Where is Scotland

going? And why?

And how?

 

A Scottish Review forum

I have just read Professor Andrew Hook's article, which amongst other things suggests that the editor of the Scottish Review believes that separation of Scotland from the rest of the UK is 'inevitable'.
     Why? This is nonsense and must not go unchallenged. The majority of Scots, when polled, continue to say they don't want separation and virtually all the people I speak to, including young people and of every background, are opposed to and unhappy with the idea of separation and are comfortable to be both Scottish and British.
     As one who has had the good fortune to travel a bit in the world and see a good deal of other societies, I know that as a born and bred Scot who has lived and worked all his life here, I am fortunate to be able to call myself both Scottish and British. Those who choose to whinge away about not wanting to be British really should try to get out and about more.
     Of those who bothered to vote in the Scottish parliamentary elections last May, a majority voted for Unionist parties and of those who voted SNP many clearly did so as a protest vote and not because they support separatism. And yet SR prints Professor Hook's loaded piece which, as far as I can see, seeks to vaguely intimidate those of the Unionist persuasion of which I am one, from expressing their views. Why is this?
     Should one simply conclude that the eponymous 'chattering classes' to which he refers, are just a bunch of out-of-touch and irrelevant gossips, a self-regarding and self-appointed oligarchy, in which case where does it leave the relevance of publications like the Scottish Review, which choose to publish acres of this sort of stuff, as a mirror to what Scots people actually believe, feel and think? Whatever the Scottish Review may be seeking to do, I don't believe that a respectable cultural review should be lending its support to thinly disguised attempts to railroad Scots towards something inward looking which they don't want and which would not be in their interests at any level.

Jim Henderson

SR holds no view; rather it seeks to provide a platform for the expression of literate opinion by people of all political persuasions and none. We try to do this as fairly as possible. Today, for example, one of our leading articles is by the pro-union commentator R D Kernohan. I wrote last weekend that 'there is a growing sense of inevitability' about the dissolution of the union explicitly within the context of the present lack of effective political opposition to the SNP government and the fear among pro-unionists that the union might go by default. I suggested in the same piece that those in the civic and professional life of Scotland who support the union should form a new non-political body to advance its merits. There has been very little response to this idea. – Kenneth Roy, editor

 

Mr Dickson's intervention (13 September), recommending a federal solution, no matter how well-meaning, faces a significant structural obstacle. There are 50 states in the US, ranging in size from such as Texas and California to the less large such as Wyoming, Delaware and North Dakota. As an American, and clearly a student of his country's constitution, he will be aware of the 'checks and balances' which it includes. For instance that in the House of Representatives, membership is determined in relation to state population, but in the Senate each state has two representatives irrespective of population. An important (and intended?) consequence is that this makes much more difficult than it might otherwise be, domination of the American political system by the largest states over the smaller.
     How easily could this be transferred to a United Kingdom of only four states (to use the American term) – Scotland (population approx. 5.2 million),Wales (population approx 3 million), Northern Ireland (population approx 1.8 million), and England (population approx 51.1 million)?
     Applying Mr Dickson's American constitution analogy, the Commons would presumably be the House of Representatives with, on a strictly population-determined basis, a domination by the state of England, having 85% of the representatives. So it's clear who would be in charge there (as a comparison, California, the largest US state, is a mere 12% of the US population).
     However, it's when we get to whatever might function as the Senate that we face a really major problem. How likely is it that England – as 85% of the UK – would accept the same number of Senate members as each of the other UK states (whether the number be two or whatever)? It is here that Mr Dickson's analogy really does start to break down, since unlike the American situation where coalitions of smaller (and perhaps medium) sized states can create coalitions to defeat the aims of the larger states, in a United Kingdom with the populations weightings that it has, such political action is literally impossible.
Structurally, therefore, in the US there are sufficient member states of varying sizes for the system described by Mr Dickson to work to some degree of success. The UK, however, is lacking in the two respects set out above – too few members and with one so enormously larger than the others (England being approximately 10 times larger than Scotland, or five times larger than the other three countries put together), it could hardly do other than dominate.
     There are of course other issues including the role of the Treasury (which views itself as controlling the entire UK economy to a much greater degree than the US Treasury department does) and identity (an American in my experience will say he is an American, whereas the trend in the UK is to describe oneself as Scottish or Welsh etc). These, though, are complications for another day, I think.

Alasdair Galloway

 

I note the 'federal' red herring being raised again, innocently I'm sure, but it is not a sensible option on the constitutional route we are now following. There is no way a sensible federation can be achieved when one component part – England – is nine times the size of the other three parts – Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland put together. (Unless of course Scotland is reduced to the same status as an English sub-region like 'Yorkshire' or the 'West Country')
Otherwise the notion that Scotland or the other bits would have parity with England when it came to deciding on matters is a non-starter. I can just imagine the reaction of the English to any such notion.
     In any such federation, on any matter of serious importance, the English priority and the English desire shall prevail – much the same as the present situation, in fact. If, however, a federation of these islands is a favoured destination (which should include the Republic of Ireland) this would best and most easily be achieved after Scotland became independent. Then you would have independent entities deciding freely the issues on which they agree to cooperate and share sovereignty – much like the successful Nordic union. This, of course, is more properly described as a 'confederal' union.
     As a final point I am reduced to a quiet rage when people suggest, as a sort of casual throwaway remark, that it would be approriate to have 'defence and foreign affairs' left under London control in any constitutional change. Are we daft or something? Not able to play with the big boys? Nuclear weapons and Iraq and Afghanistan?
     Decisions made on these areas are and always have been the major reasons I want Scotland to be independent and have nothing to do with them. Any form of constitutional change that doesn't result in the community of Scotland having full control over these areas is bogus. 

David Hill

 

Don't mention the oil: While diligently delving for something positive to say about the union – well someone has to – I was reminded of a document not originally released under the 30-year FOI rule, but now in the public domain. It details the thinking behind the creative writing and actions undertaken by UK governments and civil servants in the 1970s to undermine the reasonable claims made then to utilise North Sea oil resources from around our waters for the benefit of the Scottish nation.
     The McCrone Report – aye, it is him again – concluded: 'This paper has shown that the advent of North Sea oil has completely overturned the traditional economic arguments used against Scottish nationalism. An independent Scotland could now expect to have massive surpluses both on its budget and on its balance of payments and with the proper husbanding of resources this situation could last for a very long time into the future'.
     The full document can be accessed at www.oilofscotland.org
     Despite diversions like the recent questions from the Treasury, oil is still the main reason why British establishment movers and shakers will not let Scotland go. The SNP's 2009 discussion paper, 'An Oil Fund for Scotland', again argues for sensible use of the natural resources that we are entitled to. The continuing viability of such a fund has been backed by the eminent economist Professor Joe Stiglitz.
     A visit to the vibrant Offshore Europe exhibition and conference in Aberdeen last week gathered further evidence that largely unspoken and undeveloped resources of oil and gas exist both in the North Sea and the deepwater Atlantic Margins.

Iain Mackenzie

 

For a couple of years I have been trying to find out what the SNP's vision 'for' an independent Scotland is as opposed to a vision 'of'. Apart from being advised that there was a lively debate going on within the SNP I am none the wiser; apparently the subjects are not to be allowed to participate in this debate in any meaningful fashion: what passes for debate on the internet is not worthy of the name.  
     At the very least we can acknowledge that nationalists understandably have very high expectations of life in a independent Scotland but I suggest that there is a minimum of two essential conditions necessary for the flourishing of the Scottish spirit they envisage, vague though the nature of that spirit is. 
     Obviously there needs to be an influential civil society with a sufficiently large number of citizens participating in our democracy (outwith mainstream party politics), holding politicians to account on an ongoing basis and not just every four years.
      Secondly we must start now to reflect on how we might develop a mature and imaginative way of doing democracy, an ideal which we are currently far from achieving; in spite of all the original high hopes for Holyrood, all we really have is Westminster with a few extra bits. We are not fighting for our literal freedom (other than in the fevered imagination of some nationalists), nor for our lives, and so if we are to make the  'struggle' something worth fighting for, we need to aim for something very much higher than the SNP's apparently limited vision of greater managerial efficiency. 
     Only in these ways can the oft-repeated but meaningless phrase 'sovereignty of the people' be given some meaning and purpose in a transformation from voters to citizens, from leaders to stewards. Otherwise independence would make no difference; we might as well stay consumers and subjects within the UK. On the other hand I fear we might in effect drift visionless into independence.  
     Finally I wonder how the foregoing ideals might be given some reality. We cannot rely on the politicians of any party to do so and in fact it would obviously be a good idea to keep them at arm's length. What we need is some sort of Citizens' Forum, the objective of which would be nothing less than to reclaim democracy for the people whether or not independence is on the agenda: a citizens' think-tank, also a test-bed which would clarify whether the Scots really are, for instance, more community or civically minded or whether we are not all that different, not really seeing any great need to try to ameliorate the ruinous influences of consumerism, managerialism and economism on our humanity. 

John Milne