One Nation Labour and what it means for a No vote



Ed Miliband with banner
Originally uploaded by net_efekt

Labour used to campaign for Scottish devolution because they thought it would give them a permanent Scottish power base, but they seem to have realised that it has reduced their influence in Scotland instead. Now Ed Miliband has invented One Nation Labour, and these two strands have potentially worrying consequences for Scottish devolution, as noted by Iain Macwhirter:

Certainly, there is no point giving lectures on how Scots can't "have it all", which is what the Scottish Labour leader, Johann Lamont, appears to be doing. She wants to take the cake away altogether. She has gone through almost the entire sum of policies achieved under devolution and dismissed them as "SNP bribes". Tuition fees, prescription charges, free personal care, concessionary bus fares – they're all part of the "something for nothing" society. But if you strip out these headline measures – most of them of course introduced by Labour – there's not a lot left to celebrate about the devolution decade.

Is there perhaps a risk that devolution will be abolished in the aftermath of af No vote?

To some extent, I think it would suit the unionist parties to the ground if Scotland became an English region like Yorkshire -- abolishing the Scottish Parliament and introducing English law, the English school curriculum, English holidays, the English NHS, tuition fees and so on.

Even many nationalists agree that the status quo isn't optimal. For instance, two months ago Jock Morrison wrote an interesting article in The Herald in which he argued that Scots have to stop pretending to be separate from England while being part of the same country:

That’s the reality Scots have to face up to. If your country is not on the map, it’s not in the heads of other people. [...] We can’t have it both ways. We can’t be part of England [...] and expect foreigners to recognise the distinctiveness of Scotland. People around the globe have no interest in getting their heads around ‘Great Britain’, ‘Great Britain and Northern Ireland’ and the ‘United Kingdom’. After all, these are just fancy titles for England, aren’t they?

Commenting on this article, Doug Daniel wrote:

I desperately want Scotland to be independent, but if the rest of Scotland disagrees, then it's time we faced reality and stopped trying to be this wee pretendy nation. The Better Together campaign tells us we have "the best of both worlds", suggesting we can have all the advantages of both and avoid the disadvantages, but that's a very juvenile way of thinking. Is it not time we grew up and decided to accept our responsibilities one way or the other? If we're not brave enough to stand up on our own as an independent nation, then what right do we have to insist on separate education, law and health systems? If we want the "shelter" that being joined to England supposedly provides, then after 300 years of dragging our heels, is it not time we made a commitment to this "relationship" and formally make Britain a country, rather than a collection of countries?

Almost all Scots I know think of Scotland as a proud nation, and most people here think that devolution should be extended, not rolled back (even if many Scots still think full independence is a step too far at the moment). However, we have to accept the possibility that a No vote will lead to devolution being rolled back instead, especially as that will fit better into One Nation Labour's narrative.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *