New SNP and their Devo-Max

Maximising devolution still leaves Scotland far short of the powers exercised by normal, independent nations

Posted by Campbell Martin on November 11, 2011. Filed under Campbell Martin,Opinion,Scotland. Posted with the tags:Independence, SNP
Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Alex Salmond. Keeping Scotland British? Photo by Ewan McIntosh

Amid all the speculation about the Independence Referendum and how many questions will be posed, a significant issue seems to have been overlooked.

Put simply, had the SNP not changed its position a few years back, Scotland would now be an independent nation.

Before the ‘modernisers’ took control of the SNP and began the process of diluting its commitment to independence, party policy clearly stated that a mandate for independence was secured when the SNP achieved either a majority of votes or a majority of seats at a Westminster or Scottish Parliament Election.

Therefore, last May’s Holyrood result would have constituted such a mandate for independence.

Under the old SNP policy, after last May’s election result the party would have immediately begun to negotiate the ‘independence settlement’ with Westminster – issues such as how much Scotland would receive for British assets funded partly from Scottish tax receipts, and how much of the UK national debt could legitimately be considered Scottish.

Once agreed, the settlement would be put to the Scottish people in a referendum.

If Scots believed the settlement was reasonable, it would be supported in the referendum. If, however, the people decided we could, and should, get a better deal, the settlement could be rejected in the referendum, and the SNP negotiators would be sent back to the table with a fresh mandate and a strengthened hand to set-out Scotland’s terms to Westminster.

Crucially, under the old SNP policy, the referendum result would not change the fact that Scotland had become an independent country as a result of the SNP winning a majority of seats at the Scottish Parliament Election.

Equally crucially, that independence mandate could only have been legitimate if the SNP had won its majority of seats on the basis of campaigning for independence.

The party could only have claimed a genuine mandate if it had fought the election by persuading Scots of the benefits and merits of independence, and by stating,

“We stand for Scottish independence – if you vote for us, you are voting for independence”.

Of course, that didn’t happen. The SNP won its majority of seats by portraying itself as all things to all people, and by advancing its changed policy of holding an ‘are you sure referendum’, irrespective of the result it achieved in an election.

The SNP no longer fights elections by attempting to persuade the people of Scotland to support independence.

Instead, the party says independence would be nice, but then argues to be allowed to form the government in a devolved Scotland within the British Union, and basically says to the electorate: “Independence? Don’t worry about that. If you don’t support it, you can vote against it in a referendum.”

Of course, if independence is rejected in a referendum, the position of the SNP leadership is unaltered: they still keep their backsides on the backseats of ministerial motors in Edinburgh.

Even now, with a majority of seats in the Scottish Parliament – and having recorded its best-ever election result – ‘New SNP’ can’t bring itself to put the issue of independence before the people of Scotland in a ‘Yes or No’ referendum.

The old SNP would have been campaigning every hour of every day to persuade the Scottish people of the case for an independent Scotland, and of how only independence will deliver all the powers we need to tackle the problems affecting our country. ‘New SNP’, though, isn’t that committed to the idea, and so we are to have a multi-option referendum.

Notwithstanding the confusion over what, exactly, we will be asked in the referendum, there is the issue of the SNP apparently supporting the independence option but also not actually against ‘Devo-Max’.

Maximising devolution still leaves Scotland far short of the powers exercised by normal, independent nations. ‘Devo-Max’ or ‘fiscal autonomy’ still sees Westminster as the sovereign power.

Maximum devolution of financial powers would still mean young Scots in the armed services could be sent to kill or be killed in any imperialist war the British Government supports, and would retain in London responsibility for immigration, trade, defence and foreign policy.

There is also the practical issue of which result will take precedence in a two or even three question referendum: if a small majority supports independence, and a larger majority supports devolution-max in a subsequent question, do we get independence?

Instead of arguing the clear-cut case for independence, the SNP modernisers or gradualists appear to be muddying the waters, hoping the end result will advance their political careers, even if that is at the expense of securing the best future for Scotland in the shortest possible time.