The realities of governance today

Here is the second in the series of excerpts from my pamphlet. As before, if you would like a full copy then please e-mail me at member@neil100.freeserve.co.uk

British unionist politicians cannot conceive an independent role for modern Scotland. They would prefer that we continue to live in our own kailyard, taking our main orders from London, allowing them to play a Westminster game which is increasingly out of touch with the aspirations of modern Scotland. Be they Conservative, Labour or Liberal Democrat they believe in the myth that Britain is still a major power of the first rank. They cannot face the reality that Britain no longer has an empire, Britannia no longer rules the waves and the retention of a few dangerous nuclear warheads no longer delivers the international prestige we had in bygone days.

The huge resource burdens which the drive for international prestige has placed on Britain for the last 60 years is one of the main reasons the British economy became so uncompetitive. While we were wasting billions to satisfy the Westminster appetite for prestige, our industrial competitors were dedicating their resources to economic growth, as a result of which, ironically many of them ended up with far greater international prestige and clout than Britain.

Despite the lessons of the last 60 years, in that Britain no longer has the economic wherewithal to play the role of world policeman, Westminster politicians of the unionist parties continue to refuse to face the realities of the modern world. They cling to the outmoded notion that Britain is still a great power. Consequently, they go on wasting billions of pounds on useless nuclear weaponry and become immersed in military adventures of dubious benefit to Britain, let alone to mankind.

Why should Scotland continue to be part of this dangerous charade? Why should we be forced into illegal and immoral wars we don’t support, like the ill advised invasion of Iraq? Why should we be forced to harbour nuclear weapons in Scottish waters when we do not need them?

It’s not just in the field of foreign and defence policy that Scotland differs from Westminster. There are many other examples where our values and interests diverge, including energy, pension reform, immigration and asylum policies, privatisation, our attitude to poverty and welfare reform, and so on.

A practical example of Scotland’s interests differing markedly from those England, is in relation to the draft EU Constitution, which the Prime Minister was ready to recommend for approval in a UK referendum, had it not been scuppered by the French and the Dutch.

Both Labour and Liberal Democrats supported the draft European Constitution even although parts of it would have relegated the Scottish Parliament to something akin to the Parish Council the Prime Minister previously described. Under the draft Constitution, the so-called subsidiarity mechanism to involve national parliaments more closely in the decision-making process would have left the House of Lords with more say with the EU over devolved matters than the Scottish Parliament, which would have had none. The power to send measures back to the Commission for reconsideration would not apply to the Scottish Parliament, even when related to matters within its “control”.

The same draft Constitution took no account of Scotland’s distinct legal system and would have cemented control over our natural resources in such a way that land-locked nations would continue to have a say over Scotland’s fishing industry, for example, while the Scottish Parliament would have had none. Furthermore the provisions in the draft Constitution for shared competency over energy policy would have been totally unacceptable to any Scottish government protecting a vital national interest.

More importantly, because an independent Scotland would have been able to veto the draft Constitution, many of the provisions referred to above would never have seen the light of day for that very reason. For example, we would have been able to protect our energy and fishing industries and to ensure that all decisions about their futures were taken in Edinburgh, not London or Brussels. That’s a very good example of how and why those who argue that independence has little or no relevance to the economic and social condition of Scotland are talking nonsense.

The near miss over the draft Constitution, which is to be re-visited by the EU soon, is a classic example of how self-governance and only self-governance can give Scotland the level of power and influence we need to promote and protect our own vital national interests.

These are not minor issues. They matter a great deal. If Scotland’s interests and priorities continue to be ignored, or subjugated by the will of Westminster and Brussels, then Scotland is destined to remain a provincial backwater with little prospect of being able to achieve its real potential as a nation.

The case for Scotland remaining in Westminster is a weak one. The current constitutional arrangements, whereby we are ruled as part of the British state, bring Scotland neither peace nor prosperity. Yet, after devolution, neither are the current constitutional arrangements fair or satisfactory to the English. It’s unacceptable to them that MPs from Scotland determine policy for education and health in England, but English MPs have no say over these areas of policy for Scotland, the so-called West Lothian Question.

Despite the efforts of successive politicians to solve this conundrum, the truth is that there isn’t a unionist solution. In a Parliament which is so dominated by one constituent part, England, it is impossible to solve the West Lothian Question in a way which is acceptable to both the English and the Scots. If the Tory proposal to have “English Bills” which only English MPs can vote on is adopted how could any future Government with an overall majority in the House of Commons, but without a majority of English members, implement its policies? There is no sensible answer to that question.