The unionists are now the fundamentalists - so says Professor James Mitchell in a deeply perceptive article in today’s Scotsman - Breaking up has become less easy
Commenting on the new maturity in the SNP’s and Scotland’s thinking, he observes -
“But constitutional thinking has not developed evenly. A new fundamentalism has arisen in Scottish politics. Under devolution, unionist fundamentalism has replaced nationalist fundamentalism.”
Professor Mitchell lists the elements of this new fundamentalism -
1. The belief that the UK’s nuclear deterrent is independent.
2. Macro economic policy is still the sole prerogative of states.
3. Foreign policy is somehow distinct from trade and economic policy.
He comments drily -
“This is a world in which not only does the EU not exist but neither do the many defence communities and elaborate array of international obligations and treaties”
“This is a world of make-believe that still resonates for those who have yet to come to terms with the UK’s shrunken role in the world and the interdependence of modern politics.”
In the great debate now underway across Scottish society, such clarity of thought and expression as Professor Mitchell’s cuts through like a beam of laser light. Read the full article online and be grateful to the Scotsman for carrying it. Better still, buy the paper and smell the ink …
IS FEDERALISM A CON?
I remember the confusion that used exist in the minds of many managers in industry over the nature of the Engineering Employers’ Federation (the EEF) and the Confederation of British Industries (the CBI). The old joke used to be “When is a federation not a federation! When it’s a con …”
Margo Macdonald gently made the distinction on Newsnight Scotland recently when the panel seemed somewhat confused on the terms in relation to the alleged ‘independence lite’ stance of the SNP.
For those who need reminding -
federal: 1 of a system of government in which several states form a unity but remain independent in internal affairs. 2 relating to or affecting such a federation 3 of or relating to the central governments distinguished from the separate states constituting a federation 4 favouring centralised government 5 comprising an association of largely independent units
confederation: a union or alliance of states
The dictionary definitions above still leave room for confusion, so we must look more closely at the political use of the terms. In general terms, a federation is a tighter relationship than a confederation, with the federation being the sovereign state.
A federation is a sovereign state comprising semi-autonomous units. A confederation is a permanent union of sovereign states for the purpose of common action in relation to other states on, for example, defence and foreign policy, and perhaps currency.
Put at its simplest - a simplicity that many may dispute as an over-simplification - Scotland in a federation (the UK) would not be be a sovereign state but a devolved unit of the sovereign state of the UK.
Scotland in a confederation would be a sovereign state, but in a permanent union with another sovereign state, UK Minus (The United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland), for the purposes of common action on defence and foreign policy, and perhaps with a common currency.
To those who cry “over-simplification!” at me, I cry right back “the electorate has to know what it’s voting for in the referendum!”.
My position on a confederal relationship is that, while commonsense sharing of certain defence aspects, such as basing, command, control, co-ordination and deployment of defence forces makes sense, there must be an absolute veto politically on any military engagement or commitment, and that Scotland would not be committed to a nuclear deterrent, to the use or deployment of nuclear weapons, that no nuclear bases or facilities for the nuclear weapons would be permitted in Scotland, and no movement of nuclear weapons would be permitted across Scotland's land mass,islands, airspace or on Scotland’s waters and coast.
For me, federation is out, but confederalism is a possibility, but a heavily circumscribed one in relation to nuclear policy.
Posts
You could say that the century which elapsed between the Union of the Crowns (1603) and the Union of the Parliaments (1707) was a confederal arrangement; and a particularly bloody century the 17th was, too!
ReplyDeleteIn theory, the 1707 stitch-up was a union between equal partners, but that was never going to be the case.UK and England have long been synonymous terms for many south of the Tweed. Demographics have favoured the imbalance between the respective populations of Scotland and England, which now stand at approximately 1:10. This has allowed unionist politicians at Westminster to play the “democracy” card over and over to impose policies (and wars!) on a Scottish electorate on the basis that it was approved by a majority.
I doubt if even the most stringent guarantees will force English politicians to take a separate Scottish dimension of affairs into account. It’s just not in their nature.
Under a confederal arrangement we would still be “in bed with the elephant”!
Thanks, Paco el escocés
ReplyDeleteI don't like it either, but it may be inevitable. A great prize is within our grasp.We've come this far, and must achieve a YES vote in the referendum.
While I accept that there may be some wheeling-dealing re mutual use of bases, docking facilities etc., I agree with Paco el escocés (bet his name's Frank Scott!)that extending this to a full confederal arrangement is dangerous. A few concessions here and there, always with a reserved right of veto, may be ok, but I'd be wary of going any further, and, frankly, I don't see the need. Under the definition elucidated in your blog, we would (assuming direct inheritance of UK treaties) instantly be in the European Union. What pressure, other than the dead hand of tradition, would be on us to form other confederations?
ReplyDeleteBy the way, it's a pleasure to see a blog with such informed, analytical contributions. Always a pleasure to read!
Thanks, Bobelix
ReplyDeleteI guess we'll just have to wait and see how the debate develops. It will last over two years, barring a decision to bring forward the referendum by the FM.
The outcome of the many polls of public opinion on independence that will be taken will undoubtedly influence the negotiating opening position and its timing.
Alex Salmond is a surefooted politician. What he must judge is, not the mood of those committed to independence, but those who are undecided or open to conviction.
People like me are going to vote YES, whatever the exact nature of the deal is - where else can they go?
My deal breaker is the nuclear issue, but if the Party failed to deliver that, what other option do I have? There is no other major non-nuclear party. I can abstain - or sulk - but where would that get me?
All the supporters of independence can do, in this critical run-up to the referendum, is argue responsibly for their definition of independence, which we're doing here and elsewhere.
By responsibly, I mean don't rock the only boat we've got!
I don't think there's any risk of a nuclear deal-breaker - that would be electoral suicide, in my opinion, as any votes gained would be more than cancelled out by votes lost - most anti-nuclear people have been so for a very long time and hold pretty entrenched views on the subject (include me in that!). That apart, I agree, we ain't got nowhere else to go!
ReplyDeleteIn my book there are two fundamentals- firstly Scotland controls all it's assets including full tax raising and spending powers and secondly we give advance notice before any contracts are signed to replace Trident and nuclear power stations in England that the future costs of these vanity projects will be excluded from any negotiations on the division of assets and liabilities.
ReplyDeleteI agree, Ian.
ReplyDeleteBobelix, it would be the end of the dream of an independent Scotland if the anti-nuclear voters voted NO in the referendum on a deal that included nuclear.
ReplyDeleteI recognise the dilemma, because it is my core dilemma. But I have already settled for less when we first got a devolved Parliament, and look how we've moved on from that...
But there's a stage before that - the referendum bill in the Scottish Parliament. Everyone seems to assume that it will walk through because of the SNP majority.
But what if the Greens, and enough anti-nuclear SNP MSPs demanded the 'no nuclear' assurance before that critical vote. Holding up or even defeating the Referendum Bill wouldn't take independence off the agenda for a generation, as a defeat for the national referendum vote might. It would simply delay it.
(It is normally bad practice to tie the hands of your negotiating team on items where there is flexibility. But this is not true in the case of deal breakers or non-negotiables.)
I have placed my faith in the Party's NO TRIDENT, NO NUCLEAR BASES position, and hope that such a tactical block will never be needed.
I sincerely hope that with a Scottish citizenry fully and fairly Informed as to their options in terms of self-determination (or not as they choose to exercise their sovereign and democratic right) that - coupled with the clear and concrete gains by this government over the next pre-referendum years - the people of Scotland will vote to put an end to the current status quo; and that they will re-assert their inalienable, collective right to determine their own future unhedged about with qualifications: With the slate wiped clean. Thereafter, as with other nation states in this world, treaties may be entered into with other brother and sister nation states in a free and fully transparent manner and with the full blessings of the consulted citizenry of Scotland.
ReplyDeleteAs was stated above, one need not confine oneself to a single confederal option where others may potentially exist. Afterall, the Scots were in negotiations with the Netherlands seeking just such an alternative option pre-the disastrous union of ours and the Anglo-Welsh parliament of its day (just when was there a last, purely English parliament "unsullied" by the Celtic "fringes"?).
No doubt the path towards this end will throw up unexpected curves, but move towards it, I believe, we must now unshackled for to do otherwise is to repeat the mistake(s) of that portion of a "parcel of rogues" who were some of our ancestors.
Let's not be rushed, and let us cast about and investigate our options.
Also and to echo contributors above, thank you so much for this lucid and civilized open forum.
Thanks for your contribution and for your kind remarks, David.
ReplyDelete