Ah, the chattering classes have emerged from their hibernation abuzz with speculation as to whether this 300th anniversary of the Union will mark its end or not (1,2,3). It's perhaps (?) not particularly likely (until there is an even stronger poll showing) and, contrary to some correspondents' remarks, we have been here before with all the talk of independence and SNP gains, etc, but somehow at the last minute there's a lurch back. But perhaps this time is a little different in that we've dipped our toes into constitutional reform via the Scottish parliament and although its not all been rosy, neither has it been a disaster. Indeed, the most negative aspect of the whole experience is just how limited the parliament's powers (and the executive's imagination) has been. Sure, the smoking ban is great (another lesson from an indpendent neighbour, over here), but what about a ban on weapons of mass destruction? Potentially, we could save a lot more lives that way!
The truth of the matter is that the reason that small countries like Ireland are successful and Scotland lags behind, is that they do not forsee limits on their ability to steer a future course. There's no need to constantly ask "have we inadvertently stepped into a reserved matter?" or "but this is different to the Westminster party's line". Imagine how much freedom of imagination there would be if we could just set ambitious targets and aim for them with all our resources (human as well as financial) instead of being constrained both in terms of the constitution and in fear of difference or awaking desires for more power. Of course, the other fun thing about independence is the responsibility that goes with the freedom and that's where the politics gets messy, but having noone to blame except your own politicians is in itself liberating. When you realise that politicians in all countries have a common thread of mediocrity and that if you want the job done you need to take them on, campaign and challenge, then you've reached the level of political maturity that's largely missing in Scotland at the moment.
But it's interesting to note the contributions this week by two rich men (albeit in different leagues). One, setting up his unionist "common sense" party which for some reason will do the job properly if elected (don't all parties say this?)but doesn't have policies (who needs them?) or candidates yet (4). Whilst the other, Tom Farmer, saying something a bit more sensible about ambition and aspirations, even though he doesn't go so far as to take the argument to its logical conclusion, that the qualities he's looking for are unlikely to be found in a nation that doesn't yet want to be a nation (5).
Oh, don't get me wrong, terms such as "nation" and "ambition" are all heavily loaded, but what is surely what most of us would want is the "civic" form of "nationalism" (an ugly word with even worse connotations in a British context). It's not an argument based on culture, tribalism, tradition or any of those things, simply a focus on the most democratic and constitutionally clean solution. And, furthermore,in terms of economic impact, its even evidence-based, if you bother to look at Ireland, Norway, Iceland, and the rest of the small nations of Europe.
References:
(1) Iain Macwhirter
(2) Comment is Free
(3) Observer article
(4) Eejit party
(5) Tom Farmer's comments
0 comments:
Post a Comment