A longer guest post today, from Martin Burns, who blogs here. We don’t normally publish old stuff from elsewhere, but this deserves a bigger audience.
The Pragmatic Argument for Independence
Let me describe to you the kind of country I’d like to live in.
One that can happily announce that legislation coming in at the New Year will introduce free vaccines, higher parental leave benefits (already 16 months split between both parents at 80% of salary), tax exemption for private tutors, and more job security for temporary workers.
While maintaining a national AAA credit rating.
This is a fictitious utopia right? The economic orthodoxy is that you just can’t do these things together. You have to face stark choices in the current global economic climate. (Gently leaving to one side that nuclear weapons never seem to be part of that choice).
OK, let’s make it even more Utopian. Imagine a constitution that opens like this:
Chapter 1 Basic Principles
Article 1
- All public power in proceeds from the people.
- Our national democracy is founded on freedom of opinion and on universal and equal suffrage. It shall be realized through a representative and parliamentary polity and through local self-government.
Article 2
- Public power shall be exercised with respect for the equal worth of all and for the freedom and dignity of the individual.
- The personal, economic and cultural welfare of the individual shall be fundamental aims of public activity. In particular, it shall be incumbent upon the public administration to secure the right to work, housing and education, and to promote social care and social security and a good living environment.
- The public administration shall promote the ideals of democracy as guidelines in all sectors of society. The public administration shall guarantee equal rights to men and women and protect the private and family lives of the individual.
- Opportunities should be promoted for ethnic, linguistic and religious minorities to preserve and develop a cultural and social life of their own.
Chapter 2 Fundamental Rights and Freedoms
Article 1
- All citizens shall be guaranteed the following in their relations with the public administration:
- freedom of expression: the freedom to communicate information and to express ideas, opinions and emotions, whether orally, in writing, in pictorial representations, or in any other way;
- freedom of information: the freedom to obtain and receive information and otherwise acquaint oneself with the utterances of others;
- freedom of assembly: the freedom to organize or attend any meeting for information purposes or for the expression of opinions or for any other similar purpose or for the purpose of presenting artistic work;
- freedom to demonstrate: the freedom to organize or take part in any demonstration in a public place;
- freedom of association: the freedom to unite with others for public or private purposes; and
- freedom of worship: the freedom to practice one’s own religion either alone or in company with others.
- In the case of the freedom of the press the provisions of the Freedom of the Press Act shall apply. That act also contains provisions concerning the right of access to public documents.
Article 2
All citizens shall be protected in their relations with the public administration against all coercion to divulge an opinion in any political, religious, cultural or other similar connection. They shall furthermore be protected in their relations with the public administration against all coercion to participate in any meeting for the formation of opinion or in any demonstration or other expression of opinion or to belong to any political association, religious congregation or other association for opinions of the nature referred to in the first sentence.
Article 3
- No record about a citizen in a public register may be based without his consent solely on his political opinions.
- Citizens shall be protected to the extent determined in detail by law against any infringement of their personal integrity resulting from the registration of information about them by means of electronic data processing.
Article 4
There shall be no capital punishment.
Article 5
All citizens shall be protected against corporal punishment. All citizens shall likewise be protected against torture or any medical influence or intervention for the purpose of extorting or suppressing statements.
Article 6
All citizens shall be protected in their relations with the public administration against any physical violation also in cases other than those referred to in Articles 4 and 5. Citizens shall likewise be protected against physical search, house searches or other similar encroachments and against examination of mail or other confidential correspondence and against eavesdropping, telephone-tapping or recording of other confidential communications.
Article 7
- No citizen may be deported or refused entry to the country
- No citizen who is resident or who has been resident may be deprived of his citizenship unless he becomes at the same time a national of another state, at his express consent or because he has taken employment in the public service.
Article 8
All citizens shall be protected against deprivation of liberty in their relations with the public administration. They shall also in other respects be guaranteed freedom of movement within the Realm and freedom to depart the country.
So yes, absolute Utopia, right? Couldn’t possibly exist. A pipe dream.
Except that all the above is currently true of Sweden. That’s the actual opening of the Swedish constitution (with ‘the nation’ substituting for when Sweden is mentioned by name). And a news write up of actual upcoming Swedish legislation. And the actual Swedish credit rating.
A small, northern European nation, not particularly blessed with natural resources (compared to Scotland’s abundance of mineral wealth and 25% of Europe’s renewable energy potential).
They did this simply because the people of Sweden insisted; through political will. Their values – like Scotland’s – tend towards valuing society over money. It’s the kind of country where (as one of my UK-expats-in-Sweden friends expressed) you may never be stinking rich, but you’ll never be allowed to entirely drop through the net.
The Better Together people (at least, the better sort) are concerned with achieving these kinds of benefits for all of the UK. Which is a wonderful objective that I entirely support.
I believe a Bartlet quote is in order here:
That’s the ten-word answer my staff’s been looking for for two weeks. There it is. Ten-word answers can kill you in political campaigns. They’re the tip of the sword.
Here’s my question: What are the next ten words of your answer? Your taxes are too high? So are mine. Give me the next ten words. How are we going to do it? Give me ten after that, I’ll drop out of the race right now.
(source, the ever wonderful West Wing Transcripts)
So, Better Together types: tell me what the realistic path is to achieving this kind of society, with these priorities, and I’ll commit to voting ‘No’ right now. Hell, make it convincing and I’ll join your campaign.
But I doubt very much whether you can, because the UK’s political momentum is entirely in the opposite direction; to deprioritise equality. The political weight of the UK is behind moving away from what I want. Under any population-based system, Scotland will never be able to act as a counterbalance to UK-wide movement.
However, as a small independent nation that can set and follow through on priorities and policies that match our own needs and wishes, we can achieve this in one part of the UK at least.
What, you’d rather achieve it nowhere?
#1 by EyeEdinburgh on April 22, 2013 - 10:18 am
But where have the SNP – or any other Scottish party apart from the Greens, who have one MSP and a handful of councillors – committed to this kind of constitution if independence is achieved?
At the moment, we have no reason to suppose that a vote either Yes or No either way would get us this constitution. The SNP is all for centralising power to Holyrood and denying ordinary Scots the ability to decide for ourselves what we want.
#2 by Martin B on April 22, 2013 - 10:28 am
I seem to have missed the clause in the Referendum question saying “and install an SNP government for all time until Scotland sinks below the waves”
The chances of having a government that would enact this kind of constitution is an order of magnitude (and more) higher in Scotland alone than if we have to take account of the ever-rightward moving Overton window of the whole UK.
A Yes vote might get us this situation – but we’d have to work for it. I don’t see any path to it via a No vote.
#3 by EyeEdinburgh on April 22, 2013 - 2:14 pm
Then why aren’t the parties and individuals who want a Yes vote *working* for it?
I’d be a lot more convinced to vote Yes if there was a Scottish Constitution that I wanted to vote Yes *for*.
Shouldn’t the SNP be trying to get a Yes vote instead of instructing YesScotland supporters to tell people “Please ignore the man behind the curtain”?
#4 by AFaulds on April 22, 2013 - 4:59 pm
While I absolutely agree that it would be enormously helpful to have a written constitution all ready and drawn up prior to voting in 2014, I don’t think it can be done.
To come up with the finalised constitution for Scotland, absolutely every part of society would have to get involved, and that includes people and parties opposed to independence – and they (at least the parties) absolutely will not do anything that could be considered planning for, or have the effect of increasing the likelihood of, independence.
The Yes Campaign could perhaps come up with a draft constitution – and I think we should do so – but if you want to see *the* constitution of Scotland, it will have to wait until we’ve voted Yes so that we can guarantee that we can bring even those opposed to independence to the discussion. It would be a miserable start to independence to pretty much disenfranchise those who voted against.
#5 by EyeEdinburgh on April 23, 2013 - 7:41 am
Large parts of a Scottish Constitution would apply whether Scotland was devolved or independent. Therefore, a Scottish Constitution could be drafted – with some clauses in abeyance to apply if Scotland became independent.
But this won’t happen, because (a) Not that many people get excited over Constitutional issues (the month I spent blogging about this last year was the lowest-traffic month my blog had): (b) Yes Scotlanders unalterably reject, just as the SNP did with the last SCC, working on anything that isn’t directly about independence (c) Better Together won’t do it if it’s billed as purely for post-independence.
#6 by EyeEdinburgh on April 23, 2013 - 7:43 am
Followup: This won’t happen before September 2014.
When Yes Scotland loses, and both polls and the actions of the SNP suggest strongly that it will, there could then be time/space for all of us undecideds and others to hold a second Scottish Constitutional Convention. The SNP will probably absent themselves from it again, but it worked pretty well without them last time.
#7 by James on April 22, 2013 - 10:47 am
Two MSPs, and you try fitting fourteen councillors in your hand 😉
#8 by EyeEdinburgh on April 22, 2013 - 2:17 pm
According to Edinburghers who’ve tried to get an answer from Alison Johnstone, she seems to have already given up on being an MSP as she campaigns to become an MEP. Whether she’ll respond to constituents then is another question. So, one and a bit, maybe.
Fourteen councillors unevenly spread over 32 local authorities is rather less than a handful.
#9 by James on April 22, 2013 - 2:33 pm
Alison’s not even on the candidate list for MEP, and she didn’t stand for the nomination. Our top candidate is Cllr Maggie Chapman. And I’m thinking you must have very big hands 😉
#10 by EyeEdinburgh on April 22, 2013 - 2:55 pm
*facepalm*
Monday morning itis, and I can’t even blame lack of coffee.
(That’s over muddling Alison Johnstone with Maggie Chapman. My point about the lack of councillors stands.)
#11 by James on April 22, 2013 - 4:23 pm
No probs. I was just really surprised – I’ve not heard any criticism at all of Alison’s MSP efforts even from other parties.
#12 by Adrian Simmons on April 22, 2013 - 11:15 am
@EyeEdinburgh Who cares what the SNP have committed too? Post independence it’ll be the role of which ever governments are elected to Holyrood in the future to adopt or shape such a constitution. Why assume that independence will result in SNP being in power for the rest of eternity?
#13 by EyeEdinburgh on April 22, 2013 - 2:20 pm
Because the SNP are the only party whose primary purpose is to get independence. So, in theory, they should be campaigning for a Yes vote – not consistently reminding me that they are a reactionary, centralist party with more interest in supporting corporate power than the rights of individual Scots.
#14 by AFaulds on April 22, 2013 - 5:03 pm
Post independence, I very much hope it will NOT be the role of whichever governments are elected to Holyrood to adopt and shape the constitution.
Citizen participation in the process of drafting the constitution is absolutely essential, and that extends beyond simply electing people to parliament to deal with it for us. We have to have a citizen led constitutional convention (though I, personally, think it should have some degree of political membership, perhaps 55/45 citizen/party) that will listen to the concerns and desires of the people of Scotland and take those into consideration when drafting the constitution.
The thought of leaving what will, in effect, be the initial (but also lasting) declaration of what our nation stands for and what rights we have as citizens purely to politicians is terrifying.
#15 by Ian Vallance on April 22, 2013 - 1:57 pm
Firstly if you know it Sweden is far from Utopia and it is also a national where active social discipline, true respect for others, restraint and self discipline are also still common, the norm even, all things deeply frowned upon by the unquestioning liberal left who sadly dominate modern Scotland.
It is also a country where they sensibly and pretty severely restrict and control advertising of, as well as where you can buy bevvy.
On all counts not a country where you cant walk in your local park at weekends for fear of running into nihilistic teenagers tanked up on Buckie. Nor is it a country over filled with people who know their rights without being remotely prepared to take responsibility for their own action. Further it is also a country that actively promotes Science and Engineering as valid, indeed essential, educational choices not something “to hard” for our “youth” and need to make ever easier.
Additionally it is a country that unashamedly and actively promotes as well as supporting with real cash healthy activities like sport for all, often doing this by discouraging via open social pressure (they might even make value judgements ) on those adopting unhealthy life styles.
Yes by all means lets see a post independence Scotland become a new member of the Scandinavian family but personally I wont hold my breath that our current crop of work shy, under educated, overweight, wasters are upto the role. Your article was real tonic I did indeed lol.
#16 by Martin B on April 22, 2013 - 2:54 pm
You say all that like it’s A Bad Thing rather than something to be aspired to.
Yes, it’s a reversal of cultural direction, but we’re currently being pulled along by the UK’s momentum (which is being dragged by US cultural momentum, rather than Europe’s). As an independent country, we will be better able to reduce the influence of that bond and choose our own direction.
#17 by Iain Menzies on April 22, 2013 - 5:03 pm
Wheter is is a good thing or a bad thing is largly irrelevant to wheter or not its a good reason to vote yes.
The question is can such a situation be reached within the UK. If not can it be reached in Scotland.
If the answers are no and yes (which i would doubt, on both counts) then the question is how long would it take to get to that point in an indy scotland.
Frankly i think it is more likly that Christ would return and tell us all that all that stuff in the New Testament was only actually half serious, and only ment for the Tuna anyway than we could get to the point that you describe inside of 30 years.
So if your saying that people should vote yes cos of this stuff, you aint suggesting vote yes for ‘jam tomorrow’ so much as ‘vote yes for jam at some point in the non determined future assumeing a set of reasonably favourable economic circumstances, complimentary movement at an rUk/EU level, as well as a general agreement amoung civic scotland, civil society, all political parties and the various vested interest across the board on the left and the right….possibly’.
#18 by Martin B on April 22, 2013 - 6:17 pm
Well, a statement of the goodness of Jam is far better than anything the UK is offering. And smaller groups always find it easier to change direction than oil-tanker like large ones with very much more powerful vested interests.
#19 by Iain Menzies on April 23, 2013 - 12:52 am
well as i see it there are two problems with that view.
the first in realtion to the advanages of ‘small’. how small is too small? If our interest is in serving the interests of Scots current and future…rather than just a geographical interest, then why not break up scotland? Glasgow and the western central belt has in many ways issues distinct (in scale if not nature) from Greater Edinburgh. So why is an independent Strathclyde not part of the solution?
The second problem is that to deny such a shift of direction is possible in the UK (which assumes that many of those aims are not actually being worked towards at a UK level) is to deny the last 70 years of British History. Id be tempted to say that the reforms of first the Attle government and then the Thatcher government were in their way MORE radical than a mytical swedish solution, even if the direction of one or both of those programmes is not to your taste.
#20 by Stuart Winton on April 24, 2013 - 9:05 am
“…I wont hold my breath that our current crop of work shy, under educated, overweight, wasters are up to the role.”
Very true, but there’s no need to refer to our MSPs in such terms, tsk tsk. ;0)
#21 by Ian Vallance on April 23, 2013 - 3:23 pm
Citizen participation, Firstly good luck with that AFAULDS and OH who gets to pick those who gets to “participate?”.
Personally I figure we should maybe adopt Alvin Tolfer’s solution to these kind of things i.e. appoint folk at random like jury service. But then I personally favour this as a route for all government, at all levels. I also favour cutting at least one level of government in Scotland since we are massively over governed, 32 LA’s, the regions, and then Parish Pompville in Edinburgh all suckling from the withering teat of the Scottish state surely something has to go? (I’ve not included the Westminster circus since its being or not being there is kind of point for many here right?)
Also its my view that wanting to be a politoco should probably exclude a person from being allowed to be one, and a read through the CV’s of the current crop of MSP’s just strongly reinforces this position.
On vested interests Martin B I think your wrong smaller states tend to have a narrower set of more entrenched interests that viciously defend their privileges, couple this to the over domination of the state sector in Scotland and you have a recipe of extreme inertia, as well as self-delusion.
“A small, northern European nation, not particularly blessed with natural resources (compared to Scotland’s abundance of mineral wealth and 25% of Europe’s renewable energy potential).”
Surely just having natural resources and ”potential” doesnt mean automatic delivery on wealth, development etc? Many of Africa’s countries are deeply blessed with a raft of natural resources and “potential” but they largely remain basket cases. As with all things delivery is down to those who govern and in my view none of those who do and /or those who want to govern Scotland have remotest idea how to deliver
Not the Scandinavian models of wise investment of a sovereign funds in long term infra-structure and future focused industries for us, or ensuring the economy has the breadth, diversity and strength to support any “social” policies. No No our navel gazing, largely state suckled and chronically parochial political class, (as well as sadly to many of our people) simply lack the imagination, the intellect and above all the inclination for such strategic outward focused thinking. An independent Scotland should look to basket case Ireland, or maybe the former GDR for where we would most likely end up, depending on whether the right or left came to dominate the post-independence political scene.
#22 by William Steele on April 23, 2013 - 6:56 pm
This is very fine. There are some changes that would make it even finer.
Article 1.1 All public power proceeds from God through the People.
This is much more in harmony with the Declaration of Arbroath and our history. It is a necessary preamble to protect from arbitrariness of the People.
Article 2.1 Public power shall be exercised with respect for the equal worth of all and for the freedom and dignity of the individual, the family, and the communities in which the individual participates.
This is necessary to protect from an American type individualism, and for the recognition that not only the individual has rights, but that families and other communities, religious, educational, clubs etc also have rights.
#23 by James on April 23, 2013 - 7:00 pm
Let’s not enshrine God anywhere here. Happy to give total respect to religious freedom where it doesn’t infringe other rights (and that doesn’t mean ignoring it when it does), but this is not a conformist religious society.
#24 by Stuart Winton on April 24, 2013 - 9:03 am
Er, I assumed William was alluding to Alex Salmond, James!!
#25 by Indy on April 24, 2013 - 12:31 pm
We would surely have to consult God before any kind of enshrinement. Bit of a challenge.
#26 by Martin B on April 24, 2013 - 9:43 am
I’m perfectly happy with public power proceeding from the people.
If some/all the people individually wish to understand their own power deriving from God, that’s absolutely fine, but until there are public manifestations thereof, the state should use humans as its source of legitimacy and leave any further inheritance as an ineffable mystery.
#27 by Topher Dawson on April 24, 2013 - 8:06 am
I would agree with James about keeping religion out of the constitution. One of my forbearers had his hand cut off for signing the Covenant, and it has kind of put me off theocracies.
The original article does describe the kind of place I would like to live in, and this vision of an egalitarian country which is more willing to share resources, more accountable and more democratic, is the most attractive prospect we in the Yes campaign can put before the voters. It will be self evident to them that the UK is heading in the opposite direction.
#28 by EyeEdinburgh on April 24, 2013 - 1:32 pm
Unfortunately for the Yes Scotland campaign this is the kind of country Alex Salmond wants to live in.
#29 by BaffieBox on April 25, 2013 - 10:04 am
Nothing much to add other than to say it articulates very well why I’ll be voting Yes next year.