THERE is no shortage of predictions of the future of Scotland post-independence. It is constructive and necessary to predict also the future based upon the status quo, and while so doing constantly to remember that in 1707 our nation did not, contrary to some commentators, disappear.
1603 saw Scotland and England become intellectually joined courtesy of the Union of the Crowns. Currently our head of state is the Queen who has, therefore, a unique role in her present position as a constitutional monarch. That role is determined by the bargain between the monarchy and the people; the monarch is entitled to have the respect and loyalty of the people, who in turn are entitled to have their wellbeing and wishes respected, and protected, by the monarch. The political, voluntary agreement by Scotland and England in 1707 did not compromise the bargain of 1603, whose terms, obligations and entitlements survive.
Since the outset of Scotland’s broadcast wish for political independence there has been no stated case for interference with the constitutional monarchy, so let there be no doubt that Scotland has kept that obligation intact.
Apart from suffrage having been unavailable to men and women until respectively the second and third decades of the 20th century, resulting in the corresponding non-representation of Scottish people, there has been since 1707 a democratic deficit in the parliament, the effect of which is to deny passage of any legislation if disliked by the House as a whole.
Presently there are 650 members in total and 59 representing the people of Scotland. That deficit will, due to further electoral legislative measures, increase by 30 in favour of the present governing party. For all future time, the Scottish contribution to House affairs, including those of relevance to Scotland, will be subordinated to those of England. There are many examples of the latter, but it is sufficient to describe one, illustrative of the resulting imbalance. Scotland’s preference in the 2016 referendum was for the UK to remain in the EU. Its vote was huge, beyond misunderstanding but also judged irrelevant, as were its many attempts to lessen by negotiation the anticipated serious damage to its economy.
The subsequent EU negotiations and the less-than-minimal consultation by Westminster with Holyrood were features of the final compromise with Brussels. Examples of the latter need no expression here, it being sufficient to expose the fact of one proposal by the Scottish Government being dismissed by Westminster only to have that same adopted to placate Northern Ireland. The damage to Scotland’s economy graphically forecast is now factual.
The people of Scotland are aware that their wellbeing in all vital respects, and their democratically expressed wishes have not been, and are unlikely to be, respected and protected by the monarch, the head of state. The coalescence of the monarchy with the recognised Unionist parties has now been confirmed, contradicting the erstwhile UK convention or protocol that it should not participate in political issues. The Scottish people recall the departure from that understanding by the monarch in 2014, starkly and now openly its adopted policy.
The wish for Scotland’s return to a self-governing state has been confirmed by the latest Holyrood elections, the economic case has been demonstrated, as has its government’s wish to proceed in an orderly and legal way. The all-powerful weapon at its disposal, greater in strength than those of the arrayed opposition, is its right to vote to bring the matter to a satisfactory conclusion. It is precisely that which the UK Government will attempt to obviate.
Scotland has witnessed, and continues to witness, the demise of democracy in Great Britain. The ills affecting Scotland have been adequately documented and it was anticipated that after 1999 its ability to steer its route progressively clear of them would be empowered. The reverse of that is evidenced by the incremental erosion of the devolved Holyrood powers to the advantage of Westminster, particularly subsequent to quitting the European Union.
There was a time when the head of state, an office unique in world affairs, possessed the moral and the constitutional ability to intervene to correct the effects of the unacceptable, unprofitable imbalances experienced due to the democratic permanent deficit peculiar to Westminster.
John Hamilton
Bearsden
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel