07.12.1995

Pompous and irrelevant constitutional proposals

ST ANDREW’S day on November 30 saw a flurry of activity around the national question in Edinburgh. The mainstream bourgeois parties used it as a focus for launching their own solutions to the ‘democratic deficit’. It turned into a three-way tussle between unionists, devolutionists and nationalists.

First into the foray was the Scottish secretary, Michael Forsyth. In an attempt to upstage the other camps, Forsyth fronted the Tories’ message of “strengthening the union through real devolution”. This consists of expanding the power of the Scottish Grand Committee of MPs. It will meet more regularly and be attended by senior ministers.

However, controversial bills will still have to go through the full Commons procedure. On top of this he announced that the Tories would hand back a number of minor powers to Scottish local authorities. Surely a U-turn in anyone’s book - from a government that has spent the last 16 years dismantling the powers of local government and denying the ‘democratic deficit’.

Next came the Constitutional Convention, a coalition of Labour, Liberal, church and trade union leaders, who after six years of discussion had hammered out a “new deal for Scotland”.

Their proposal is for an elected Scottish parliament with the powers of the present Scottish office - on issues such as health, education, law, local government and transport, together with the ability to vary income tax by only three pence in the pound.

However, Westminster will still decide on key issues such as foreign affairs, defence, social security and central economic policy. George Robertson, Labour’s shadow Scottish secretary, stated:

“We do not claim that a Scottish parliament will be a cure for all our ills ... It will not provide a by-pass from the real world. Those who peddle economic escapism through constitutional change simply seek to deceive the people.”

Well said, George. But then when has the Labour Party genuinely looked to “cure the ills” of working class people?

Finally the Scottish National Party’s message was that independence would herald an improved relationship with England based on cooperation and friendship through the creation of the association of states of the British Isles - “a mini-commonwealth”. Although the SNP’s Scottish parliament would be a single chamber of 200 MPs elected by proportional representation, the house of Windsor will still supply the head of state - unelected presumably. This would seem to contradict the statement of the party’s leader, Alex Salmond: “Our parliament will be a modern democratic institution which sweeps away the archaic, pompous and irrelevant.”

None of these proposals will give the Scottish people genuine democracy or real control over their own lives or communities. As communists we believe that the right of nations and nationalities to self-determination, up to and including secession, is a principle. While Tony Blair declares, “I would never agree to anything which threatened to break up the United Kingdom,” we must raise the slogan for a federal republic of Scotland, England and Wales, where the principle of self-determination can be exercised in practice.

Nick Clarke