Self-Governance in the 21st Century

Here is the third in the series of excerpts from my pamphlet. Please e-mail member@neil100.freeserve.co.uk if you would like a copy of the full document.

On 12th May 1999 Winnie Ewing MSP "reconvened" the Scots Parliament which "had last met on the 25th day of March 1707". The old Scots Parliament differed from the new Parliament at Holyrood in two fundamental respects. Firstly, the old Parliament wasn’t elected on the basis of a universal franchise as the new Parliament is. Secondly, the old Parliament presided over a sovereign, independent Scotland, whereas the new Parliament is a devolved institution within the British state. The new Parliament, the first truly democratic Parliament in Scotland, needs to regain the status of the old one, as the independent voice of a sovereign Scottish state.
In practical terms, regaining independence means the transfer of all powers over the governance of Scotland, currently held at Westminster, to the Parliament which sits now at Holyrood. This Scottish Parliament would become politically and constitutionally independent of Westminster. This would enable the Scottish people to use these new powers to transform the economic and social map of their country internally, and take over responsibility for representing Scotland in our dealings with other countries, including the rest of the United Kingdom, and with international bodies such as the European Union and the United Nations.

Contrary to the scaremongering of British unionist politicians, regaining our constitutional and political independence doesn’t mean rupturing the social union between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. Scotland, with the Queen as Head of State, would, like the re-shaped UK, Canada and New Zealand, be a member of the Commonwealth with all that implies for continuity of the links that exist in this unique family of nations.

As members of the European Union, there would continue to be free movement of people and trade in goods, services and capital between a self-governing Scotland and the other parts of the United Kingdom. Visiting or communicating with friends, relatives and business associates in England, Wales or Northern Ireland would be as easy as it is today.

In addition to Commonwealth links we can look to further develop the Council of the British Isles. In a similar fashion to the way the Nordic Council services the Scandinavian countries (Norway, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Sweden and the autonomous territories of the Faroe and Aland Islands) so the Council of the British Isles would be the mechanism through which an independent Scotland, the Republic of Ireland and Westminster would co-operate in areas of policy where it is in their joint interests to do so. Thus a British dimension to policy would be maintained but, unlike the current constitutional arrangement, the Scottish Government would have equal status to the Republic of Ireland and the Westminster Government and wouldn’t be a subservient bystander.

Like the rest of the UK, Scotland would also remain part of the European Union, equal in status to the other 27 member states and not, as at present, a weak province of one of those states. Thus we would remain part of an economic union which provided a home market with a total population of nearly 500 million people where there would be free movement of people, goods and services and capital.

To paint modern day self-government as a lurch back into an old fashioned, 19th century concept of separatism and isolationism, as unionist politicians do, is deliberately misleading. Indeed, one of the core arguments for Scottish independence is that it would allow Scotland to participate in the decision-making counsels of Europe and the wider world directly without having to play second fiddle to Westminster and Whitehall. Far from becoming isolated and separatist, we would be much more involved in dealing directly with other countries, participating positively in a wide range of international and intergovernmental institutions in ways which aren’t possible, as a part of the British state.

Like every other nation state, we would play our part in the senior counsels of the European Union, be a full member of the United Nations, the World Trade Organisation and a plethora of other international bodies. An independent Scottish Parliament would appoint its own representatives to these organisations, would make its own financial contribution to them and would cast its votes as it saw fit, on behalf of the Scottish people. We would aspire to emulate small nations like Norway which has played a key role as peacemaker in international affairs. We would aspire to live up to our long-standing international reputation, best summed up by Winston Churchill who said that the Scots were second only to the Greeks in terms of our contribution to civilisation down the ages.

Along with the power that goes with self-governance comes responsibility. The Scottish people are adults and are able to exercise responsibility. They recognise that increasingly, decisions on domestic policy often have an international dimension and vice versa. Examples of these stretch across nearly every department of government. Economic policies would have to be realistic, taking account of the opportunities and the constraints of living in a global economy. Taxation policy would have to recognise the consequences arising from the international mobility of both capital and labour. More than ever, environmental policies would have to be viewed in terms of their impact, not just on our immediate neighbours, but also on worldwide phenomena like climate change. We would have to play our part in the struggle against international terrorism. Our defence policies would have to be devised and designed within the framework of the realpolitik of international security. As a nation we want to contribute to international peacekeeping through the United Nations. Also, we need and want to make a much greater contribution to international aid. Only self-government enables us to meet these responsibilities.

Self-governance is a relative, not an absolute concept. For example, Scotland would be more independent than most other European nations in terms of our oil and gas supplies, because of the resources still under the North Sea. Indeed, that would be true for our energy supplies generally, because we have been so well-endowed with natural resources. In other respects, such as the percentage of our GDP we rely on for foreign trade, other countries may be more independent than Scotland.

Another example of the relativity of self-governance is the Republic of Ireland. It became more independent of the UK economically after both countries entered the EU; Irish trade is not as dependent on its UK markets as it used to be. That reduced dependency has enhanced the Republic’s political independence from Britain. Similarly on defence matters, Canada, for example, is much less independent of the USA than most countries in South America.

In the balance between self-government and interdependence in the global community, Scotland’s ability to forge policies of national interest will be enhanced by having an independent parliament and government.