Why I support independence
Governments should be closer to people. I wish politicians would stop deciding to send teenagers to kill and die in foreign adventures. But if ministers are going to launch a war, they should not issue their commands from a limestone palace hundreds of miles away. There should be a good chance they know some of the families of those they command into the line of fire.
In post-enlightenment Britain, we are weaned on the liberal mythology of inhuman abstractions. We are expected to trust our distant leaders to make rational choices on the basis of what is best for us all. We are brought up to believe they will weigh evidence and push their pawns around the chess board until they perfectly balance the interests of each of us. This has never happened. Whether they know it or not, those who run our governments are human. Intentionally or not, they make decisions not through cold hard reason informed by all of the millions of complex and easily misunderstood facts there are to know about the world. They make them as we all make all decisions – with the filter that their necessarily narrow experience of the world has bestowed. They are influenced by their experiences and the experiences of their acquaintances – of those who are close to them. And so they must be as close as possible to as many as possible of the people they claim to represent.
People should be closer to their governments – they should be their government. Politics – even narrow parliamentary politics – is about much more than elections and bills. It is about who can exercise influence. It is about access, about accountability, about whose ideas are heard and whose are ignored. If we are to have governments, it is crucial that they are capable of listening to all of those who shout, no matter how loud their voice. This is harder for sixty million than it is for five million. This is harder when some people live five hundred miles from their capital city.
The choice in the coming referendum is not between Scottish and British. Many Scots – most Scots – are happy to be both just as we are happy to be siblings and parents and offspring and lovers. Short of an immense feat of human effort over geology, Scotland will always be a part of the island Britain. The choice is between Westminster and Holyrood.
National identity is in a sense a bizarre construct, used by various leaders at various times for means fair and foul. What is meaningful is power: who has what power over which decisions, who is likely to be excluded by those processes. Looking at the former, I can’t think of a significant power I would rather have held at Westminster than Holyrood. Many support a second option – a middle ground. But the difference between devo-max and independence is little more than Trident submarines and a war in Iran. Why on earth would we demand to control energy strategy but choose to leave decisions about where to send soldiers to a parliament still darkened by the shadow of its former Empire? For those things best organised at an island wide level, we can and surely will have a new association of British nations. It could, for example, manage the Ordnance Survey.
But it is the latter – who is included and who is excluded – that is more important to me. In a democracy, ultimately, we should each have equal power over each other. This power is almost never mediated through atomised individuals. And so democracy is a clumsy negotiation between groups towards a better future for all. What matters is that each voice – the lonely shout of each individual and the harmonising chorus of each collective, is heard. The bigger the country, the harder this is. The more people, the more voices are thrown into the mix. The more people, the higher the risk that any elite which emerges will be more distant.
In a smaller state, on average, each person has more say than they do in a bigger state. This is, in itself, important. But is is particularly important for those of us who don’t believe that significant decisions should be mediated by the market.
In 1973, ship builder and radical union leader Jimmy Reid was elected rector of Glasgow University. In his rectorial address, he put his finger on the malaise that was to overcome much of the Western world in the following decades. His speech is entitled ‘alienation’. In the twentieth century’s struggle between left and right, this is a key concept the left forgot. Because whilst markets are alienating decision structures, so are centralised states. The welfare state is being auctioned off because there aren’t enough “folk left with the faith to fight for it”. “Unless you allow the young to help build the village, they will burn it just to feel the warmth” – so goes African proverb much tweeted last August as London was licked with flames. So it is with rioting teenagers, so it is with those who vote for slash and burn Tories. We didn’t help build the welfare state. It is handed to us by a distant government of which we know little. Today we feel the chill as it burns.
The pyrrhic empowerment of markets seems to provide more choice than identical shiny faced politicians beamed into our living rooms from a Westminster world which might as well be orbiting another star: Galbraith’s balance of unions, capital and state has collapsed. It was a house of cards, built on a staid image of humans as stable automatons, happy to hand power to one puppet-master or another. Capital won. Not because, as the right claim, they won the argument. It won because it had all the guns, and because it played to its strengths.
The way for the left to win this back is to recognise this failure. We are a peoples’ movement or we are nothing. And peoples’ movements are not built on abstract unity. They are built from people: empowered people, with all of the flavours and colours that this means. And that means handing government to people as much as possible – bringing decisions as close to people as possible. If we are to democratise society, then we must realise that democracy is about communities, about human relationships, about conversations.
Once the state isn’t trusted it can be sold. Trust isn’t mediated through TV chat shows. It is won through relationships, in communities. And so, if we are to have a state – and I believe in an NHS and in nationalised trains and so I believe we should – it must be sufficiently close to people that they have a chance of knowing its representatives, it should be built on the back of genuine, human scale communities. As we decentralise democratic power, dismantling the oversized Wesphalian states will just be one step. But it is an important one. Sixty million is too big. Five million may be about right. And Scotland seems as good a place to start as any.
I don’t know where you get the bizarre idea that “most Scots” are happy to be Scottish and British? Most of the folk I know are Scottish,end of! A large proportion of them,myself included,consider “British”,or any variant of the same,to be an insult! Saor Alba!
Your analysis doesn’t contribute to your putative solution. I am unconvinced that with indepenence the people of Scotland will close the book on elected politicians who are simply self serving egoists and power obsessed dogmatists.
I suggest my best interests will be served in the first instance by an approach centred on localism and an acceptance of ethics as the basis for decision making. I cannot subscribe to a view that the substitution of one parliament in London by one based in Edinburgh will render any real advances in creating a fairer society. I say this with wide eyed acknowledgement that the SNP administration and before it the Labour/Liberal coalition spent most of their time trying to meddle with the autonomy of the Scottish Local Authorities.
Since its’ inception the Edinburgh assembly has never emerged into the daylight to promote policies which could seriously rebalance the inequalities that exist in Scotland. The small mindedness of nationalism and its’ thrall for the established orthodoxy of the money markets suggests to me that the solution to inequality in SCotland will not be delivered by a petty parliament of careerist buffoons.
Thanks Adam, interesting reply.
Okay, let’s take each point in turn; first, your point on the non-existence of independence. I think this actually serves to create a linguistic grey area between us; where all we are debating over is rhetorical preference. But my argument would be that the choice of language matters.
Scenerio 1: We have an ‘independent’ Scotland with its own foreign policy, operating within an international framework conditioned by the relations of this island, Europe and the world.
Scenerio 2: We have a ‘devolved’ Scottish parliament, that is still part of a United Kingdom, but one of the devolved powers — among others — is complete discretion over its role in UK foreign policy.
There need not be any practical difference between the two. It all depends on the scope and nature of devolution, because as you say, “The only practical thing we are talking about is who makes what decisions”. France is both a nation, and a member of the European Union and NATO. Scotland is currently both a nation, and a member of the United Kingdom. In practical terms, all we are talking about is how to change the political model of Scotland’s power within these international frameworks. You and I could even agree to the letter on the precise model, but one of us call it “independence” and the other call it “devolution”: one of us call it the United Kingdom, the other call it the British Isles Union.
I therefore disagree with what you think the independence debate is about – and this is especially true for the debate you and I are having on this thread. Given your point on ‘independence’, we are not necessarily debating over conflicting political models; rather we are debating over what to call them. But this is a little more than a game of linguistics, because words carry emotive weight, and crucially, they have implications for harmony, co-operation and arbitrary vested interest within our respective models.
So, your second point. You’re right; it would be entirely consistent to complain about nationalism and then argue for Britain. This is not what I am doing though. It makes no difference to me what we do with the arbitrary concept of Britain. We could change the name, we could (should) revolutionise the system of governance; we could do away with all nations and the world could be structured as levels of administration within a global congress. (Incidentally, I am not talking about doing away with cultural solidarity and diversity, merely lines of global accountability)
I do not argue “a)”. Most levels of administration are not tinged by historic nationalism: district councils for example, or the London Assembly. And I think “b” misses the point. I am not arguing for any political body to have “powers over” Scotland. Just as you are, I am arguing in favour of empowering Scottish people (hopefully, along with the rest of the UK) with a new political model that could be called ‘independence’ or ‘devolution’.
You may think this argument is abstract and hopelessly lacking in meaningful engagement. Let me explain where I think it has tangible significance. I am arguing against a world of political relations that place merit in the politically arbitrary interest of nationalism. You can say to me, ‘why don’t you stop philosophising and just accept that ‘independence’ delivers almost precisely what you want. But would you not also need to ask yourself why you are choosing to campaign for something called ‘independence’ rather than ‘devolution’? The rationale behind it is just as philosophical. And I would argue counterproductive to international cooperation.
“Which decisions should we make together on a scale of 60 million or so?”: The decision for those 60 million people to not fight one another and to pool and redistribute their respective tax contributions.
“Is unity best delivered through shared administrations?”: Some unity, yes. Unified military and economic institutions best prevent war. Sharing the world’s resources is best accomplished when everyone’s vested interests are invested in the same administration(s).
Great article. A more than ten fold increase in representation can’t be a bad thing. I’m not the biggest fan of parliamentary democracy and hope for devolution to community, town and regional levels through local deomcracy, co-production and co-ops. Although this is unlikely think we have a much better chance in an independent Scotland.
Great article. I agree that Scotland should be independent for the reasons you highlight: leaders are just ordinary people, and every voice should be heard.
But why did you cut down the “market”? If you meant to refer to Crony Capitalism, and government-subsided outsourcing overseas, then I’m with you one hundred percent. But the “market” also includes local people exchanging goods and services (farmers’ markets, craft fairs, local tradesman such as painters and plumbers, and even teens babysitting for pocket money). I don’t want to see that disappear. Do you?
As a student, I used to have a poster version of a famous map of Europe by Willem Blaeu who was, in fact, working at roughly the same time as the Treaty of Westphalia. The striking thing about – which it takes a while to notice – is that the Western European state boundaries look almost perfectly modern. Norway, Sweden, Italy, France, Spain (including Portugal), England, Scotland. The uncanny thing is the Willem Blaeu was drawing the boundaries around these countries long before most of them actually existed, and about 200 years before mainstream historians tell us that ‘nations’ were supposed to have any meaning to anyone. What does this tell us? I’m not quite sure.
Shuggy: obviously there are millions of factors in play. But I think the capacity to build genuine deep democracy is much greater in small states. Doesn’t mean it always happens…
Indeed, the UK didn’t exist at the time of Westphalia. But Westphalia is a good point to use to look at the history of nation states.
Surely it isn’t necessary to provide examples to show to that the geographic proximity of government doesn’t mean that it more likely to be democratic? This is a bizarre ahistorical argument. (Btw, the UK didn’t exist at the time of Westphalia.)
Alfie,
Thanks for your comments.
First, whilst I say I believe in independence, I should add that I don’t really believe it exists. As I’ve written in the following article, the traditional concept of a nation state has significantly atrophed – with decisions being made at the levels of the UN, the EU, the Council of Europe, NATO, etc, etc, etc. I am not arguing that we shouldn’t make some decisions as Scots at levels other – bigger – than the Scottish Parliament – including these islands, Europe, and the world. That is not what the independence debate is about. The only practical thing we are talking about is who makes what decisions. Once foreign policy is decided at Holyrood, the Scotland is about at ‘independent’ as you get.
http://brightgreenscotland.org/index.php/2011/05/independence-is-not-the-point/
Second, it is entirely inconsistent to complain about nationalism but then to argue for Britain. If you wish to argue that a) all arguments for one level or other of administration are tinged with historic nationalisms and b) that some powers over Scotland should be retained at Westminster, then you have to apply that rule to yourself: it means that you are a British nationalist. Looking at recent election campaigns, I would argue that the Scottish Labour Party with its endless bids to ‘save the union’ is much more a British nationalist party than is the SNP with its ‘free education and more roads’.
Lots of people make abstract arguments for saving some cadaver union without any serious engagement about what we mean in practice by a nation or a state in the modern world. When you say you would call for more unity, what do you mean? Which decisions should we make together on a scale of 60 million or so? Is unity best delivered through shared administrations? I hear this argument a lot, so I’m genuinely interested.
Thanks Adam. Very good article. Thoroughly enjoyed it, and some of your turns of phrase and articulation of argument will condition the way I consider my own views on similar issues.
I wonder though if this argument delivers a comprehensive analysis of Scottish independence. What I mean by that is that this is an excellent argument for devolution. In my opinion — as it has thus far developed — it is infallible even. Indeed, this article lays out the rationale for why Westminster should devolve many more of its powers, and why British democracy should be further devolved right across the board, not just in Scotland. But I am not sure that it addresses the nationalist dimension of the ‘Scottish Question’.
In many ways I think nationalism fits what you have described as “abstract unity”. And because it is arbitrary, it is not necessarily conducive to good governance. It certainly isn’t conducive to inter ‘ethnic’ unity along more tangible common grounds such as social interest, mutual empowerment and peace.
Big capital divides and rules. We need more unity along social interest, not division along abstract national interest. In my opinion, the only problem with your argument is it appears to assume that devolved democratic power is incompatible with global unity. I don’t think it is, you can be unified and devolved.
Some decisions, such as the decision not to fight one another, are best made at the highest level of governance. There are countless examples of where this hasn’t worked, but for all its failings the EU is an example of where it has worked. In 60 years it has pacified a continent that was torn apart by war for the preceding 2000 years.
The EU needs to be democratised and it needs to become more accountable. It needs to relinquish power. Through its member states, it needs to be devolved write down to the level of the community in order to empower people rather than the lobbyists of big capital. But Europe is better united than it is divided. The UK is better united than it is divided. People in general, are better united than they are divided.
Do you think the rationale of your article provides an argument for nationalisation or for devolution? I would argue the latter. And I would argue that nationalisation is actually one form of the “abstract unity” that you rightly indentify as undermining ‘people power’. So I would choose to further empower the Scottish and Welsh parliaments; to devolve power to county, district and parish councils across the whole of the UK. But I would call for more unity on this planet along the lines of common human interest — not division on grounds of ethnicity.