Call it independence in the UK, call it federalism, it comes to much the same thing: democratic self government Published on 30 March 2014 Iain Macwhirter People often ask me: why do the Yes Campaign appear so confident when they are milesbehindinthe opinionpolls? Dont they know theyre going to lose? It is a remarkable phenomenon inmany ways, since pollsters like Professor John Curtice and the US psephologist Nate Silver have been writing offtheirchances of winning for most of thelast year. One reason for a lack of panic is the Yes Campaign believe they have conductedthe most honest, positive and intellectually reputablecampaign. Even if they lose, they thinkthey have won. There are some grounds for believing this. Last week, there was confirmation of what many suspected: that GeorgeOsbornes declaration on thepound inFebruary has backfired. Nearly half of Scots, according to a poll, did not believe him when he said last month that If Scotland walks away from the UK it walks away from the pound. That included members of his own cabinet, according to reports suggesting Scots would get to keep the poundin exchange for a deal on Trident. This has thrown theBetter Together campaign, which was based on the poundscare, into chaos. It has caused hugeproblems for Labour and the Liberal Democrats who of course enthusiastically backed theChancellors declarationof monetary exclusion and are now lefthigh and dry. And where does it leave all those Scottish and UK businesses who responded to theChancellors cuelast month like BP, Standard Life and RBS who said they would quit Scotland because of theuncertainty over thepound? The reason for thecurrency U-turn is pretty clear: during Fear February, support for independencerose marginally. Scots had economicfire and brimstone hurledat them, but they didnt fall quaking to their knees. The politicsof fear can only work so long as peopleare prepared to be afraid. This is being recognised at least by theLibDems, theshattered remnants of which have been meetingthis weekend inAberdeen. Their ex-leader, Charles Kennedy, has condemned thenegativity of theNo campaign, and even theircurrent leader Nick Clegg has called for a more thrilling unionist campaign - though thrilling and Nick Clegg dont sit well in thesame sentence. Regrettably, the Liberal Democrat leader then undid the good work by trying to equate Alex Salmond with Nigel Farage of Ukip - calling them breast beating nationalists. No-one who knows anything about Scotland could possibly confuse Ukip with a social democratic, pro-Europe party that campaigns for open borders and increased immigration and is called the SNP. Oh, and which voted against the benefits cap last week Nick Clegg supports. This is thekind of thing that has led key figures like the ex- Libdem chief executive, Andy Myles and Denis Sullivan, the formertreasurer, to announce they are going to vote Yes. These guys have been pillars of theparty inScotland for over thirty years, commanding great respect across all theScottish parties because of their work in theScottish Constitutional Convention in the1980s. But they cant see any possibility of change under the present Westminster regime And thecoalition with theTories has leftthe Scottish Libdems having to support - at least tacitly - policieslike thebenefits cap. The Liberal Democrats used to be guardians of thesoul of civic Scotland: PR, home rule, Europe, human rights, gay marriage. They were responsible for many of theearly achievements of the Scottish parliament, like free personal care, reform of local government, even theabolition of university fees. But now locked into theWestminster system since 2010, they have had to capitulate to thelogic of theLondon political elite. They are in many ways a metaphor for what has happened to Scotland. The Westminster connection has ensnared theScottish parties into a political culture which is alien to Scotlands social democratic soul. Tax cuts for thewealthy, the bedroomtax for thepoor. Hostility to Europe, stigmatisation of welfare, opposition to immigration. These are not the issues that decide how people vote in Scotland. Ironically, theLibDems policy on the constitutionis the one most Scots would almost certainly vote for, if they had thechance. They want Britain to become a federal country, with a formal declarationof sovereignty entrenching Scotland as an autonomous state within theUK. Under the scheme devised by theirformer leader, Sir Menzies Campbell, theScottish Parliament would be givenall income tax powers, plus corporation tax, capitalgains tax inheritance taxes - amounting to 60% of the revenue raised inScotland. This goes beyond anything the Scottish Labour leader, Johann Lamont, has proposed and unlike her taxes that go up but not down, makes sense. The Liberal Democrats envisage a similar arrangement to that in federal countries like Canada and Australia. The state of Quebec inCanada arguably has as much autonomy as that envisaged by theScottish government inthe 2013 Independence White Paper. That may sound extraordinary, but remember that under the SNPs plan for monetary union theUK Bank of England would set interest rates and borrowing inScotland. Quebec has all tax powers that matter and has pioneeredthe child care policy which became the centrepieceof the Scottish Governments independenceWhite Paper. Federalism could answer most of the fears and uncertainties about independence.The Scottish Parliament becomes a sovereign state within a reformed UK that is no longerdominated by London. The only problem with it is it is never going to happen. Westminster has shown little interest infederalism, and hasnt even taken theopportunity presented by reform of the House of Lords to create a regionally-elected senate to reflect devolution. Westminster seems incapable of grasping theneed for reform to rebalance theUK. Federalism in one countryis not possible, but it is possible for Scotland to become functionallyindependentwithin the United Kingdom-- which is essentially what theYes Campaign is arguing for. This is not separatism but a new UK, with an independent Scotland participating and co-operating ina new confederal relationship with theother nations in it. The Queen as headof state, as inCanada, a currency union, a welfare union, a defence union inNato, an energy union, a pensions union, a broadcasting union. Sometimes it looksas if theYes campaign is more unionistthan Better Together. The nationalistsseem positive in face of polling adversity as they feelthe tide of history is moving theirway, and they are theonly peoplewho are offering something that could work. They dismiss Nick Cleggs slander that they are narrow nationalistswanting to set up barriers to cooperation between nations. It is George Osborne who is trying to erect a financialHadrians wallto stop Scotland using the pound- a currency to which Scotland has as much right as England. What could be more divisive? True internationalism is only possible with nationalself-determination. The unionistsseem to hark back to a lost age in which nations were self-sufficient and sovereign within their borders - like Europe before theEU, or like Britain under Ukip - bristlingwith trade barriers and nationalarmies. Scottish nationalistsare after something different: thepolitical freedom to create a more fair and just society and reject theclass-based politicsof the London City State. Call it independenceinthe UK, call it federalism, it comesto much thesame thing: democratic self-government. heraldscotland/mobile/comment/columnists/why-are-yes-so-confident-because-they-feel-the-tide-of-history-is-moving-their-wa.23824878?_=76e9cb272f5afcee6abf544b2c16e187050c020f
Posted on: Sun, 30 Mar 2014 12:40:48 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015