The debate on constitutional change has been widely characterised
as not living up to its historical importance. While parts of the debate have
resembled, as Sir Tom Farmer put it, “a playground fight”, there are positive
aspects of the debate that deserve credit. We are sometimes too quick in
Scotland to condemn ourselves.
Of course there are negatives. The recent TV debate was a
playground fight and the Pavlovian response of some supporters on Twitter and
in the comment sections of newspapers are shocking. Why some people think they will win over the
undecided through slogans and abuse is beyond my understanding.
And yes, anyone who has to deal with the Scottish Government
understands that independence is the primary focus. It’s not that their eye is
off the ball - that is the ball!
The formal ‘Yes’ and ‘Better Together’ campaigns come in for
a lot of stick; largely unfairly in my view. It’s their job to promote their
case and rebut the other side - an essential base line for the debate. No one
is seriously expecting objective analysis, so accept their role and treat the
outputs accordingly.
My main point is, that these negatives are masking some very
positive debate and discussion in Scotland that probably wouldn’t have happened
without the Referendum. I have done workshops and events across Scotland on the
constitutional issue. It is certainly the case that these events have been
dominated by questions about the consequences of independence. Anyone in the ‘Yes’
camp, who thinks that these matters can wait until the first election after
independence, is living in cloud cuckoo land. Trade union members are rightly
used to evaluating an offer and they will treat the White Paper and greater
devolution proposals accordingly.
However, the discussion doesn’t stop, or even start at
independence or devolution. There is a real appetite to talk about the sort of
Scotland they want to live in. It is not true that the debate is simply limited
to shouting slogans.
My own union UNISON has promoted its ‘Fairer Scotland’
paper, as has the STUC with the ‘Just Scotland’ initiative. Civil society
organisations like SCDI, SCVO and many others have done the same. Some
commentators argue that Civil Scotland has gone missing or is somehow
irrelevant to a wider debate that the Internet has facilitated. Again, this is
a gross simplification. This debate is different to the devolution campaigns
because there is not a common position. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t a
debate and Civil Scotland is playing its role in facilitating it. Just because these
organisations don’t buy into a particular commentator’s view of the world,
doesn’t mean that they are irrelevant.
Of course social media is facilitating a wider debate, but
it isn’t totally replacing traditional dialogue. If you look carefully at
Twitter and blogs in the morning, they rely heavily on traditional media and
good quality journalism. Twitter is great for a quick reaction and the
blogosphere develops the analysis, but our media institutions are still the
bedrock of debate.
Then we have the heavyweight analysis provided by books. The
Referendum has sparked a range of publications that provide high quality
analysis and ideas. Just because the contributors have a preference for one
side or the other; doesn’t devalue the analysis or the ideas for anyone other
than the blinkered. Books like ‘Scotland’s Future’, edited by Andrew Goudie,
and ‘Scotland’s Choices’ by McLean and Gallagher are good examples of the genre.
Equally, I often turn to the late Stephen Maxwell’s ‘Arguments for
Independence’ because, while committed to independence, he understood the need
to examine and explain what it might mean in some detail. The Economic and
Social Research Council has also funded excellent academic analysis.
For those on the left, the referendum has forced us to think
beyond the next piece of legislation or manifesto. ‘Time to Choose: Scotland’s
Road to Socialism’, edited by Gregor Gall, was a good starting point and the Reid
Foundation’s ‘Common Weal’, offers the prospect of new and different
approaches.
The Red Paper Collective has recently brought together the
mainstream left in their publication ‘Class, Nation and Socialism: The Red
Paper on Scotland 2014’. This
is a book about the politics of social and economic change rather than simply constitutional
change. There is plenty of vision and ideas, but laced with a pragmatic view of
the possible, not the improbable. It also seeks to do what is often missing in
the current national dialogue – putting the debate in a UK context. There are
also those outwith Scotland who recognise the strength of our debate, as Owen
Jones makes clear in his introduction to this book.
Some argue that all of this discussion is limited to the
chattering classes. Well, to a degree that will always be the case, but I would
argue the debate has gone further. Many union members and activists don’t fall
into that category and yet they have been willing and able to contribute to the
debate. Let’s also not forget the broader understanding it can generate. As one
activist said to me recently, “Thanks Dave, I never thought I would care, let
alone understand, the difference between monetary and fiscal policy!”
Another, admittedly unscientific example, was a night out
with some non-political pals. Without any prompting from me, they had a
discussion about constitutional issues, including the currency, borders and the
EU. I also noticed that three of the tables near me had at least short
discussions on similar issues. Now, it may just be the pubs I drink in, but I
think there is at least the start of a debate about the future of Scotland
outwith the chatterati.
No comments:
Post a Comment