This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/09/scottish-referendum-not-britain-v-scotland
The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| The referendum is not Scotland v Britain. It's about a patriotic alternative to the SNP | The referendum is not Scotland v Britain. It's about a patriotic alternative to the SNP |
| (about 3 hours later) | |
| In a Britain recently awash with Ukip-inspired talk of political tremors and seismic shifts it is easy to forget that even before a vote has been cast in September's referendum, Scotland has already changed Britain for ever. Westminster's claim to undivided authority over the country? Dead and buried. The constitutional fiction that parliament, or the Queen in parliament, rather than the people, are sovereign? Gone for ever. | In a Britain recently awash with Ukip-inspired talk of political tremors and seismic shifts it is easy to forget that even before a vote has been cast in September's referendum, Scotland has already changed Britain for ever. Westminster's claim to undivided authority over the country? Dead and buried. The constitutional fiction that parliament, or the Queen in parliament, rather than the people, are sovereign? Gone for ever. |
| While Ukip has yet to change one domestic law or author one act of parliament, the Scots have already sunk without trace the old idea of Britain as a unitary state. Constitutional lawyers used to comfort themselves that the British constitution worked in theory but not in practice. Now it works neither in theory nor in practice. But more is to come. If Britain does not change of its own volition, Scotland will demand, at a minimum, "home rule within the UK", and could force upon the whole country a system of government as close to federalism as you can have in a nation where one part forms 85% of the population. But what is now at stake is more serious than even that: the nationalists would consign the very idea of the "United" Kingdom and of "Great" Britain to the past. | While Ukip has yet to change one domestic law or author one act of parliament, the Scots have already sunk without trace the old idea of Britain as a unitary state. Constitutional lawyers used to comfort themselves that the British constitution worked in theory but not in practice. Now it works neither in theory nor in practice. But more is to come. If Britain does not change of its own volition, Scotland will demand, at a minimum, "home rule within the UK", and could force upon the whole country a system of government as close to federalism as you can have in a nation where one part forms 85% of the population. But what is now at stake is more serious than even that: the nationalists would consign the very idea of the "United" Kingdom and of "Great" Britain to the past. |
| It may seem strange that Scotland is contemplating breaking its constitutional connections with its neighbours at a time when economies are becoming more integrated, when public recognition of the interdependence of nations is increasing, and when the power of people – through social networks and non-governmental institutions – is challenging the old nationalist fixation with the trappings of state power. | It may seem strange that Scotland is contemplating breaking its constitutional connections with its neighbours at a time when economies are becoming more integrated, when public recognition of the interdependence of nations is increasing, and when the power of people – through social networks and non-governmental institutions – is challenging the old nationalist fixation with the trappings of state power. |
| But breakaways often happen – or are at least hastened – through the mishandling of discontent. From the catastrophic mistakes with America in the 1770s to the bloody transfers of power in Ireland, India and Africa, Britain has never been very good at dealing with secessionist movements. "Go up to Scotland and make the case for the union," David Cameron has implored his ministers. But when the message became: "Britain says no to Scots participation in the pound" and "Britain says no to further defence work" and "Britain says Scots will go bankrupt", ministers allowed the nationalists to present the referendum as a choice between Britain and Scotland. They forget that it is only Scots who are voting, that the voters' starting point is not the greatness of Britain or the longevity of the Union but their own needs and aspirations as Scots, and that the no campaign will win only by presenting a Scottish vision of Scotland's future as a patriotic alternative to that of the SNP. | But breakaways often happen – or are at least hastened – through the mishandling of discontent. From the catastrophic mistakes with America in the 1770s to the bloody transfers of power in Ireland, India and Africa, Britain has never been very good at dealing with secessionist movements. "Go up to Scotland and make the case for the union," David Cameron has implored his ministers. But when the message became: "Britain says no to Scots participation in the pound" and "Britain says no to further defence work" and "Britain says Scots will go bankrupt", ministers allowed the nationalists to present the referendum as a choice between Britain and Scotland. They forget that it is only Scots who are voting, that the voters' starting point is not the greatness of Britain or the longevity of the Union but their own needs and aspirations as Scots, and that the no campaign will win only by presenting a Scottish vision of Scotland's future as a patriotic alternative to that of the SNP. |
| Of course, the defence secretary was factually correct when he said UK arms contracts would not come to an independent Scotland's shipyards. But instead of using the language of threats and ultimatums, a far better pro-union argument is to praise the unique contribution of Scottish defence workers and to support Scots who argue for pooling resources for our mutual defence. | Of course, the defence secretary was factually correct when he said UK arms contracts would not come to an independent Scotland's shipyards. But instead of using the language of threats and ultimatums, a far better pro-union argument is to praise the unique contribution of Scottish defence workers and to support Scots who argue for pooling resources for our mutual defence. |
| Similarly the best argument against Alex Salmond's currency plan is that Scotland's interests are not best served by what would essentially be a colonial relationship: Scotland subject to a UK currency but outside the UK, without any formal say in its decisions. And it is difficult to see how last week's (now seen as rogue) UK government briefing did not patronise Scots and pose Scotland against Britain when it suggested that the benefits for Scots of staying in the Union were more fish and chips, more pies and Bovrils, and more cheap holidays. It has been part of a wider misunderstanding of what Scots want – now thankfully being corrected. | Similarly the best argument against Alex Salmond's currency plan is that Scotland's interests are not best served by what would essentially be a colonial relationship: Scotland subject to a UK currency but outside the UK, without any formal say in its decisions. And it is difficult to see how last week's (now seen as rogue) UK government briefing did not patronise Scots and pose Scotland against Britain when it suggested that the benefits for Scots of staying in the Union were more fish and chips, more pies and Bovrils, and more cheap holidays. It has been part of a wider misunderstanding of what Scots want – now thankfully being corrected. |
| It is a mistake to think that what's new is Scots asserting their Scottishness, as if the Scottish people had just discovered their nationhood after 300 years of union. Scots have always been aggressively patriotic; pride in Scotland being common ground between the yes and no camps. | It is a mistake to think that what's new is Scots asserting their Scottishness, as if the Scottish people had just discovered their nationhood after 300 years of union. Scots have always been aggressively patriotic; pride in Scotland being common ground between the yes and no camps. |
| It is also a mistake to think what's new is Scotland demanding its own national institutions and the freedom to run them. From its churches and law to its schools , universities and hospitals, Scotland has had its own distinctive national institutions throughout all those 300 years of union. Indeed it already has a parliament, and increasing powers for it in the years to come is also uncontested ground that unites the rival camps. | It is also a mistake to think what's new is Scotland demanding its own national institutions and the freedom to run them. From its churches and law to its schools , universities and hospitals, Scotland has had its own distinctive national institutions throughout all those 300 years of union. Indeed it already has a parliament, and increasing powers for it in the years to come is also uncontested ground that unites the rival camps. |
| What is new, however – and fuelling the nationalist uprising – is the insecurity many Scots feel at the economic and social dislocation wrought by de-industrialisation and the loss of a million heavy-industry jobs. Here, of course, the quarrel that Scots have is not with England, but alongside England, with globalisation. Across Britain we have to offer better answers showing we can create more secure, more skilled, better-paid employment. | What is new, however – and fuelling the nationalist uprising – is the insecurity many Scots feel at the economic and social dislocation wrought by de-industrialisation and the loss of a million heavy-industry jobs. Here, of course, the quarrel that Scots have is not with England, but alongside England, with globalisation. Across Britain we have to offer better answers showing we can create more secure, more skilled, better-paid employment. |
| Perhaps surprisingly, what is also new is the recent loss of a million members from Scotland's churches and the weakening of the Scottish institutions – religious, legal, educational and even sporting – which expressed our Scottishness. They provided an anchor that made us comfortable with being part of Britain. The delicate balance between cultural nationalism and political unionism has been ruptured, leaving a vacuum for the expression of what is a constant – our Scottishness – that political nationalists have rushed to fill. | Perhaps surprisingly, what is also new is the recent loss of a million members from Scotland's churches and the weakening of the Scottish institutions – religious, legal, educational and even sporting – which expressed our Scottishness. They provided an anchor that made us comfortable with being part of Britain. The delicate balance between cultural nationalism and political unionism has been ruptured, leaving a vacuum for the expression of what is a constant – our Scottishness – that political nationalists have rushed to fill. |
| What is also new is a gathering consensus that neither the government nor the British elites are communicating a compelling vision of Britain's future. Yet Britain has a purpose. We take that so much for granted today that we forget the uniquely progressive set of decisions agreed by Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland in the 20th century to pool and share all our risks and resources so that whatever your nationality, you have equal social and economic rights of citizenship in the UK. You have a right, no matter where you live, to a UK-guaranteed pension; to assistance when unemployed; to fully funded healthcare free at the point of need, and to minimum standards of protection at work, including a UK-wide minimum wage. | What is also new is a gathering consensus that neither the government nor the British elites are communicating a compelling vision of Britain's future. Yet Britain has a purpose. We take that so much for granted today that we forget the uniquely progressive set of decisions agreed by Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland in the 20th century to pool and share all our risks and resources so that whatever your nationality, you have equal social and economic rights of citizenship in the UK. You have a right, no matter where you live, to a UK-guaranteed pension; to assistance when unemployed; to fully funded healthcare free at the point of need, and to minimum standards of protection at work, including a UK-wide minimum wage. |
| As a result regions and nations of the UK with the highest levels of poverty have, correctly, the largest claim on our collective wealth. | As a result regions and nations of the UK with the highest levels of poverty have, correctly, the largest claim on our collective wealth. |
| So today the UK transfers £500m a year more to poor Scottish pensioners than funding based on population numbers would provide. | So today the UK transfers £500m a year more to poor Scottish pensioners than funding based on population numbers would provide. |
| Indeed because of higher levels of need the North East and North West of England, along with Wales, rightly receive more per head in disability and pensioner benefits than Scotland. In this way, Britain's guarantee of equal social and economic rights is far more progressive than anything offered by the EU, which has a single market but not a social market. Although it is a federal system, the US can only agree the most basic civil and political rights, and unlike Britain struggles with minimum US-wide rights to healthcare or social security. | Indeed because of higher levels of need the North East and North West of England, along with Wales, rightly receive more per head in disability and pensioner benefits than Scotland. In this way, Britain's guarantee of equal social and economic rights is far more progressive than anything offered by the EU, which has a single market but not a social market. Although it is a federal system, the US can only agree the most basic civil and political rights, and unlike Britain struggles with minimum US-wide rights to healthcare or social security. |
| So entrenched is this guiding principle – that need, not nationality or ability to pay, decides your rights – that Britain's social union is now akin to a covenant between nations. With the coalition government's bedroom tax and their vicious cuts in the real value of benefits now pushing up child and pensioner poverty, the union is now less of a caring union – we will need a Labour government to reverse that – but the Conservatives have so far been unable to smash in five years a "sharing union" created over one hundred. | So entrenched is this guiding principle – that need, not nationality or ability to pay, decides your rights – that Britain's social union is now akin to a covenant between nations. With the coalition government's bedroom tax and their vicious cuts in the real value of benefits now pushing up child and pensioner poverty, the union is now less of a caring union – we will need a Labour government to reverse that – but the Conservatives have so far been unable to smash in five years a "sharing union" created over one hundred. |
| Yet this system of pooling and sharing resources would be the first casualty of Scotland's departure from Britain. So what is the basis of the SNP claim that, having smashed the UK's system of redistributive transfers, an independent Scotland would be a more equal place? There is none. The SNP has refused to match Labour's commitment to raise the top rate of tax to 50p; refused to agree - even with Boris Johnson - to reform stamp duty with a millionaires' mansion tax; refused to contemplate a new top band for council tax for the most expensive properties. Nor do they have plans to redistribute income or wealth through a bankers' tax or any other means. | Yet this system of pooling and sharing resources would be the first casualty of Scotland's departure from Britain. So what is the basis of the SNP claim that, having smashed the UK's system of redistributive transfers, an independent Scotland would be a more equal place? There is none. The SNP has refused to match Labour's commitment to raise the top rate of tax to 50p; refused to agree - even with Boris Johnson - to reform stamp duty with a millionaires' mansion tax; refused to contemplate a new top band for council tax for the most expensive properties. Nor do they have plans to redistribute income or wealth through a bankers' tax or any other means. |
| Far from being positively egalitarian, the SNP's social policies are founded on a crude, flat form of universalism, in which all receive the same benefit from a service and which is not based primarily on need – as opposed to progressive universalism, where everyone benefits but those most in need receive the most. They would hand out at least £300m to some of the most profitable companies, the main beneficiaries of their 3p corporation tax cut would be the energy firms on whom the SNP has refused to impose Ed Miliband's proposed price freeze. People have a right to ask if this is what 100 years of the fight for independence is for. | |
| Of course the four nations of the UK cannot build their future unity around a kind of ethnic nationalism, nor primarily around pride in institutions such as the House of Commons, whose fortunes ebb and flow. Instead, in the absence of the glue that once came from imperial success, economic pre-eminence and military conquest, unity is best built around shared values, British ideas of liberty, fairness and social responsibility, the themes of Danny Boyle's Olympic opening ceremony. They come alive, as Boyle showed, in the NHS and in our guarantee of equal social and economic rights to all citizens irrespective of nationality. | Of course the four nations of the UK cannot build their future unity around a kind of ethnic nationalism, nor primarily around pride in institutions such as the House of Commons, whose fortunes ebb and flow. Instead, in the absence of the glue that once came from imperial success, economic pre-eminence and military conquest, unity is best built around shared values, British ideas of liberty, fairness and social responsibility, the themes of Danny Boyle's Olympic opening ceremony. They come alive, as Boyle showed, in the NHS and in our guarantee of equal social and economic rights to all citizens irrespective of nationality. |
| It is not too late to build a more progressive vision of a Britain that can accommodate Scotland's interests and values and is more in tune with a progressive view of our British future. Ed Balls' commission on "an inclusive globalisation" should report on how the UK and Scottish governments can work together to address the insecurities and inequalities that are turning people to seek protection in nationalist and anti-EU, anti immigrant parties. Scottish Labour has to breathe new life into, and devolve new responsibility to, Scottish civic institutionswhose ability to speak for Scotland has been drowned out by an obsession with centralising powers under a Scottish state. And we need to continue the fundamental reform of the British constitution that Labour began. | It is not too late to build a more progressive vision of a Britain that can accommodate Scotland's interests and values and is more in tune with a progressive view of our British future. Ed Balls' commission on "an inclusive globalisation" should report on how the UK and Scottish governments can work together to address the insecurities and inequalities that are turning people to seek protection in nationalist and anti-EU, anti immigrant parties. Scottish Labour has to breathe new life into, and devolve new responsibility to, Scottish civic institutionswhose ability to speak for Scotland has been drowned out by an obsession with centralising powers under a Scottish state. And we need to continue the fundamental reform of the British constitution that Labour began. |
| So 2014 is indeed a moment of destiny for Scotland. But it is not the point of departure the nationalists think it is. It is the moment to demonstrate how distinct nations, proud of their cultural identities, can also transcend them. By demanding a British welfare state, 20th-century Scots pointed the way to civilising an industrial economy without losing your sense of who you are. Now in 2014 we can show how a multinational association that shares risks, rewards and resources is a beacon for the world of the future. Scotland's destiny lies not in leaving Britain, but leading it. | So 2014 is indeed a moment of destiny for Scotland. But it is not the point of departure the nationalists think it is. It is the moment to demonstrate how distinct nations, proud of their cultural identities, can also transcend them. By demanding a British welfare state, 20th-century Scots pointed the way to civilising an industrial economy without losing your sense of who you are. Now in 2014 we can show how a multinational association that shares risks, rewards and resources is a beacon for the world of the future. Scotland's destiny lies not in leaving Britain, but leading it. |