Thoughts on a referendum decision

As with many things, it is about how you frame the question – what does ‘nation’ signify; is it about economics or about identity? What does it mean to say ‘I am Scottish’? For myself, it was about a statement – we believe that to be Scottish is to present a unique face to the world, to be different to the English or the Americans (to pick but two identities from the bucket). The referendum has allowed that perception to be put to rest. The people who live in Scotland have defined themselves as British, to stand or fall in line with the decisions of the people of the British Isles. The fact that 80% of those live in England is irrelevant and no amount of tinkering about with devolved powers will change that. The people who inhabit the region of Scotland will now only be able to play around in a small sandpit with ‘powers’ given or taken at the whim of the British parliament.

 

The sad fact is that a group of people, in a geographically defined area, felt that they did not have the ability or the confidence to stand in front of the world and declare that they could manage their own affairs. The decision was, in reality, not even close – only the people of Glasgow and Dundee can be said to think of themselves as ‘not British’, in every other region the statement was to the effect that the people are only comfortable in the British herd, hiding in common sight.

 

This is my framing of the question and the result is that there is no such thing as Scottish. There are British people who live in Scotland, just as there are British people who live in England. No different. And if the British government follows America into Iraq, or falls out of the European Union, then that is the will of the British people, no matter from which region they hail.

 

In the cold light of dawn, there is an inconsistency in the arguments – one cannot reconcile defining the Westminster establishment as post-imperialist without also talking about Scotland having a post-Jacobite mentality. If we present the principle that Britain should let go of its imperial attitude and face a reality of minimal global authority, we must also require the ‘scot’ to abandon a 300 hundred year-old myth.

 

We can argue the dynamics and politics of the debate forever, but we cannot argue with the result. What we now have to do is to look for a British political party with whose principles we can find common ground. The SNP is regional, having no more mandate than to argue for political authority – controlling, or seeking to control, matters of money. Nationality is, or should be, more than this. In the end perhaps, we are all individuals, making our individual choices on the basis of our own framings of the question.

 

As a footnote, I have been impressed by the demeanour of Alex Salmond, the First Minister of the Parliament of Scotland at Holyrood and the leader of the SNP. Throughout the campaign he acted in a statesmanlike manner and, despite significant provocation, did not allow the argument to degenerate into ugliness. He announced his resignation when the result was announced – the act of an honourable man. Let us see if the leaders of the British political parties – Messrs Cameron, Milliband, and Clegg – can respond in kind.