In Favour of Independence
I am writing this
the day before the First
Minister sets out to the
Scottish Parliament details of
the Government’s consultation on
its legislation for the
independence referendum.
Details will be clearer then,
and I am sure will be set out in
a future Flag in the Wind.
However, what is
clear is that this consultation
sets out the Government’s
determination to set out its
mandate to take forward the
referendum process, and its
confidence in our national
parliament to legislate for
such.
In advance of
that statement though, Alex
Salmond spoke in the Hugo Young
Memorial Lecture, held annually
to remember the journalist that
it is named for. His statement
was as clear a vision as to what
the relationship between those
countries that occupy these
islands in the event of
Scotland’s independence as
anyone is ever likely to make.
For that reason, the remainder
of my offering for this edition
of the Flag is the text of that
important lecture:
It is a privilege
to give a lecture in honour of
Hugo Young. At Hugo’s memorial
service, Chris, now Lord, Patten
said “the quality of what Hugo
wrote, and the standards he set
for himself and others, brought
distinction to a profession too
often demeaned by tawdry
unreason."
One of the
reasons for Hugo’s excellence
became evident five years after
his death, when The Hugo Young
Papers were first published.
They revealed the sheer
diligence and accuracy of his
working methods over the course
of his career.
As any
self-respecting politician would
do, the first thing I did when I
saw a copy of the papers was to
look up my own name in the
index. In more than 800 pages it
only features once! But the
context in which it appears is
fascinating, and now seems very
prescient. It is during a
discussion with Donald Dewar in
May 1996, in which Hugo reports
Donald as saying “People should
not underestimate how fragile
the Union now is in Scotland. He
was surprisingly emphatic about
that, when I pushed him to
correct his sepulchral language.
The SNP regularly got 25% in the
polls. That was about their
standard support across the
country. But it could grow.”
Donald went on to
predict that Labour would do
well in 1997, but suggested that
I was waiting for the 2001
election, when there could well
be a significant increase in SNP
support.
Well, although
that statement was partly wrong
about timings, support for the
SNP has indeed advanced, both in
2007 and 2011.
My view is that
the election result in 2011, in
particular, reflected a
recognition of the achievements
of the first SNP administration;
a vote of confidence in its
optimistic view of Scotland’s
potential; and a desire among
people in Scotland for their
Parliament to have significantly
greater powers than at present.
That desire for
greater powers is, of course, a
key part of the context to this
lecture. The future of Scotland
is for Scotland alone to
determine, but I recognise that
it is of great interest – and
potentially concern - to all of
you. I therefore welcome the
opportunity to speak about it
here in London.
I count myself as
a staunch Anglophile. It was my
Labour predecessor, bafflingly,
who seemed to spend an entire
World Cup supporting teams
playing against England. I am
sure Trinidad and Tobago
welcomed his support!
The views of
people here have understandably
not played much of a part so far
in the debate on Scotland’s
future. I am reminded of
Chesterton’s reference to “the
people of England who never have
spoken yet”. Of course the
people of Scotland haven’t
spoken yet, at least not
conclusively!
England does not
have any veto in the debate on
independence, and I suspect that
the vast bulk of the people of
England freely recognise
Scotland’s right to determine
its own future. This week’s
research from the Institute for
Public Policy Research certainly
suggests that people in England
are waking up to the
unsustainability of current
constitutional arrangements.
They are not sustainable because
they are not fair. Not fair to
Scotland, and not fair to
England. Most importantly, these
relationships will be more
positive and stronger when our
nations are clear and equal
partners.
Given the events
of the last two weeks, I want to
start this evening by
reaffirming the Scottish
Parliament’s right to decide the
terms of a referendum on
Scotland’s constitutional
future. But I also want to move
beyond that question, to say
more about why I believe that
independence is the most natural
state of affairs for a nation
like Scotland. And I will close
by making it clear that the
social union which binds the
people of these islands will
endure long after the political
union has been ended. My
contention is that independence
is good for Scotland, but also
that it is good for England.
First, though, I
want to reflect on the
astonishing, and increasing,
pace of change in Scotland.
Devolution took a century to be
delivered. The last decade
embedded the Scottish Parliament
as the focal point of public
life and Scottish democracy. We
now have a Scotland Bill
changing by the day and
overtaken by events before it
even reaches the statute book.
The momentum and direction of
the people of Scotland is
unmistakable.
It is therefore
right that in 2014, people in
Scotland should have the
opportunity to vote on whether
to become independent.
During the 2011
Holyrood election campaign I
made two key commitments in
relation to the constitution. I
promised that in the first half
of any new SNP administration,
we would work with the UK
Government to strengthen the
Scotland Bill to give it
economic teeth and powers.
My second
commitment was that we would
legislate for a referendum
having made constructive
proposals, and hopefully secured
additional powers, during the
Scotland Bill process, we would
then stage a referendum on
independence in the second half
of the Scottish Parliament’s
five year term.
These commitments
were endorsed overwhelmingly by
the Scottish people, and I
consider them binding.
The argument
currently being adopted by some
people –people who have always
opposed a referendum full stop
- that because independence is
such an important issue, a
referendum should be rushed,
simply does not stand up to
scrutiny. It is precisely
because independence is
important that we intend all
stages of the process leading up
to a referendum - from the
consultation on its enabling
legislation to the referendum
campaign itself - to take place
over a timescale which allows
the Scottish people to reach an
informed decision.
The further
argument that Scotland’s economy
is being damaged by a supposed
delay does not resonate with
voters in Scotland who in the
last year have seen Amazon,
Michelin, Dell, Gamesa, and
Aveloq, among others, announce
major investments.
As the Financial
Times said two weeks ago
Westminster’s “pretext for
accelerating the poll – that
uncertainty is damaging the
economy – looks disingenuous at
best. As threats go, the risks
posed by separatism are as a
fleabite compared with the
all-devouring Eurozone crisis.”
This has been
endorsed by the great arbiter of
accuracy in current UK politics
- the Channel 4 fact check -
which pointed out that
international inward investment
is now more successful in
Scotland than any other parts of
these islands, including London.
In addition to
dictating on timescales, the UK
Government also appears to want
to close off discussion about
other key elements of the
referendum. As someone who
strongly believes that
independence would be preferable
to enhanced devolution, I
believe that the argument for
independence could and would be
won on a yes/no basis.
However I
recognise that there is a
significant strand of opinion in
the country which might want to
consider an alternative for
Scotland which lies between the
status quo and outright
independence.
To consider an
additional referendum question
which takes account of popular
opinion is simply being
democratic. The fact that such
an option might be popular isn’t
a good reason for denying people
the right to choose it.
The Scottish
Government’s consultation paper
on a referendum, which will be
published tomorrow, will
encourage a wide debate on this
issue - involving all of
Scotland’s political parties,
but crucially also civic
Scotland, that is the
organisations and communities
which make up the fabric of the
community of the realm of
Scotland.
The paper will
also make clear that we intend
the referendum to be overseen,
impartially and independently,
in a way which leaves no
possible room for doubt about
the integrity of the result.
But our starting
point in all of this is that the
Scottish Parliament ultimately
has the mandate to determine the
referendum process. Westminster
legislation which dictates
rather than enables would not
just be unacceptable to the
Scottish government. It would be
contrary to the rights of the
people of Scotland.
The Scottish
National Party will campaign
confidently for independence not
just as an end in itself, but as
the means by which the Scottish
economy can grow more strongly
and sustainably; by which
Scotland can take its rightful
place as a responsible member of
the world community; and by
which the Scottish people can
best fulfil their potential and
realise their aspirations.
For much of the
postwar period, people in
Scotland largely embraced the
great social reforms which were
implemented by Clement Atlee’s
government and sustained through
much of the 1950s, 60s and 70s.
National insurance, housing for
all and the establishment of a
national health service
commanded a consensus which
spanned political boundaries and
national borders.
There is a view
that some of these postwar
institutions – perhaps the NHS
above all - fostered a sense of
cohesion and common purpose
among the people of these
islands. Professor Tom Devine,
for example, has expressed the
view that in the postwar period
the welfare state became “the
real anchor of the union state”.
I am not sure
that the welfare state was, in
truth, ever a direct consequence
of the union. As the Nordic
countries show very clearly,
common aims in social policy do
not require a common state. But
it probably is the case that
Scotland subscribed particularly
strongly to the values of the
post-war consensus.
There is a
revealing account in The Hugo
Young Papers of a discussion
with John Smith in which Smith
“volunteered with pride that
Scotland had always been
consensual… that there was this
sense of community unriven by so
much class segregation, without
seeming to see that this made
his English task possibly
harder.”
I don’t want to
press this argument too far. The
disparities in life expectancy
between different parts of
Scotland, for example, are just
one piece of evidence
demonstrating that Scotland
still needs to do far more to
reduce inequality.
But John Smith’s
basic point, that
egalitarianism, is a strong
driving force in public life in
Scotland, is undoubtedly true.
It is why we
recognise that some forms of
social protection work very
well, and that the constant urge
to ‘reform’ can be, in the wrong
hands, code for attack.
It is why
policies which exacerbate
inequality and remove basic
safety nets are always likely to
encounter fierce opposition in
Scotland.
And it is why
anyone who accepted the union
partly because of the
compassionate values and
inclusive vision of the post-war
welfare state, may now be less
keen on being part of a union
whose government is in many
respects eroding those values
and destroying that vision.
When I was in
Liverpool last year for an
appearance on “Question Time”, I
got an extraordinary, warm
response from the studio.
Perhaps the strongest support I
got was when I made a plea to
the audience not to let the
three biggest Westminster
parties destroy England’s
National Health Service – just
one of many issues where the
Westminster class are out of
touch with the people of
England.
And looking at
the problems of health reform
now, I thank the heavens that
Westminster’s writ no longer
runs in Scotland on health
issues. But the looming issues
of welfare reform exemplify why
Scotland needs the powers to
make our own policies to meet
our own needs and values.
The Scottish
Government’s policies attempt to
protect many values which would
be dear to any post-war social
democrat in these isles. For
example, we have promoted what
we call a living wage - £7.20 an
hour.
And we have made
a conscious decision to provide
certain core universal services,
rights or benefits, some of
which are no longer prioritised
by political leaders elsewhere –
such as free university tuition,
free prescriptions, free
personal care for the elderly
and a guarantee of no compulsory
redundancies across the public
sector
We do this
because we believe that such
services benefit the common
weal. They provide a sense of
security, well-being and equity
within communities. Such a sense
of security is essential to a
sense of confidence – and as we
have seen over the last three
years, confidence is essential
to economic growth.
And the social
wage also sets out our offer for
people who want to live in
Scotland, regardless of their
background. We will provide a
secure, stable and inclusive
society. And by doing so we will
encourage their talent and
ambition. Scotland will be a
place where people want to
visit, invest, work and live.
Achieving this
has required some difficult
decisions – for example major
departmental efficiency savings
– far more rigorous than those
in Whitehall - and an effective
freeze in public sector pay. But
those are easier to implement if
your policies clearly have
fairness at their heart.
The social wage
exemplifies one reason why
people in Scotland want
additional powers for their
Parliament – the fact that they
largely like what we have done
with the powers that we already
have.
An obvious
example would be Scotland’s
introduction of the smoking ban.
The smoking ban was suggested by
an SNP MSP, initially resisted
by the Labour/Liberal
administration, then adopted.
It didn’t take a
generation, a decade or even a
year for the people to see they
had made the right decision – it
took a month or two. Everyone
abided by the new law, people
adapted, and now nobody would
choose to go back.
There are other
examples of how even the
constrained ability of Scotland
to make independent decisions
has had a beneficial effect on
wider policy debates. We are
currently championing minimum
pricing for alcohol, a policy
which may be copied elsewhere.
And we have established the
Scottish Futures Trust, as a way
of promoting long-term
infrastructure investment
without resorting to the
wastefulness of PFI. The UK
Government’s current call for
evidence on infrastructure
investment options suggests that
it is interested in aspects of
the Scottish Future Trust’s
approach.
This innovation
benefits Scotland – which can
respond to specific Scottish
problems and circumstances. But
it also benefits the rest of the
UK, and potentially the wider
world, by providing a precedent
for policies which other
countries can then either adopt
or not.
An independent
Scotland could be a beacon for
progressive opinion south of the
border and further afield –
addressing policy challenges in
ways which reflect the universal
values of fairness – and are
capable of being considered,
adapted and implemented
according to the specific
circumstances and wishes within
the other jurisdictions of these
islands and beyond.
That, I believe,
is a far more positive and
practical Scottish contribution
to progressive policy than
sending a tribute of Labour MPs
to Westminster to have the
occasional turn at the
Westminster tiller –
particularly in the
circumstances of the Labour
opposition’s policy increasingly
converging with that of the
coalition on the key issues of
the economy and public
spending.
In passing, can I
reflect that Labour might be
doing better with English
opinion if they were to consider
offering an alternative rather
than a substitute for current
policies.
The problem with
Scotland’s current
constitutional settlement is
that we cannot innovate as much
as we would like. Policy choices
made in Westminster, by parties
whose democratic mandate in
Scotland is negligible, are
constraining the policy choices
made in Scotland, for which
there is an unequivocal mandate.
It is worth
remembering that in 1999
comparatively few additional
powers were granted to the
parliament in Scotland that had
not previously been devolved to
the Secretary of State for
Scotland.
The shift from
administrative to legislative
devolution was, of course,
momentous in itself. But it
still left Scotland with fewer
powers than the German Lander,
most American states, parts of
Spain such as the Basque Country
or Catalonia, or, within these
islands, the Isle of Man.
The economy is
currently where this is felt
most deeply. In Scotland, my
party’s manifesto for last
year’s election made it clear
that the economy would be a top
priority for us. We are still
deeply aware, as are many places
in England and Wales, of the
lasting damage done by the mass
unemployment of the 1980s, which
left a legacy of alienation,
ill-health and hopelessness
which endured long after
economic recovery had taken
hold.
For that reason,
the Scottish Government has
given a guarantee to all 16-19
year olds of a training
opportunity or education place
for those not in a job.
We are also doing
everything we can to safeguard
capital investment in Scotland,
while the UK Government is
slashing public investment in
real terms by about a third
between 2010-11 and 2014-15.
This “Plan MacB”,
as I call it, is endorsed by our
Council of Economic Advisers.
The Scottish Government knows
that it does not have a monopoly
of wisdom on economic policy, so
we have appointed a council of
advisers including Professor
Joseph Stiglitz, Professor
Frances Ruane and Professor Sir
James Mirrleas to advise on our
economic strategy.
But however
careful we are at directing
spending towards areas which
protect welfare and promote
economic growth, we cannot
escape the consequences of the
UK Government’s macro-economic
policies.
Nobody denies
that the UK Government’s budget
deficit needs to be tackled.
However the sheer scale of the
austerity measures decided upon
by the UK Government is proving
counter-productive -
particularly in the cuts to
capital spending.
It doesn’t
require a Nobel laureate in
economics to understand that it
is difficult to sustain an
economic recovery on export-led
growth when your major export
market is enduring significant
problems.
If there is a
double dip recession, and that
is at best a risk it will not
only be the fault of the
Eurozone – it will be something
which Westminster has helped to
manufacture by not adjusting
policy quick enough to meet
changing circumstances.
But we still see
regular assertions that Scotland
would be weaker or more
impoverished if it were
independent. Many of these
statements are straightforward
scare stories. For example,
sources close to the Chancellor
of the Exchequer warned that an
independent Scotland would not
be allowed to use the pound.
Of course the
interesting thing about these
suggestions is not just that
they are economically illiterate
– since sterling is a fully
tradeable currency, the UK
Government has absolutely no
power to stop an independent
Scotland from using it. But more
importantly, why would any
sensible person wish to stop
England and Scotland sharing a
currency.
Sunday’s Scottish
Daily Mail reported William
Hague as threatening that if
Scotland became independent,
British embassies would no
longer promote Scotch whisky.
That I think was scraping the
bottom of the cask.
Incidentally, for
the Foreign Secretary’s benefit,
he should know that receptions
to promote Scotch whisky or any
other goods at British embassies
are charged by the foreign
office! But I rather suspect
that the whisky industry would
in any case get by without the
promotional efforts of the
British foreign service. If I
could adapt an old Scots ditty –
“how nice it
would be
if the whisky was
free
and the embassies
full up to the brim.”
And the Daily
Mirror tried to argue that if
Scotland voted for independence,
the Edinburgh Zoo pandas might
somehow be seized by the UK
Government. I can tell you that
I have decided to grant Tian
Tian and Yang Guang political
asylum, while reflecting of
course that the UK government
did not contribute a single RMB
to the cost of the pandas’
arrival in our capital city.
I hear
occasionally from the Prime
Minister how he is just about to
make a positive case for the
union. On the evidence of the
last two weeks, I think it is
still on the drawing board.
Fearmongering
about constitutional change is
nothing new. But it is
disappointing to see such an
approach being adopted –
therefore, as an antidote and a
counterpoint, may I attempt to
present independence for
Scotland in a way which is
positive about Scotland and
positive about England.
Firstly, I
question the credibility of the
current set of UK leaders as far
as the people of the country are
concerned. I have here the
leadership ratings of messrs
Cameron, Clegg and Miliband
according to the Sunday Times
Yougov poll. According to this,
their popularity stands at minus
22%, minus 59% and minus 70%
respectively in Scotland. That
minus 70% for Miliband included
81% who thought he was doing
well and 11 % who thought he was
doing badly. These are all
dismal assessments of UK
political leaders in Scotland
and it is true that in each case
they are worse than the UK
figure.
However it is
also true that the UK figure for
the leaders of the Conservative,
Liberal and Labour parties are
also all in negative territory.
I am told that today, given the
ICM poll, that the Guardian was
bought by more Tory MPs than at
any time in the paper’s history.
But they should reflect on the
fact that this does not mean
that the Prime Minister is
popular, merely that he is less
unpopular than the others.
The unpopularity
of Westminster leaders in
Scotland is largely based on
their hamfisted interventions in
the debate on Scotland’s future.
Their unpopularity in England is
based on their inability, in
these tough times, to present a
positive vision for the future
of England.
Talking down to a
country is never a good idea,
and failure to present a
positive vision to a country is
always a bad idea.
In truth, it is
absurd to suggest that an
independent Scotland would
struggle to make its own way
economically. On current
figures, we would have the 6th
highest per capita GDP in the
OECD as an independent nation -
the UK currently ranks 15th,
and, incidentally, would still
rank 15th without Scotland.
As Norway, Sweden
and New Zealand demonstrate,
many small nations are coping
better with the financial crisis
than many larger ones, such as
the UK, Italy or Spain. But all
Western nations, large and
small, have been affected.
What independence
would do is to give us the
tools– corporation tax, for
example, or alcohol excise duty
- which we could use to get on
with the job of promoting
recovery and improving people’s
lives.
In international
relations, too, Scotland would
benefit from a voice of its own.
In Europe, perhaps the defining
theme of Hugo Young’s
journalism, the recent veto used
by David Cameron has
significantly weakened the UK’s
reputation and influence, for
few evident benefits.
When Jose Manuel
Barroso delivered this lecture
in 2006, he posed the question
of whether the United Kingdom in
Europe wanted to “shape a
positive agenda... or return to
sulking from the periphery?” The
recent answer provided by UK
Government actions is probably
not the one that he had in mind.
Scotland as an
independent nation would play an
active and responsible role in
the international community –
contributing on issues where it
could, such as climate change,
but without delusions of
grandeur. Climate change
provides an interesting example.
The Scottish Parliament achieved
legislative competence for
climate change by accident. Part
of Donald Dewar’s genius in
devising the Scotland Bill was
to specify what was reserved
rather than what was devolved.
Climate change was not seen as
an issue worthy of being
reserved in 1997 and so it ended
up devolved. But the Scottish
Parliament’s world-leading
climate change Act - passed
unanimously in the last
parliament - has shown that a
parliament trusted with the big
issues can rise spectacularly
to the occasion.
I don’t agree
with the counsel of despair that
some on the English left have of
their prospects for mobilising
support on an English basis. As
already said, the effect of
privatisation of the health
service is just as unpopular in
England as it would be in
Scotland, while the illegal war
in Iraq was resisted by English
opinion just as it was by
Scottish opinion. Indeed, as
people will know and understand,
I have never had much time for
the former prime minister, Tony
Blair, largely because of the
war in Iraq. However before he
got carried away into believing
that Britain’s role in the world
was to ride shotgun on the
Deadwood Stage, he did, in 1997,
sweep a commanding majority in
England on the hope of
progressive reform and mobilised
opinion in this country in a way
which neither Neil Kinnock or
John Smith ever truly managed.
Much of what I
have spoken about relates to
differences between Scotland and
the rest of the United Kingdom.
That is, perhaps, inevitable in
making the case for
independence. But I want to
stress also the areas of common
interest which will endure after
independence.
Current
constitutional arrangements mean
that policy differences
sometimes inevitably become
squabbles – especially if they
involve money or constitutional
issues. In fact, we have seen
quite a lot of evidence of that
in the last two weeks!
Andrew Fletcher
of Saltoun addressed the
Scottish Parliament in 1706,
before it was adjourned- for
some three hundred years.
He observed
that: "All nations are
dependent; the one upon the
many. This much we know.”
But he also
warned that if "the greater must
always swallow the lesser," we
are all diminished. The argument
would be that incorporation can
foster resentment and grievance.
Independence encourages mutual
respect.
Independence for
Scotland would still leave us
free to work together in the
many areas where we do share
common values and interests.
The most
meaningful bonds between the
countries of these islands have
rarely, in truth, been about the
650 MPs at Westminster. Indeed,
it has always seemed to me to be
deeply ironic that right of
centre parties base so much of
their unionism on the taxing and
spending powers of the
Westminster parliament.
If Scotland
becomes independent, it will
continue to share close ties
with its neighbouring countries.
Some will be institutional.
Scotland will continue to share
a monarchy with England, Wales
and Northern Ireland. Some will
be cultural – Scots will still
discuss Eastenders, watch the
X-Factor and enjoy the Grand
National and Wimbledon-
particularly once Andy Murray
gets round to winning it.
Some will be
economic. We will continue to
trade freely within the European
Union, and people will still
move job from Manchester to
Glasgow and back again. And some
will be practical. At the height
of last year’s riots, for
example, Scottish police sent
officers to help the police
forces down here in England.
During last year’s water crisis
in Northern Ireland, Scotland
sent hundreds of thousands of
litres to Northern Ireland. That
level of co-operation would
continue, because it’s the sort
of thing that good neighbours
do.
The British Irish
Council already provides a model
of how all of the people of
these islands can work together
on issues of shared interest.
Earlier this month, in Dublin,
we discussed youth employment.
The British Irish Council
currently includes two
independent states, three
devolved governments and three
island groups. Does anyone here
believe that the Council would
look massively different with
three independent states rather
than two?
The Nordic
Council provides another,
similar model of a forum where
neighbouring countries gather to
co-operate with each other. And
in the European Union, on the
many occasions when Scotland
agrees with the rest of the UK,
we will have greater collective
influence, and more votes,
operating as two nations rather
than one.
On areas from
energy grids to emergency
policing requirements; from
fisheries policy to defence
co-operation; from
telecommunications to transport
links; Scotland will work with
its neighbours for a common
good.
But most of all,
in addition to these
institutional, cultural,
economic and practical links,
Scotland shares ties of family
and friendship with its
neighbours on these islands
which never can be obsolete, and
which I expect will continue and
flourish after Scottish
independence.
And when you
consider our shared economic
interests, our cultural ties,
our many friendships and family
relationships, one thing becomes
clear. After Scotland becomes
independent, we will share more
than a monarchy and a currency.
We will share a social union. It
just won’t be the same as a
restrictive state, which no
longer serves the interests of
either Scotland or England.
When the Her
Majesty the Queen visited
Ireland last year, she spoke
warmly of the ties between the
United Kingdom and Ireland and
stated that these “make us so
much more than just neighbours,
(they make us firm friends and
equal partners.”
I like the phrase
“firm friend and equal partner”.
It will be true of Scotland too.
My ambition is
for Scotland to enter the global
community of nations – and to
participate in that community on
a basis of equality,
responsibility and friendship.
We won’t have a nuclear
deterrent. But that is not the
sort of power we seek – we seek
only the power to make a
positive contribution to the
world, and to improve the
wellbeing of our people.
When the United
Nations was founded, it had just
51 member countries. Now there
are almost 200. As recently as
1990, Europe had 35 countries –
now it has 50. Of the 27
countries which currently make
up the EU, six of them did not
exist as independent states
before 1990. The current United
Kingdom, as an incorporating
union, where one nation will
always prevail simply by virtue
of its size, seems increasingly
like an anachronism in the
modern age. And independence –
with the right to participate as
an equal on the international
stage – appears more and more
like Scotland’s normal and
natural state of being.
I quoted GK
Chesterton, a quintessentially
English writer, earlier. I hope
you will understand – especially
given the date – that I want to
close by quoting Scotland’s
bard, Robert Burns - nationalist
and internationalist.
I thought of a
number of possibilities – for
example his timeless description
of the multi-party UK government
of his day –
“yon
mixtie-maxtie queer
hotch-potch,
The
Coalition"!
Another of his
songs, “Ae fond kiss, and then
we sever” also has a certain
resonance – although I may not
sing it to the Prime Minister
any time soon! But ultimately,
it is a line from one of Burns’s
great egalitarian poems that
best sums up the likelihood of
independence.
For a’ that and
a’ that, it’s coming yet, for a’
that.