During last night's independence debate between Alastair Darling and Alex Salmond, an oft repeated criticism was levelled at the Unionist campaign - that while they were good at picking holes in the SNP's plans, they had no positive reasons for staying together. This is true. Better Together's positive messaging hasn't really advanced beyond "we're better off together", which doesn't really progress anything.
I firmly believe that there is a positive case to be made for the Union. However, in the current political climate in Scotland, it may do more harm than good to the Unionist cause.
I have a Scottish name, Scottish heritage and Scottish grandparents. My interest in Scotland's future is not purely as an English observer. Nevertheless, the Englishman inside me will be sad if Scotland leaves. The Union has been a tremendous success. A great many British successes belong to Scots and to turn away from that shared history (or, worse, to bicker over who deserves credit) would be a great shame. Yet our history is not the source of the Union's value. Rather, it is the process of partnership that we should value. We are richer because we are together. Not only materially but also culturally. We share in each other's successes and support each other when things get difficult. Bad times are more bearable and good times enhanced because we experience them together. We are generous together but mean and parochial when driven apart. Separated, we bicker over trivial things, retreat to our national stereotypes and generally become a worse version of ourselves. Together, we are more open, more varied, more tolerant and enjoy a more colourful national life. Independence for Scotland would end this partnership and turn us into adversaries, obsessed with scoring petty victories at the expense of both our peoples.
Darling could make this argument, yet to do so would include an assumption with little popularity in Scotland - that the English have brought anything to the party at all. Understandably, the Better Together campaign have positioned themselves firmly on the side of Scotland and (implicitly) in at least moderate opposition to England. To suggest that Scotland has anything to thank England for is to suggest Scottish weakness and vulnerability, to lack faith in the abilities of Scots and to pour water on the flames of Scottish pride.
As a result, the question being debated is not how the two groups can be the best versions of themselves, but how Scotland can extract the best deal for itself. The offer of further devolution exacerbates this. Vote for independence and you get to keep everything Scotland has but risk losing it all if things don't go to plan. Vote for the Union and you might be able to get more from the English than you get now. England seems a cow to be milked - an adversary rather than a partner.
Who cares about the debate as long as the vote goes the right way? Two things: if Salmond wins, Scotland will not float off into the North Atlantic. We will still need to negotiate a settlement and find a way to live together. Given the tenor of the debate, attitudes may harden on all sides. British politicians, now beholden to an English electorate, will be no friends of the Scottish people. They may find no votes in reasonableness, but a great many in hard line venality. Similarly, Salmond's "mandate" will give him the confidence to hector, bully and make demands (if he wasn't given to that already). Secondly, even if the Union prevails, the partnership may already be ruined. Watching last night's debate (particularly the comments from the audience), I was struck by the thought that if Scots hate the English so much, maybe they are better off out. A No vote will still leave a bitter taste if it seems Scotland has concluded that English pockets are more easily picked from within the Union. The partnership that has proved so successful will be severely damaged and we will all be worse off.
No comments:
Post a Comment