Emancipation
England, Northern Ireland, Scotland & Wales
|
To view or download a copy of the National Conversation in pdf format click on the image above.
|
Scottish devolution and a constitutional settlement
The Scottish Executive's paper "Choosing Scotland's Future: A National Conversation: Independence and Responsibility in the Modern World" was published on 14th August 2007 and an online blog and issue review was initiated. In the four weeks since its launch the blog has accumulated over 1,500 posts form all over the country as well as from other parts of the world. The specific review topic section has been running for a shorter time but has over 150 posts.
Besides some romantic notions and assertions concerning independence or unionism there is a consensus that no matter what people think of the SNP or independence the idea of a National Conversation has been a welcomed initiative. It is simply the fact that a minority political party, who one would imagine would have most to lose by exposing themselves to open comment, have been brave enough to allow open comment. The effect seems to have been to gain considerable support, if not for the SNP, at least for this sort of approach.
SNP strategy
At a workshop at SEEL (Systems Engineering Economic Lab) in September, 2007 it was noted that there is emerging an interesting possibility for the future of British politics. The main three political parties have a critical mass which causes them to have some difficulty responding to freely offered public suggestions and preferences. In addition their clinging to unionism causes them to have become less perceptive to what is happening in the National Conversation simply because there is an aversion to the fact that this was an SNP initiative. As a result the main parties appear to have become grid-locked whereas the SNP without saying or doing much has created a situation which has encouraged a flow of ideas from the people of Scotland. These ideas are not coming from one political party or some faction, they are coming from individuals. In several cases other individuals have responded positively or negatively so as to advance perceptions and concepts. This experience is for many quite liberating simply because the National Conversation has not set a "political agenda". This, in the United Kingdom, where most arenas of this sort are over-run by politicians lecturing all on the "position" of their party, is a refreshing experience.
Under such circumstances, the best strategy for the SNP is not to say too much but rather encourage the process. As a result, on balance the main three parties lose ground and the SNP gains ground.
SNP's future standing
Another observation made at the SEEL workshop was that it is paradoxical that the SNP has not made a particularly strong case for independence whilst stating that they are committed to this end. To some degree this is why the specific topic postings are not very thorough because there isnt too much to get one's teeth into. This is one of the reasons SEEL started its work on "The Scotland Effect" a series of more detailed papers related to constitution (note: a final report on Fiscal Autonomy will be published by SEEL during February 2008).
It could be that the SNP might gain a quantifiable growth in support by distinguishing itself from the other main parties. It can do this by aligning itself with a more flexible approach of "whatever is best for Scotland". Whatever is best for Scotland is clearly what the people of Scotland express as their preference. There is no real need for a truly Scottish political party to take up the normal British poltical party line leading to friction and where all decisions become contentious because they create winners and losers. This "you are with us or you are against us" syndrome is one which has wrought havoc with democracy in the United Kingdom and it has damaged the social comity. Indeed, the contributions to the National Conversation which stick out like a sore thumb as being wholly unhelpful are those which take up such set positions. In some cases unjustified comments concerning the "English" and the "Scots" appear when the more justifiable targets should have been political parties whose policies have nurtured such animosity, but thankfully only appearing in a minority of exchanges. In this context these persistent points of view seem to be based on a lack of objective information. But then, as far as we are aware, the SNP has set a deadline for conclusions as 2010. This provides ample time to introduce more objective information so as to help people obtain a more rational basis for establishing their preferences.
We look forward to see how all of this pans out.
|
|
|
 |