that no alternatives have been able to emerge as serious runners. In the book, Scotland: Te Road Divides published after the 2007 Holyrood election and co-authored with my colleague Tom Brown, we said, “Despite the narrowness of the current debate, the hope is that it can be opened out to include the third way of a more flexible modernised Union that is confident enough to embrace the new politics of the 21st century. Tis requires the mother of parliaments to understand that transferring more powers is not a sign of weakness but of strength and confidence in the constituent parts of the United Kingdom. Without that the paradox is that the impetus for the break-up of the Union may be created at the very heart of unionism itself.” Nothing has changed. Do we have the courage to write a new chapter in Scottish politics?
30 January 2012
www.holyrood.com 81
Image © Laid of Oldham/flickr
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92