RELUGAS

Democracy is underrated.

I worked at elections as a polling clerk or presiding officer, and it never ceased to amaze me when people, often very old and frail people, made extraordinary efforts to get to the polling station to cast their vote. I particularly recall: a girl getting excited about voting on her 18th birthday; a holder of one of the highest offices in the UK government coming in unaccompanied to vote; a mother taking 15 minutes to go through a long list of candidates and explain to her young child what each was offering; people running to get to the polling place before it closed, or getting very upset on discovering that they were not entitled to vote for some reason. Each of these people understood the value of democracy, each of them had an equal say in the democratic outcome.

And now a referendum on Scottish independence is nearly upon us. Along with many others no doubt, I find myself thinking more seriously than ever about a topic on which I previously had an opinion that was more of a hunch than a fully worked out position. I’ve always found it hard to balance a belief that independence would be good for Scotland with a broadly internationalist view of the world and a desire that relations between nations – and Scotland and England in particular – should be positive and mutually beneficial. So, why Yes?

The answer lies in the value of democracy. Churchill famously said, after a bruising experience at the hands of the voters, “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time”. As he implies, it’s a less than perfect system, and all democratic processes have anomalies and apparent unfairness built into them. There’s no optimal voting system, size of constituency, parliamentary arrangements etc, but these things have to come together in such a way that voters have confidence that the system can deliver an outcome in accordance with the choice they make.

There are circumstances in which the imperfections of any democratic system can create a democratic deficit. The pattern of voting at elections in the UK over generations has created a situation of increasing democratic deficit in Scotland. Over a sustained period, this creates a loss of faith in democracy as a means to express “the will of the people” and a vehicle for change. This loss of faith in the power to influence events has an impact on a whole lot of other dynamics, the so-called “cultural cringe” that can manifest itself in business start-up rates, film and literature, news media and sport – “we’re sh**e, and we know we are” as they sing at Hampden, or the relish with which the No campaign welcomes some statistic that appears to suggest that Scotland might face some challenge or another in the event of independence.

It seems to me that what is on offer at this referendum is a constitutional arrangement that better reflects the reality that Scotland has remained a distinct nation through 300+ years of expedient, often beneficial, political union. The reality of Scotland as a distinct nation within the UK is reflected in two ways: 1. the enduring nature of our legal, educational and religious institutions and the flowering (despite the ‘cringe’) of Scottish structures and identities in many other fields – commerce and the third sector, culture and arts, sport and recreation – and 2. the increasingly distinct political choices made in Scotland in every election. All this despite an increasingly homogenous world. As with any nation, there are many perspectives depending on geography, urbanisation, social circumstances, ethnic mix, local distinctives etc. Nevertheless, there’s no doubt in my mind that that Scotland represents a distinctive democratic unit.

So, Scotland is a distinct nation, rather than a region or county, on a very large island. The geography of Great Britain and indeed the British Isles means Scotland shares much with its neighbours. Scotland’s future is inextricably linked to that of the rest of the UK. We will remain together – the question is whether it’s better to be together in an unequal partnership or to work together as autonomous neighbours. If the ‘Scotland’s Future’ vision of independence is achieved, the social and cultural ties across the British Isles will remain as strong as ever. In fact they are likely to be strengthened if grievances – imagined, manufactured or real, all three exist – are removed. It’s not possible to “break up Britain”, since Britain is a geographical entity, but changing the nature of the United Kingdom so that Scotland has political and fiscal autonomy within the constraints of the modern global economy/EU/UK nations is a step that would increase democratic accountability and probably economic activity. A look at per capita GDP rates shows the benefits small nations can have – nations such as Luxembourg, Denmark, Norway and, yes, Ireland and Iceland have higher rates than the UK. And a referendum on giving up independence in Portugal or Greece is not likely to happen, is it? Small is beautiful.

The primary benefit of the degree of independence on offer would be democratic. The people who live in Scotland would choose their own government. That’s the normal outcome of elections for people living in democratic countries. Time and time again, Scotland has demonstrated a distinct political culture. To some extent this is reflected in the elections to the Scottish parliament, but even here the outcome seems skewed by the impact of Westminster – it sometimes appears that people make their choice in Holyrood elections to create a bulwark against the influence of the UK government. Self-determination is a given in most modern democracies but almost uniquely lacking in this nation.

Devolution has been good for Scotland but it is not self-determination. When decisions about going to war, sending our young service personnel to war zones, our response to international crises, the balance between taxes and public spending, how progressive our tax system is, the state’s responsibility for the welfare of vulnerable citizens and those who are victims of economic choices and vagaries, how we use the great natural resources of wave, wind, oil and gas, are made at Westminster, the devolved government can only ever have a very limited impact on the future of this nation. Even where it has greater powers, over health and education for example, decisions are constrained by tax and spending priorities set elsewhere. And the very existence of the Scottish parliament is entirely dependent on the political will of Westminster. (Imagine, if you will, a coalition negotiation in 2018 between, say, Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage in which Farage promised UKIP support to the Conservatives and demanded a return of some Scottish Parliament powers to Westminster as part of the deal to keep Labour, with 40 MPs from Scotland, out of government)

Independence would mean that decisions related to government spending in Scotland would be more directly related to decisions about raising revenue; involvement in international military action would be much more likely to be appropriate for a small nation and less driven by the legacy of empire; similarly, defence spending and strategy would be commensurate with the needs of a small democratic Western European nation, rather than those of a nation seeking to retain a post-imperial global influence. We would not have the obscenity of nuclear weapons on our shores, with their potential for indiscriminate killing, and we could more wisely use the money spent on their upkeep.

There are risks too. However, risks are an unavoidable part of life, and all political choices are inherently risky. What matters in relation to risk is that action is taken to reduce or counteract risk, and in this respect a government, of whatever political make-up, which is accountable to the people of Scotland is better placed than any UK government.

Specifically in relation to the economy, there are no certainties whatever the outcome of the referendum. A useful summary of some of these issues is provided by the BBC’s Robert Peston http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28159326, and it’s hard to argue against his conclusion that “Scotland, certainly in the longer term, is likely to be a relatively rich and successful economy on either road” and that other considerations should therefore take precedence in coming to a decision about how to vote.

It has been said that Scotland’s independence would weaken its voice in international arenas. Let’s consider that though: in the European Union (our most important partnership outside of Britain) in the very many instances in which our interests coincide with those of the rest of the UK then the combined influence of the UK and Scotland will carry at least as much weight as the UK’s does now, while in the few instances – in relation to fishing, for example – where our interests may diverge from the UK’s, then we would undoubtedly have more influence than we currently do. Whatever, the other nations of the EU and NATO, clearly have a very strong interest in the stability and security of Scotland – not necessarily because of its 5+million EU citizens, but because of our location in the North Atlantic and our border with England.

Returning to my previous reference to Nordic countries, they provide much inspiration for looking at a better future for the British Isles. Clearly Scotland isn’t Norway, and there are many aspects of Nordic society that we cannot or would not want to replicate. However, three things we can learn are:

• – it’s possible to have healthy co-operative relationships with neighbouring countries within a distinct geographical area without sharing a national government
• – a range of different relationships with the EU and NATO, and a range of alternative currency arrangements, do not reduce co-operation or lead to economic isolation or hardship
• – it’s perfectly possible to make economic and social choices that are not driven by neoliberal principles and to have a fairer, more prosperous society as a result (see http://www.allofusfirst.org for example)

Of course, no nation is entirely independent, and interdependence is an essential feature of our globalised world. This is true in fields as varied as climate change, international relations, medical advances and banking risks. Thus, the bank bailouts of the late 2000s were international arrangements related to the location of the banks’ dealings, not to where they were headquartered.

Whether in the serious business of commemorating the start of the Great War or in the more frivolous matter of following the World Cup, the Olympic or Commonwealth Games or the Ryder Cup, national identity matters but isn’t fixed to borders. The concept of internationalism relies on the existence of nations and democratic choices require defined national entities. However, in a globalised world borders are increasingly irrelevant as easy travel and instant online connections make international communication a routine part of everyday life. In a globalised, connected world national entities are not the same as borders. Around Europe people trade freely across borders in millions of transactions each day, in Euros, Sterling, Kroner, Zloty, Koruna.

The reality is that what is being proposed in this referendum is a reconfiguration of the relationship between two neighbouring nations to better reflect democratic realities. While federalism is an option favoured by many, there is no prospect of a federal arrangement being proposed across the UK (even for the Liberal Democrats, it’s a policy as expendable as their commitment to proportional representation, while both Labour and the Conservatives are opposed to such an arrangement). Another popular option, ‘devo-max’, was firmly rejected by those parties. The ‘Scotland’s Future’ proposals, on the other hand, contain elements of federalism and clearly recognise the limitations of independence in the modern world. In fact it could be argued that the independence on offer is closer to either federalism or devo-max than the current devolution arrangements, even after new powers come into force in the next few years.

Much of the argument presented by those urging a No vote appears to accept dependence, accept that we can’t address the shortcomings in society, believe that all risk should be avoided, believe that we can only be a family of nations if we share a single government. The argument is made that supporting an independent Scotland is symptomatic of “narrow nationalism”, yet Better Together makes the case that we are somehow separated from family and friends who live in, say, Guernsey, Ireland, Denmark or Australia. That’s not how I see my own family or this family of nations.

To say Yes is an optimistic, responsible, mature, progressive choice. The outcome of a Yes vote will be that the people who live here will have to take responsibility for our future, not just on 18 September but for the long term, and live with the consequences of our own decisions. I believe it will lead to a more equal society, to greater urgency in addressing climate change, to greater opportunities for businesses that focus on the needs of the Scottish economy, to a more secure future for those who have to depend on the state for their welfare, to fewer harmful military interventions. But if none of these things happen, that will be because of the choices we make.

Because a Yes vote is the better democratic choice for Scotland