The Scottish tragedy
Say, now here's a little experiment in asymmetric federalism that's working out just fine...
The Scottish National Party, ahead in polls for elections to Scotland's parliament, is prepared to pick fights with the British government in London to force the case for independence, Prime Minister Tony Blair warned yesterday...The SNP, which campaigns for Scottish independence from the rest of Britain, has led Mr. Blair's Labour Party in every poll this year. The Labour-led Scottish government has power over issues from health to education, with foreign affairs, defence and control of the currency reserved to London.You know, if Quebec were recognized as a nation, had its own flag, its own sports teams, even its own banknotes, but no legislature -- like Scotland, before Blair's ill-judged constitutional reforms gave the nationalists the launchpad they needed -- I'd take the trade. As, I'm guessing, would Blair at this point.
If the SNP emerges the biggest party after May 3 elections to the Scottish parliament, "Scotland is then moving down a track towards separation, with the people in the driving seat the SNP, who will use the power they have to try to create the maximum conflict with Westminster," Mr. Blair told reporters in Glasgow...
4/05/2007
related
Keep bookmarked posts here.
22 Comments
But why would Scotland independence be a tragedy?
Quebec has been told it's a nation in every way except the most meaningful. It has its own flag, its own sports team and its own legislature... what it's missing is the banknotes and its own independent chair at the United Nations... oh, wait, they pretty much have one of those as well. Blair's not the only one who has been leaving ill-judged reforms in his wake.
Different countries different histories, UK and Canada that is.
That being said the scots legislature is currently fueled by transfer payments as opposed to local taxing powers, always a mistake in my mind as it breaks accountability
We will see if the Scottish national movement peters out over the next 10 years...which it well may. Scotland has a declining pop.
The parallels are interesting, there has not been a conservative element to the Scottish National Movemenet, it has largely been a left thing, not unlike Quebec. But there is a long history of conservatism in Scotland.
I will have to dig around but the Econmist wrote about this issue not long ago. Esssentially dcrying the spendthrift ways of the Scottish Parliament and how a resurgance of conservatives could tame the budget, but also was required if they were to ever consider independence
Scotland is currently sending a contingent of MPs to Westminster who are all or almost all Labour. So does Wales. Inside England, the Conservatives actually ran ahead of Labour in popular vote percentage in the last election. Interesting situation for Tony "unintended Consequences" Blair and his entourage.
I'm no expert on Scotland (though my father was born there and I have a fondness for steak and kidney pie)isn't this sort of like comparing apples to oranges? I'd always believed that Quebec felt it was different because they speak french and the rest of Canada speaks english, and that's the main reason they see themselves as a nation rather than a province.
I suspect the "Quebec as a nation" thingy that Harper did last fall was to silence his political opponents because the last time I looked, the entire house resolved that Quebec was a nation. Don't get me wrong, it will probably come back to haunt all of us. Dumont's stunning climb to second place and his "autonomous federalism" will no doubt force a continuation of the Canadian national pass time: wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth over the prospect of Quebec independence.
Did you hear the one about the difference between the Rolling Stones and a Scotsman?
The Rolling Stones say Hey, You, Get off of my Cloud.
A Scotsman says Hey, MacLeod, get off of my ewe.
i never understood why people like Andrew Coyne and Paul Wells are so obsessed with territorial integrity. the only thing that really mattered was that Quebec stop grabbing cash from Ottawa and screwing up other provinces in the process (and to that end, most Quebec "federalists" have not been very cooperative!). the current government has, more often than not, failed to come through on this file, as Andrew himself has (over)diligently chronicled, although there were some moments worth remembering. but i'm not entirely certain if the Liberals will fare any better. hence my continuing support for the Conservative Party.
that said, if Quebec, under the leadership of, say, Mario Dumont, can balance its books on its own, and still wants to separate by then, there's a point where such desires should be accommodated if there's a clear popular will for it, and it would be pointless to cajole Quebec into remaining in Canada. one form of manipulation replaces another. what's the point, really?
i believe it's more important for us to understand and come to terms with what different people want from and for themselves and each other than... territorial integrity for the sake of territorial integrity. sometimes, i feel like Andrew's perennial witch hunts on what Quebec should and should not be is like Trudeau's NEP approach on Alberta. but i digress.
this is probably the most non-partisan comment i'll ever post on this blog.
And then there is always the example of federalist Europe, moving inexorably in the opposite direction...of course its not the same I suppose, different languages, different cultures, years of animosity...
Localism doesn't necessarily entail separatism. Particularly in the case of Scotland, where a whole set of separate financial, legal, and administrative frameworks have existed since the Act of Union. It's a good thing that those lofty frameworks are administered closer to the place where they touch the ground, so to speak, and if that gives nationalist elements a platform it merely moves a preexisting debate into a new arena. If anything, as the Economist's take on things helpfully pointed out, it's the watering down of the level of autonomy that Scotland is able to exercise which has stunted the Assembly's political maturity.
There's an interesting contrast between the conservative traditions in Canada and the UK, in which the UK Tories have an historical horror of almost any departures from a unitary state with as much as possible -- even everyday services that in North America are operated decently and without great fuss by even the smallest of municipalities -- managed from London. This focus on Unionism and British nationalism led to the quixotic assault on the very principle of local governance by a Thatcher government that was otherwise keen to show off its modernizing, forward-thinking colors.
By contrast, the UK's liberal/left parties, in particular the earnest Liberal Democrats, have a long history of establishing and reinforcing local government. And yes, that has extended to creating highly dependent Scottish and Welsh kiddie pools in which Plaid Cymru and the SNP have been able to splash about. Devolution is a good idea, and blunting its effectiveness in the name of reining in nationalist parties -- instead of forcefully advocating for the national (trans-national?) interest and the practical benefits of appropriately decentralized governance -- is a bad way to hedge an uncertain bet.
I await the day there is a provincial leader elected who will lead a discussion on what Canada would look like if Quebec separated. So we would be prepared for as easy a transition as possible. Technicolour dreaming.
Steve L., I have new found respect for you.
Don't forget that, at different points in time and for a few centuries, Scotland was a separate country with its own king. Quebec never has been. (And also unlike Quebec, ironically, until recently, if you were born in Scotland the early part of the 1900s or earlier you could apply and get French dual citizenship and passport.)
Also, Sean Cummings, Dumont does not talk about "autonomous federalism" as far as I'm aware. He talks about "autonomy" or "autonomous nation". He is a velvet gloved separatist, who created his own party because Meech and Charlottetown didn't go far enough, campaigned for separation in 1995, and wants constitutional change to give at least 20 more jurisdictional powers to Quebec.
Just because he doesn't want a referendum right now, please don't make the mistake to think that he is in any way a federalist. Sovereignty-association under its new name "autonomy" has never been considered an alternative "federalist" arrangement.
The Scottish National Party has been around since 1934. In the 1970s they had nearly a third of the votes in Scotland.
In 2005 they had just 18% of the votes in Scotland in ithe British election.
So these guys did not pop up all of a sudden as a result of devolution, they simply became more visible then. Devolution was simply an acknowledgement of their existence.
It's disingenuous to say there has been a rise in Scottish nationalism due to devolution, it's more like the other way around. Devolution occurred because of a rise in Scottish nationalism.
Just so I make sure I don't take your proposal out of context Andrew, are you saying it would be beneficial if the Quebec provincial legislature was eliminated? ("I'd take that trade"). And presumably the other provincial legislatures as well - the idea is not just to pick on the Quebecois, certainly.
I ask because I want to make perfectly sure that I haven't misinterpreted your intent from above and risk being the object of your scorn... well the object of a different form of your scorn.
Because if this is your idea of how to solve nationalist/regionalist grievances... whoo wee.
I think 'Quebecois Separatiste" asks a valid question (although I suspect its not Scotland which is the true object of his question).
At very least, we should start to ask the question of what price the rest of us outside Quebec are willing to pay, if the end result is only to maintain the illusion of a working federation.
"Devolution occurred because of a rise in Scottish nationalism."
As a native of the UK I think it would be more correct to say that Scottish nationalism has emerged as British sense of self waned, just like a sandbar appears at low tide.
The UK is rapidly becoming a post-modern society that believes in nothing beyond the latest PC fad. The resemblance to Canada is acute in that our drift to multiculturalism and PC faddism has weakened our own sense of national identity to such an extent that radical decentralization if not sepratism for the West and Quebec is very likely in the next couple decades.
Ah yes.
Ingenious Mister Coyne.
I had forgotten that CELINE DION sang the soundtrack to BRAVEHEART.
Plus ca change.
If the scots are dumb enough to vote to go then let them.
Same with Quebec. Honestly I couldn't care less either way.
steve l:
"this is probably the most non-partisan comment i'll ever post on this blog."
thanks for sharing, now i can just stop wasting time reading your comments.
anon:
"Just so I make sure I don't take your proposal out of context Andrew, are you saying it would be beneficial if the Quebec provincial legislature was eliminated? ("I'd take that trade"). And presumably the other provincial legislatures as well"
ahhh, to be rid of such pedestrian provincialists...utopia!
Keith said...
I think 'Quebecois Separatiste" asks a valid question (although I suspect its not Scotland which is the true object of his question).
umm, did you provide the translation services for the vimy memorial??? ;-)
how nice of you to have been reading my comments Canuckistan. because i never read yours until now.
now i feel sorry for you. no not really. stick something hard and sharp up your rear or something.
The funny thing is, as The Economist reported a while back, that voters on the English side would support Scotland's separation to an even greater percentage than on the Scottish side.
It would be interesting to do a poll in Canada to see how many Quebeckers want to be independent and how many Canadians would like for Québec to disappear. If the English poll is any indication, I wouldn't be surprised if the support for an independent Québec were higher in English Canada than in Québec itself.
massive subsidies have turned the nation of Adam Smith into a welfare queen the likes of NFLD.
The best thing that could happen for both England AND Scotland is to go their separate ways.
The same can be said of Quebec.
For god's sakes, let them all go.