_______________________________________
JOYCE MCMILLAN for The Scotsman, 18.1.13.
_______________________________________
TUESDAY AFTERNOON, and at Westminster, the House of Commons is grinding its way through its debate on Section 30, the statutory instrument transferring to the Scottish Parliament the power to organise and hold next year’s referendum on Scottish independence. There is a goodish speech from the Secretary of State Michael Moore, respectful and civic in tone, setting out the case for the agreement reached between the UK and Scottish governments; there are a couple of decent responses from SNP MP’s Angus Robertson and Angus MacNeil. And for Scottish Labour, Mark Lazarowicz of Edinburgh North and Leith stands out as an exceptional voice of intelligence and reason, pointing out the relatively final nature of a “yes” vote in 2014, and the need to avoid introducing ethnic definitions of Scottishness in deciding who will have a referendum vote.
Beyond that, though – well, it would be kind, if not sensible, to draw a veil over much of what was said, on the “no” side of the debate. In the first place, there was widespread indignation at the idea that this decision should be left to people living in Scotland; clearly, many MP’s at Westminster have been entirely absent, in mind and spirit, from the crucial debate between ethnic and civic definitions of citizenship that has been raging across Europe since the fall of the Berlin Wall.
Then secondly, there is the main burden of the unionist refrain, which boils down to a repeated suggestion that whereas Westminster is clearly a proper parliament which makes wise and decent decisions, Holyrood is some kind of jumped-up assembly dominated by the “dictatorship” of Alex Salmond, and therefore cannot be trusted to make responsible use of the referendum powers transferred to it. Now I am not here to defend either the ethics or the record in government of the SNP; as parties go, I’m sure they can be as bullying, as centralising, and as intolerant of dissident voices as – well, as New Labour in its pomp, or the Tories under Margaret Thatcher.
What is downright absurd, though, is the sound of many Westminster MP’s seriously suggesting that the government at Holyrood somehow has less legitimacy than any Westminster government; that Alex Salmond has no “right” to his tiny overall majority because he won less than 50% of votes (this from a parliament where Tony Blair, in 2005, won a crushing majority of seats with barely 35% of the vote); and that in any case he obviously cannot be trusted to run a fair referendum, because he is – well – a Scottish nationalist.
Now I should pause here to say that I am not a political nationalist of any stripe, and never will be. I care for democracy and social justice, and I do not care for any creeed which seeks to divide people whose economic interests are fundamentally similar. As a child, I was proud enough to be part of the British nation that had played a key role in defeating Nazism. As a teenager, I was thrilled to be part of the new, more egalitarian Britain of the 1960’s and 70’s, and of a pop culture that was the envy of the world.
In my late thirties and early forties, travelling across Europe as part of a post-1989 human rights network, I received a memorable crash-course in the dangers of disintegrative nationalism, in Yugoslavia and elsewhere. In the 1990’s, I was delighted to make common cause with constitutional reformers across the UK, for the kind of modernised and devolved British democracy that New Labour briefly promised, and partly delivered. And even now, I am proud to be part of a British trade union movement that has tried, under decades of sustained political and cultural attack, to keep speaking up for ordinary working people, and the real economic issues they face.
What I have to ask, though, in this bleak January of 2013, is exactly what that voice of unionist Westminster now has to offer me, as a supporter of social justice, democracy and human rights. Heaven knows, the SNP offers little enough; a declared commitment to social-democratic values, combined with a dangerous ideological and intellectual vagueness about the nature of the political struggle that will have to be waged, if those values are to be advanced in our century.
Yet what I see at Westminster is not an alternative politics that avoids the pitfalls of nationalism, but an instinctive, backward-looking British nationalism that is even worse: a farrago of double standards about Westminster and Holyrood, and of reactionary nonsense about the nature of national identity in the 21st century, combined with a complete vacuum of progressive policy, and an instinctive willingness – on the part of the Labour Party – to side in this debate with what is perhaps the most privileged and reactionary government the UK has seen in a century. The truth is that the tone of their response to the independence debate has – in too many cases – been so reactionary, so negative, and so fundamentally disrespectful of the Scottish Parliament as an institution, that I now find it hard to think of voting with them, no matter what my views on the constitution.
And this, for me, is a new experience in politics – to enter a debate with a strongish view on one side of the argument, and to find myself so repelled by the tone and attitudes of those who should be my allies that I am gradually forced into the other camp. On the moribund centre-left of UK politics, it seems there simply is no dynamic vision of a future Britain, to set against the SNP’s vague but not entirely unachievable vision of a greener, fairer and more prosperous Scotland. For what the “no” camp apparently fails to understand is that for people of progressive mind – and that used to include the Labour Party – politics has to be about hope, as well as fear. They have told us, repeatedly, of what there is to fear, if Scotland votes “yes” to independence. Of what there would be to hope for, though, in a new UK for the 21st century – of that they have said almost nothing. And increasingly, I feel that that may be because there is nothing more to be said.
ENDS ENDS
Joyce McMillan is theatre critic of 
. With an RSS feed
Joyce McMillan - Online 
Your journey sums up the experience of so many of our baby-boomer generation. You are absolutely accurate to conclude that there is nothing left to be said for ‘Britishness’ except to oppose its insistent divisiveness and glorification of past and present wars. For that reason, we are impelled into the tender mercies of a dubious, unreliable Scottish nationalist cause.
I can only hope that Ian Bell is right when he points out (perhaps naively) that a vote for independence is not a vote for the repellant Alex Salmond.
So, it has come to this?
Bill Longdon
Terriffic piece Joyce sums up the dilemma for many perfectly
I was persuaded to attend the launch of Yes Scotland Glasgow on Wednesday evening. The first thing that caught my attention was the large number of people of all ages filing into the vast hotel room. Almost every one of 750 seats were taken up. There was a buzz about the place which increased dramatically after each of the speakers, who were all warmly welcomed and rapturously greeted at the end of each speech. The speakers were from a cross section of political party persuasion yet all offered a vision of a better future Scotland. It was affirmation of positivity such as Joyce McMillan has written in her column above, highlighting their desires for a fairer, more equitable Scotland, free of nuclear missiles and able to make it’s own decisions through self determination. Like Joyce I have been sorely disappointed with the negativity of those supporting the status quo but the other night I was fortunate to witness an event of positivity. People were cheered to the rafters for suggesting we might benefit from being free of the repeated unwanted political dogma imposed all too regularly through entities like Thatcherism and the current austerity coalition – persuasive arguments indeed.
I absolutely agree with every word of this. I think we are about the same age and I recognise that journey and those experiences. I feel as if I am being herded into a vote. My Matura inclination is to Devo Max. I don’t want to say yes to either of these choices but a no vote will place me in an alliance with representatives who treat their electorate like trash. Like it or not because of the electoral system at Holyrood Alec Salmond has a clearer mandate than any other leader at Westminster. However low turnouts at Holyrood elections may lead them to think people in Scotland don’t care. Insulting us is going the best way about making us care.
I have made a very similar intellectual journey, and have been disgusted at the behaviour of Labour figures in the whole debate.
I am a little puzzled, however, by the following (outwith the brackets):-
[“What I have to ask, though, in this bleak January of 2013, is exactly what that voice of unionist Westminster now has to offer me, as a supporter of social justice, democracy and human rights. Heaven knows, the SNP offers little enough; a declared commitment to social-democratic values,] combined with a dangerous ideological and intellectual vagueness about the nature of the political struggle that will have to be waged, if those values are to be advanced in our century.
Would you explain further, please?