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”
Anonymous
You’re in complete denial.
If Scotland chooses to become independent, then it’s INDEPENDENT. There are things which don’t continue. This includes any automatic form of currency union or diplomatic access via embassies.
That you can’t even get these basics right spells very deep trouble for Scotland if your isolationist campaign wins.
An independent Scotland would have to PAY for a Stirling Zone. Probably several billion a year.
rUK? No, UK. Your complete inability to even use the correct NAME is downright silly. It’s a petty form of spitting hared which shows very well your agenda. Far right, all the way.
Anonymous
Oh dear, any currency union would be negotiated during an independence settlement between the two sucessor states of the current UK.
The UK is a treaty state formed by an international treaty of union under international law between Scotland and England to form the state of Great Britain.
When Scotland dissolves the treaty of union the state known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern ireland will cease to exist.
As previously stated if the state containing England, Wales and Northern Ireland refused a currency union with Scotland then Scotland would have no choice to remove its 8.4% assets from the Bank of England (more correctly known as the joint UK central bank) to a Scottish central bank .
This movement of assets along with a doubling of the rUK balance of payments due to the removal of Scotlands oil and gas would not be a sensible choice for the stability of sterling but that is their choice.
As to “diplomatic access via embassies” you again show your lack of knowledge on the issue.
Scotland owns 8.4% of all overseas embassies of the current UK state. During negotiation of the independence settlement these assets would be divided between the two sucessor states of the current UK state.
If the rUK does not want to negotiate to share embassy functions which is common between countries within a social union (Norway, Sweden, Denmark) then so be it.
You may not realise but since the Maastrict treaty of 1992 then any EU citizen can use any EU embassy anyway so Scots have the legal right to continue to use any EU embassy they want.
Anonymous
Nope, it will not. Any formal name change will be a matter for the UK, not Scotland. While I don’t doubt it WILL change, there is no formal requirement for it to do so.
And no, Scotland will be apportioned it’s percentage. What it then chooses to do has to be negotiated. As separate countries, the balance of trade would of course change anyway, you’re arguing for a less-than-dev-max position on the economy!
Um, yea, but there is a difference between proactive and passive service from embassies. Moreover, no, Scotland would retain ZERO special access, they don’t follow the succeeding state.
Again, you’re basing your basic arguments on a chimera, the damage you’re trying to do to Scotland is immense given the fantasies you’re spinning on basic issues.
Anonymous
So your positive case for continuation of the union is Scotland would be funding our own embassy network as an independent country? So in other words like every other independent country! LOL
You obviously forget that as part of the union Scotland contributes our share of the upkeep of UK embassies so instead this would fund our own network. In addition Scotland currently owns 8.4% of this embassy portfolio.
There will be two successor states to the UK. If you think there is no issue with the state containing England, Wales and Northern Ireland continuing to use the name “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland” then you are wrong.
You only need to look at the dispute over the FYOR of Macedonia.
Perhaps you could call the state containing England, Wales and Northern Ireland just FUK (Former United Kingdom)?
Great Britain is the geographical name for the largest island in the British isles so “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland” is not geographically correct.
In addition to be “United” the Kingdom of England requires to be United withnother Kingdom. Wales and Northern Ireland are not Kingdoms but the Kingdom of Scotland is.
A good name for your new state would be “Kingdom of Britain and Northern Ireland”.
Anonymous
No, that’s a natural consequence of your movement which you’ve denied is the case (as usual). Scotland would have a claim to a share of overall assets, which would NOT include the embassies in specific for MANY reasons…you’re showing a COMPLETE lack of knowledge of international law.
Again, you’re trying to impose the will of a succeeding state onto the state it succeeds from, which is absolute nonsense. Trying to use the FYOR of Macedonia is NONSENSE, since the objection to the name of Macedonia comes not from one of the parties involved in the succession but from an external party, Greece.
Keep on insisting that everyone else needs to jump to your little tune. Thanks for showing what a disaster reality would be, if you make it bite you in the backside.