April Cumming is Vice-Chair of the left-wing think tank the Scottish Fabians. In this article she talks about the limitations of a blind application of ‘Nordic principles’

In my recent travels through circles of Nordic enthusiasts I picked up on an interesting concept; ‘Lagom’. It is a word that has no direct equivalent in the English language, and speaks to the character of the Swedish nation. Synonyms like ‘sufficient’ or ‘adequate’ fail to capture the contentment or balance lagom entails.

On paper it means ‘just enough’, and relates to the central ethos that defines the terms of citizenship; live within your means, acknowledging that there is a balance to be struck between personal comforts and living harmoniously within your societal group. Its key role as a philosophical underpinning in the culture of Swedish life and indeed in the policy that forms the societal framework serves to reinforce a certain way of thinking; that consensus should be of primary concern; that personal control should be strived for; that all have a role to play and none should be too proud.

From an outside perspective this historical tendency toward conformity and emotional moderation could be construed as holding both negatives and positives with regards to individual freedoms. However, this philosophy forms the basis of many of the societal norms in Sweden, and is prevalent to the same or perhaps in parts lesser extent across the Nordic countries. It is the bottom line of their ‘social contract’, in large print, for all citizens to see. According to a popular legend, the word’s etymological roots stretch back to the Vikings when mead, their drink of choice was passed, ’laget om’, or ‘around the team,’ in a horn flask so that each got his fair share. That idea of a ‘fair share’ for all of those in the team has transcended years of social change and has remained a central part of normative attitudes. The Clan thrives when all members live within their means, in balance, and contribute to shared interests. Hence, the welfare ethos that has been so recently lauded by Scottish policy makers has been hundreds of years in the making.

This has been recognised in contemporary Swedish political discourse by academics and by politicians. Kaj Embren, a sustainable development guru based in Stockholm highlights how reinforcing that central idea of ‘balance’ is crucial if today’s Vikings are to weather the stormy economic seas. Fundamentally this means balancing the public and the private sector, and recognising that while private interests are key they cannot function without a strong public sector. The case must be made for “a society of equitable balance – a balance between capitalist models and social policies, between economic growth and environmental sustainability, between national interests and international responsibilities”.

At the Scottish Fabian Society seminar last week we discussed some of the disparities between the policy approach of Scotland and that of the ‘Nordic model’ with regards to Social Security. There has of late been some degree of lionising of one particular way of doing things, which can at times be frustrating as the vast majority of scholars in this field will tell you that the reality is vastly more complex than political rhetoric might reflect. The model is just as much about fairer taxes as it is about better public services. Further to this, the prevalent theme in the speaker’s contributions overwhelmingly was one of trust. Trust in political systems in both the UK and in Scotland is at an all-time low, and political actors are far more likely to engage outwith established parties. In order to convince the populace to acquiesce to a high tax, high spend economic framework you need a high level of trust in public institutions and government. This was highlighted by Ingela Nauman, Senior Lecturer in Social Policy at Edinburgh University. In a broad ranging speech she highlighted both the lessons we could learn and the barriers put in place by cultural norms. One key difference stands out in light of the economic detail published in the white paper. High taxation in Nordic countries is necessary in order to provide the levels of public services we have all recently admired from afar. In order to do this you must convince the public of the case for such a model, and demonstrate competency with regard to budgeting for social security spending. This model has been compared to a bumble bee, in that while the body (representing the state) is heavy it is still capable of flight. This rotund economic insect can only take flight if the members of the state give their consent, and consent is only possible when the societal norms of a country change and trust is restored. Many in Scottish political and academic circles see constitutional change as a means to this end, but rest assured that whatever your political colouring this will be no short term project. Until we can develop something of our own sense of ‘Lagom’ that goes beyond political jargon and party buzzwords and actually speaks to the dire need to reconnect as a society of equals we will never establish the equilibrium needed for Scotland to flourish.

The White Paper only tells half of the story that voters need to hear, and when only half of the picture is painted we are left no more certain as to what we are supposed to see. We are left questioning why key elements are obscured, why the artist has chosen to leave so much to the imagination. I am of course using an overly convoluted metaphor for tax. Perhaps if the masterpiece of nationalist ambition had contained a little more than just sunny uplands and provided detail of what lies in the foreground the population could gain a better idea of whether the rhetoric idealising the Nordic Model goes beyond that; simply rhetoric. We need to talk about tax. This means for Unionists explaining what we would do as part of the UK, and for Independence campaigners what we would do as an independent country, and go beyond implying that a Scandinavian approach could simply be applied as a panacea for Scotland’s social problems. We have far to go to reach the levels of public trust and consensus that exist across the North sea, but whatever route we take to get there it is a long journey worth making.

A while back, in one of my previous attempts to remember how to blog, I wrote that while the question on the ballot paper is “Should Scotland be an independent country?” the question that we should actually be interested in answering is “Does this increase the range of political freedom that we have?”

That’s still the underlying one for me and, I think, for the vast majority of people who aren’t convinced that independence is a good end in and of itself. On Tuesday the SNP will publish the much vaunted White Paper on independence which purports to set out what an independent Scotland would look like. Quite over what time scale isn’t clear, the section on welfare will probably be particularly interesting from that perspective, but it’s certainly being positioned as a roadmap for where we will end up in the event of a Yes vote.

One interesting part of this process has been the degree to which independence-lite has been sold to the faithful with the minimum of fuss. Having pushed the republican, anti-NATO, sterling is a millstone vision of independence firmly to one side over the last two years the SNP leadership is now able to produce a vision which would leave us firmly bound to the rUK for decades to come with nary a whimper from within and the non-SNP Yes campaigners being told to toe the line at the Radical Independence Conference in Glasgow by Dennis Canavan this weekend.

Interestingly the SNP leadership are claiming that not only does the White Paper set out proposals for them to follow but that it also binds the UK government in negotiations over the currency which is obviously ludicrous. It does politically bind the Scottish Government to negotiate for certain terms as they wrote it and we’d have voted to empower them to do so. Without involving the UK government in drafting it or putting it to a UK-wide vote the latter assertion is patent nonsense but it does illustrate that the people who would be conducting our side of the negotiations think that it is the White Paper which is being given the mandate.

What is set out in the white paper is the deal on the table, at least from the Scots perspective, for the next few decades. A few major areas would require negotiation, such as the mechanics of the increasingly unlikely looking “Sterling-zone” (the balance of payments argument doesn’t really work since a Sterling-dollarised Scotland would still contribute the benefits of it’s use as a trade currency without the risks for rUK associated with a full currency union, but that’s an argument for later in the week), but the constitutional framework the White Paper sets out with it’s retention of the monarchy, a mandate to negotiate for a sterling zone, membership of NATO and other key pillars is one which will have recently been positively endorsed by millions of Scottish people. It won’t be up for renegotiation in 2016, 2020 or probably even in 2030.

This is what I’ve been arguing for some time – despite the pronouncements of the non-SNP part of Yes the referendum is essentially a vote on the concrete set of changes proposed in the white paper in the knowledge that we probably wouldn’t get everything on the wishlist in the resulting negotiations. In some ways the original referendum question from the SNPs first failed attempt in government was more explicit about the political realities following a Yes vote, tortured as it was by the questions over legislative competence.

The question I’ll be asking myself is “Does the likely outcome of negotiations for the goals of the White Paper increase Scotland’s political freedom?” but, then, I am rather tedious like that.

MV Loch Seaforth. The future is, for the moment, German

The West Coast can be a vicious place to set out by ferry. One of the defining memories of my childhood was being thrown across the deck of the boat that used to run the Small Isles route in about 1990. Its superior replacement the Loch Nevis was built in Troon, but CalMac ships built in Scotland are increasingly rare.

The strange kind of command economy demanded by defence spending means that Scotland has several shipyards devoted to the building of large military vessels, but remarkably little in the way of medium-sized capacity. For a country with a functioning fishing industry and a fair few ferry routes, the idea that Scotland should have a crisis in shipbuilding is absurd, to say the least, but that is exactly what has happened.

In the Dunfermline by-election Rosyth reared its head. As everyone raced to ‘get around the table’ over Grangemouth there were also empty promises to Rosyth, but nobody had any kind of vision for Scotland’s marine industries beyond competing for military orders. Neither is it a question of globalization through markets. The next addition to the CalMac fleet, MV Loch Seaforth, is currently being built in that well known developing country Germany. Whatever some might say, it does not show a lack of solidarity with neighbouring countries if you try and support your own country’s industry.

Because Scotland’s major shipyards are controlled by one central player – BAE Systems – they will always be BAE’s assets. They cannot diversify because BAE manufacture military vessels, but when there are no military vessels to make, what happens then? BAE are not a state company and have no obligation to create employment anywhere. They have no interest in manufacturing non-military vessels, and Scotland might have the shipyards but you’ll be hard pushed to find a CalMac or Northern Isles ferry built on the Forth or the Clyde even if they probably should be.

In the event of independence Scotland will most likely inherit some assets from the Royal Navy, but it will also need to build its own. If Scotland is serious about its new international role it will involve activities such as peacekeeping, anti-piracy and aid work that require frigates, though perhaps not destroyers.  There will be obligations in terms of Arctic security and the North Atlantic and the equipment needed to meet them. This might mean an end to aircraft carriers, but diversification of Scotland’s marine industry would be more sustainable for all. With the right planning we could see the Marine Patrol Vessel MPV Robin Harper and the North Sea ferry MV Suðrland being built across the water from one another on the Clyde.

The all or nothing approach to industry by both sides in the referendum campaign is testament to a lack of imagination and an obsession with the very big over the diverse. It pays not to have all your eggs in one boat.