What should the society we want to build after the referendum look like? By Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland Margaret Curran.
.
Margaret Curran MP (Labour, Glasgow East) is the Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland
The day after Scotland goes to the polls to decide whether to go it alone or to remain a part of the United Kingdom, politicians of all parties will sit down, take stock and decide where to go next. Reflecting on how we want that day to look and the discussions we’d like to be having – regardless of the outcome – can help us establish the debate we should be having now and the questions we should be asking.
For me, thinking about this illuminates two of the central questions we are grappling with in this debate now. Firstly, what choice should face the Scottish people and secondly, what should the society we want to build after the referendum look like?
On the first question, until recently, I thought we knew the answer. Those of us in the Labour Party who fought for and have defended devolution since the very start of our political lives wanted a strong Scottish Parliament inside a modern United Kingdom.
Those in the SNP wanted independence, and to separate Scotland from the rest of the UK. That was, after all, their founding purpose and the cause around which their members and supporters rallied. Now, only weeks into the referendum campaign, it looks like we’re dealing with something wholly different.
Instead of a clear choice between in or out of the UK, the SNP are moving the goalposts. ‘Independence’ for them now means keeping the currency, keeping the Queen, keeping the flag, staying British, asking a foreign country to regulate our banks, set our interest rates.
Do the SNP see England as a foreign country already? 2 Jul 2012
As if there wasn’t enough confusion already, we’re now told that Alex Salmond wants a third option on the ballot paper – “devo-max”, a brand without any details.
The second issue we should reflect on – the kind of society we want to build in Scotland – should be the one we keep our minds focussed on as we progress through this campaign. We’re not having a debate about the future of our nation for the sake of it, we’re having a debate because at stake are two competing futures for Scotland’s existence.
For me and my colleagues in the Labour Party, our belief in the United Kingdom isn’t borne out of nostalgia. I know that Scotland has always needed a strong voice in the UK. That’s why the Labour Party backed devolution and legislated for it days after coming into office in 1997. That’s why we introduced devolution. And that’s why we have carried on developing devolution and passed more powers and responsibility to the Scottish parliament, to get the balance right across the UK as a whole.
We have always had a vision for a strong, prosperous Scotland sitting inside a United Kingdom where we pool sovereignty with three other nations to protect our shared interests. It is a state of affairs that has become more, not less, relevant in an interconnected and interdependent world.
For the SNP however, the kind of society they want to build is unclear. As my recent Parliamentary Questions revealed, SNP ministers in Edinburgh haven’t had a single conversation with their counterparts in London about the consequences of independence. On issues as important to people as the economy, their jobs, their benefits or the nation’s security, not a single letter or email has passed between Scottish and UK ministers.
For a party that has waited generations to be in a position to deliver on its founding principle, the only conclusion I can draw from this is that the SNP no longer believe they can convince the Scottish people of independence. They have simply given up.
The first minister says it’s the only thing he’s campaigning for, but from his desperation for a third option, however woolly, to his lack of interest in opening up a discussion with the UK government on what happens the day after independence, I can only conclude he’s bottled it.
58 Responses to “Salmond must stop moving the goalposts on Scottish independence referendum”
Robert CP
Salmond must stop moving the goalposts on Scottish independence referendum: http://t.co/YSQtFSnk by shadow Scot sec @Margaret_Curran
Anonymous
Not another Labour supporter who doesn’t understand the difference between Fiscal and Monetary policy!
If I understand it the SNP advocate a policy for transition period upon a YES vote whereby the joint currency of both sucessor states of the current UK will be used by both states for stability in the markets.
Of course, Scotland own 8.4% of the Bank of England (eg gold, foreign reserves etc) and is jointly responsible for the stability of Sterling. A currency union between the sovereign states of Scotland and the new state containing England, Wales and Northern Ireland as well as other self governing entities of Isle of Man, Gibralter and the Balliwicks of Guernsey and Jersey is beneficial for all. A British Isles central bank whereby all members have responsbility and rules for deficits, debts etc would be required.
The YES campaign is off course a cross party and society vehicle with the sole aim of gaining independence.
The new Government of an independent Scotland will be chosen by the people after independence and the people of Scotland at that time will vote for the policies of the relevent parties at that time.
I will be voting for a party which proposes a new Scottish currency being floated, for example, the Merk.
Please inform what the policy of Labour is after a YES vote on currency for an independent Scotland?
Newsbot9
RE: The SNP want freedom AND representation without payment, sure.
An independent Scotland would have NO claim to th… http://t.co/04TTaKw9
Anonymous
True, given the very strong right-wing participation in the SNP.
Anonymous
Unholy Alliance? So, what do you call your pact then, “sold my soul seven times over”?