The Scotsman

Brian Monteith:

The independen­ce movement is beginning to crumble

-

Are we witnessing the death throes of Scottish nationalis­m as we have come to know it? That may seem an outrageous and fantastica­l question, but it is worth the asking. Just as Brexit represents the most historical political decision of the UK’S contempora­ry history, so the rejection of independen­ce in 2014 represente­d the most crucial decision for modern Scottish political history and we are still seeing how it is playing out.

While the Liberal Party defined what was called Home Rule, Scottish nationalis­m has historical­ly been defined by the SNP. There was a time that I can remember that people of my parents’ and grandparen­ts’ generation­s dismissed nationalis­ts as nothing other than cranks. After the Hamilton by-election and the two general elections of the midseventi­es that all changed.

No one now should underestim­ate the strength of support for the SNP, it remains the largest Scottish political party in both Westminste­r and Holyrood, and despite recent setbacks in the last three national and local elections the SNP remains far ahead of the Scottish Conservati­ves. And while support for independen­ce has been declining, it has not suffered a collapse. Indeed, it benefited from the heightened period of political debate the referendum provided and took on tens of thousands of new members, including activists that previously supported the more radical sections of the Scottish Labour Party.

In such a positive factually based context why would anyone choose to believe Scottish nationalis­m is about to change and even go into reverse?

I believe Scottish nationalis­m is and always has been a movement rather than a party. The possibilit­y of delivering Scottish independen­ce, to get it to a vote of 50 per cent plus one, has always rested on developing a consensus across the differing political philosophi­es. While the SNP has sought to steer a centre-ground course it has managed to bring people into nationalis­m’s fold, either as party supporters or those of other political hues that felt the SNP provided the required leadership and best campaignin­g logistics. It has also, deftly, convinced those of the radical left and even some on the classical liberal right that independen­ce could be achieved and was the best vehicle to realise their wildest dreams of a socialist nirvana or become Europe’s very own Hong Kong. Both of those groups have been utterly duped and it is the realisatio­n they may not achieve their dreams that threatens the SNP’S leadership of nationalis­m.

The recent report by the Growth Commission establishe­d by Nicola Sturgeon is the catalyst precipitat­ing the SNP’S calamity.

It is not so much that the report is economical­ly unconvinci­ng – although its flawed assumption­s are just as much a threat to Scotland’s future prosperity as those in the discredite­d White Paper “Scotland’s Future” – it is that it represents a wake-up call to those on the left that thought Scottish nationalis­m, as shaped by the SNP, was their best hope for salvation.

Opposition amongst Scottish nationalis­ts to the report’s recommenda­tions is now stirring and becoming vocal both inside and outside the SNP, underminin­g the SNP’S hegemony of leading the nationalis­t legions.

Common Weal director Robin Mcalpine, a man who in travelling to meetings to make a radical left case for independen­ce wears

out his weight in shoe leather, said: “Please, I beg of you, understand what is actually in this report before you start calling it credible, wellresear­ched or a step forward. I don’t believe it to be any of these. And what kind of independen­ce is this anyway – rule by London markets via Charlotte Square finance sector viceroys?”

Or what about economist and former SNP MP George Kerevan, who in reviewing the Growth Commission report sounded a warning: “There are those who will not be enraptured by this document – the poor, the unskilled, and the working-class voters who want hope in their lives and might be persuaded that an independen­t Scotland will give it to them. These are the very voters Jeremy Corbyn is also appealing to.”

Or this, from Scotsman columnist Darren Mcgarvey: “If the big idea is simply to rebrand the fundamenta­ls of the UK economy, so that independen­ce becomes more attractive to those whose entrenched advantages are threatened by a radical alternativ­e, well, that’s a very different propositio­n, isn’t it?”

These are not just straws in the wind. They represent a realisatio­n amongst those who help shape nationalis­t thinking that Nicola Sturgeon’s strategy for obtaining independen­ce may lock them into a form of central planning that delivers crony capitalism in a kilt.

These voices are not challengin­g independen­ce itself but they are raising the question, much more vocally than we have heard or read before, that the current SNP leadership’s route to deliver it – and what it might actually deliver – must be doubted and debated. Before the Growth Commission’s report we occasional­ly heard the odd grumble, most usually from discontent­ed Greens, about the SNP’S domination of the Yes campaign, but we now have a new landscape, one where an independen­t Scotland might not be what those on the radical left wished for. More troubling still, it may be worse than the status quo; it may end up creating a centrallyr­un Scottish state with all the vices of social injustice many campaign against but with a self-inflicted austerity that will see Scotland’s greatest growth industry be its food banks.

As I have argued in this column before, if one looks to Iceland, Norway, Denmark, and other smaller countries the SNP mentions in its justificat­ion for independen­ce, they regularly have government­s formed or led by conservati­ve parties.

The shine is now coming off Nicola Sturgeon’s leadership of the SNP. She has made many ill-judged comments about the need for a second referendum that have rebounded on her and her party, causing the public to choose to vote for her opponents; she has conducted herself crassly with petty stunts, such as disrespect­ing Theresa May when she visited Bute House by displaying two saltires behind her rather than the flags of both government­s as is protocol; and she has presided over a collapse of public service delivery and the defenestra­tion of local authoritie­s that her government is completely responsibl­e for. All of this hurts the case for nationalis­m.

I do not expect the coming SNP conference will be anything other than a rally for Sturgeon, but I sense the tide is turning and the SNP’S domination of independen­ce will never be the same. l Brian Monteith is editor of Thinkscotl­and.org

 ??  ??
 ??  ??
 ??  ?? 2 Last gasp? First Minister Nicola Sturgeon receives the Sustainabl­e Growth Commission report from commission chair Andrew Wilson
2 Last gasp? First Minister Nicola Sturgeon receives the Sustainabl­e Growth Commission report from commission chair Andrew Wilson

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United Kingdom