Those Scots, who
at present, favour the continuation of the union with England,
may wish to consider that, while common ground exists between Scotland
and England,
there are clear and irreconcilable differences which separate the two nations. The
most overriding of these has been constant and contradictory societal
attitudes. The civic society of Scotland
and an English society driven by economics and market forces. The imposition of
the latter as a model for the UK
now seems likely if Scotland
does not achieve fiscal autonomy.
If one thing in
recent times has highlighted the difference between Scottish and English
society, it was the premiership of Margaret
Thatcher.
While voters in England
returned her party to Government in three consecutive ballots, her fortunes
north of the border dwindled to almost nothing. By the time the reconstructed
“New” Labour Party came to power the Tories were a spent force in Scotland.
To this day they return only one MP to the Westminster Parliament.
Thatcher’s
vision was the destruction of the very idea of “society”. It was to be replaced
by a disparate nation of individuals and family units cutting each other’s
throats to survive. They would, in her mind, happily do so in the knowledge
that they were living in some Panglossian “best of all worlds”. They would also
however, when the clarion called, gather together as a cohesive confirmation of
Britishness.
As we know this
was rejected in Scotland.
Devolution means
that those fortunate enough to be domicile north of the border will be spared David
Cameron’s “Big Society”. The solutions he
offers through social policy are English-specific. Something he and other Westminster
politicians avoid reference to at all times. This is what gives rise to the
feeling that such policies are UK
wide while those instigated at Holyrood, and enjoyed exclusively by the Scots,
are extra benefits denied the English. This misconception is often encouraged
by insignificant Tory backbenchers, hackneyed opportunists such as Kelvin
McKenzie and the terminally deluded Boris
Johnson.
No one should be
fooled by Cameron’s softer approach. While it
may well be disguised as the devolution of power to communities, it will be
nothing more than an abrogation of responsibility to many communities.
The problem for Scotland
though, is the economic policies that are pursued by London.
While they are not the drivers of the Scottish perspective of what constitutes
a society, they can undermine those aspirations. Treasury Minister, Danny
Alexander, has made it abundantly clear that
this will be the case as he implements the Tory economic policies that will
penalise all but those responsible for the economic mess that the UK
is in.
By embracing the
Coalition, the Lib-Dems signalled confirmation, if any was required, that they
not only have nothing better to offer but are willing to connive in an
unprecedented purge not only on the people of the UK, but those things which
they have strived to achieve within their communities.
As for the
Labour Party? As a British Party, it long ago abandoned any pretence of
creating a fair society preferring instead to court, and eventually submit to,
the very forces that it was formed to oppose. As a Scottish Party, it has to an
extent resisted this. But, as a Scottish Party, it has been plagued by an
inability to understand the changes in the political landscape and to distance
itself from the ambitions of those in London.
If the people of
Scotland wish
to retain a civic society, then perhaps separation is the alternative to the
creeping imposition of the English model. Now, more than ever, these
differences stand in stark contrast.
The ability to
use revenue and resources to the benefit of all without recourse to monetary
gain is the mark of a civic society. Only full fiscal autonomy and an
unhindered decision making process can achieve this.
If that sounds
like independence it is probably no coincidence.
