Scotland’s Lost Mandates

 

Quebec often comes up, even the newly formed UK Supreme court comparing our ancient Scotland nation to the Canadian state. 

 

If you look up ‘secession’ – it takes many forms – from quietly agreed separations or federal governance to fierce tribal warfare, for example in Africa. So following on from the keenness to compare Scotland to the state of Quebec, (rather than other small nations such as Iceland or Finland) Its interesting to note that after Quebec’s independence referendum, Canada agreed to more self determination for Quebec. 

 

Unlike the British state or UK, which immediately turned to English votes for English laws and Brexit - and to restricting Scotland’s self determination even more. So the British state attempted to pull even tighter with muscular unionism! – leading to all the “stresses and strains” across the UK, and the calls of reform, which are all akin to a parent refusing to allow their fifteen year old to grow up!

 

Looking back to the calls for both Scotland’s and Ireland’s home rule before the great war 1914 – the British state across the 1900s became ever more centralised. This has held the UK back, no longer able to exploit its lost empire, most of the wealth has been held in the south east while the rest of the UK declines. Of course Scottish secession, as a threat to the British state, will be keenly on MI5s radar.

 

Nicola Sturgeon, was she too managerial? The SNP had large mandates, with 56 of the 59 Scottish MPs in 2015…why was this not enough – what more of a mandate is required? We really must wonder. Did she get bogged down in detail rather than seeing the bigger picture?

 

Journalist Ian MacWhirter wondered why the two biggest political figures of Scotland’s 25 years of devolution, have ended their political careers mired in police investigations – and that Scottish politics is far too intertwined with the Scottish justice system. 

 

But surely the Big Debate across the UK is between a centralized state and a more federal one? If we compare to say Spain or other European nations, in Spain each state collects their own taxes. Quebec collects its own taxes and VAT, immigration policies, laws, trade etc. etc. 

 

Independence is a journey – as Scotland already has it own law system, Parliament, central bank, civil servants – it is partly on its way. Scotland only has control of 20% of its welfare, expenditure and 40% of tax. 

 

The happiest and most successful countries are those based on fairness of opportunities where private schools have been abolished and there’s not a two tier system – that is the small nation of Finland. 

 

“Economic Growth”, the favourite slogan of Starmer’s Labour, is not the successful formula for a happy nation. Would federalism work here UK, with so much power centralised in Westminster? Probably not. The debate is therefore between – where does sovereignty lie – with Westminster or the people?

 

Scottish Nationalism for a Progressive modern state

It’s a strange thing, I’ve been reading Tom Nairn ‘s excellent book the Break up of Britain (1977) and he makes many profound insights into the archaic nature of the British state – one being that unionists view all the supposed benefits of the state of Britain, and that some view Scottish nationalism as a backward-looking project. I’ve been told too that I should move beyond the Battle of Bannockburn (1314).

He writes, ’Nationalism is not a question of simple identity, but rather of something more – a catalyst.

 

What’s strange really is in my view the British state is the total opposite of unionist’s world view. I see Scottish nationalism and Scottish independence as a progressive, modern project to bring a more authentic democracy for progressive socialism and fair opportunities alongside a healthy capitalism, that encourages and protects small businesses, we need both. 

 

And I have longed viewed the British state as archaic and as a pre-democracy – as does Nairn and many other commentators. The British state as established 1688, of the Crown in Parliament, well before universal suffrage, Nairn writes, is a political cul-de-sac, unable to reform itself under its two party system and its first past the post voting system. 

 

Because of this Britain “is stuck in the past and not a modern state. Crucially FPTP voting means Bills at Westminster don’t get proper scrutiny. (New book, How Westminster Works and How it Doesn’t by Ian Dunt  how Westminster is not effective at governing). 

 

Nairn writes, “Although not of course an absolutist state, the Anglo-British system remains a product of the general transition from an absolutism to modern constitutionalism: it led the way out of the former, but never genuinely arrived at the latter,…..it is basically an indefensible and inadaptable relic, not a modern state form.” 

 

Perhaps it’s now time we stop hiding behind nationalism, but view it as the positive, progressive project it is. Nairn views nationalism as both good and bad, and as a process that happened across Europe in the 1800s. Scotland is only now trying to catch up. 

 

He also writes Scotland became bereft of a literary voice due to the false romantic myths of Walter Scott – of a Scotland gone forever – and due to emigration and the Kailyard school. Nationalism is also viewed as anti-globalization.

 

Nationalism, Nairn argues is always both good and bad. ’ And originated from and derived in – the impossibility of escape from the uneven development of capitalism.

The reason is that when the nation states in Europe were transitioning in the 1800s, due according to Nairn, to the uneven nature of capitalism, Scotland was the only nation state to have previously jumped across during the enlightenment and the Edinburgh new town. 

 

But now today Scotland has been left behind, in the 20^th century, There has been no revolution, and the absence of change. 

By contrast in Europe 1800s, nationalism took hold with the demise of empires, and the rise of nation states.  As a nation Scotland jumped, ahead in the 1700s, with increased trade, the enlightened thought,  when Scotland moved very fast from a place of superstition and tribal warfare.

“Only one country stepped over before the Europe of 1800s – Scotland politics and culture was decisively and permanently altered by the great awaking of nationalist consciousness – Scotland or north Britain …due to the uneven development of capitalism. “

 “After the black the unspeakable 17^th century was 1688 which marked the real dawn of Scotland, after the dark bloodshed years of religious conflicts across Europe. – William Robertson, in his book History of Scotland. When the Scottish bourgeoisie exploited the results of the English revolution. Scotland progressed from fortified castles and witch burning, to Edinburgh new town and Adam Smith in only a generation:”

 

***Tom Nairn’s book The Break Up of Britain

“The most influential book on British politics to be published in the last half century,”  writes Anthony Burnett