« MacAskill calls for a reformed, devolved civil service | Main | Boris Johnson blogs . . . »
September 21, 2004
Independence I: Inevitability
Alex Salmond recently described independence “as inevitable as anything can be in politics”, a neat turn of phrase (BBC One’s Breakfast with Frost).
Meanwhile, Lord Elis-Thomas, presiding officer of the Welsh Assembly and former leader of Plaid Cymru, has been saying there is no longer any room for independence parties in post-devolution Britain. “You have this improbable allegiance of some people to something called independence… . Not since the seventh century was this ever a real political project, and yet there are still people who pursue the goal of Welsh independence and Scottish independence as if this were the real issue.”
Leaving aside Lord Elis-Thomas’s history (was he misquoted? was he just referring to Wales?) who is likely to be right?
My own view is that more independence will be inevitable if (a) political parties can demonstrate that Scotland has a distinct national interest, and (b) existing devolved powers are handled at least as competently as they were by London before devolution.
It is up to the SNP to explain and propagandize the former, while maintaining pressure on the Scottish Executive to perform the latter. This shouldn’t be too difficult. I am optimistic about Scotland precisely because I am pessimistic about England. Short of a Liberal Democrat British government, I don’t see any real reform coming out of Westminster: no constitutional reform, no progress on Europe, no new foreign policy, and piecemeal and only moderately-successful action on public services. England will remain what it is now, a low productivity backwater of Europe, with enormous pretentions and not a lot to show for them.
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3628868.stm
news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1090592004
[This is the first of a series of posts addressing the subject of Scottish independence.]
Posted by Simon Holledge at September 21, 2004 02:19 PM
Comments
Daffy has been going on about 'post-independence' since the 1980s. I think his point is there can be no such thing as pure independence in a globally interdependent world.
That said there is plenty of evidence that the nation state as a political entity or unit is not dead despite globalisation.
Posted by: canuck at October 26, 2004 11:05 PM
Progress implies political power coming to rest where it is most effective: Edinburgh rather than London negotiating issues of importance to Scotland (e.g. fisheries) at Brussels.
There are probably a great many such areas where Scotland taking responsibility would lead to faster results. Perhaps we can see this principle working with regard to things like the proposed ban on smoking.
Posted by: Simon Holledge at October 27, 2004 01:12 AM