Machiavelli on Scottish independence...

Machiavelli seemed the obvious author to think of when Gaddafi’s violent death in Libya was reported. Although there still appears to be a popular appetite for brutal tyrannicide, the Italian statesman’s prescription that the incoming Prince should obliterate the entire ruling dynasty of his predecessors if he is to be secure, seems more likely to prompt pangs of conscience than the general British twingelessness that accompanied the dictator’s killing. Having revisited the Prince, I went back to Machiavelli’s less well-known work, the Discourses on Livy, which is similarly concerned with the getting and holding of power, though speaks more directly to the predicaments of republics than principalities. While I’d baulk at any simple reading-across from Machiavelli to contemporary Scottish nationalism, I was particularly struck by the resonances of the following passage. While despots and tyrants should “renovate” everything in their new fief, upending hierarchies, dispersing populations, shattering and reshaping institutions, for those who do not seek a tyrannical sway, Machiavelli contends that…

“He who desires or proposes to change the form of government in a state and wishes it to be acceptable and to be able to maintain it to everyone’s satisfaction, must needs retain at least the shadow of its ancient customs, so that institutions may not appear to its people to have been changed, though in point of fact the new institutions may be radically different from the old ones. This he must do because men in general are as much affected by what a thing appears to be as by what it is, indeed they are frequently influenced more by appearances than by reality.”

The quotation scratched an itch of mine which I’m still attempting adequately to articulate. I thought I’d sketch my twinge here, and see what you all make of it. Given the SNP leadership’s now longstanding gradualist independence strategy, one wonders if Angus Robertson or Alex Salmond keeps a little copy of Machiavelli tucked inside his coat pocket. Whether it is the retention of the monarchy, or the idea that an independent Scotland should retain a unicameral parliament elected on a proportional basis, or remain in the EU, or retain pounds sterling, independence is being advanced – at least by the SNP – on the thesis of “minimal difference”. Adopting the gradual politics of the patient salami-slicer, the project is by soft degrees to narrow the gap between independence and the powers already accrued to devolved institutions. Squeezing a yawning political chasm into a slender fissure, ultimately this gradualism envisages that the electorate will be asked to make nothing like a leap towards independence. Step by step. Hop skip jump. Just a little thing, in the end. This approach wisely recognises human caution, with its concern for things practically realised over the abstractly appealing. But there’s a snag; at least for contemporary exponents of this sort of gradualist strategy. Unless something decidedly unexpected happens to the final Scotland Bill, in 2011 and in 2014 and 2015, the Scottish electorate will be invited to take nothing like the last sedate step envisaged here.

That being the case, I find myself wondering, what are the political limits of this nationalism of “minimal difference”, in circumstances where a gradualist-little-step idea of independence is simply implausible? As David Torrance notes in the revised second edition of his biography of Alex Salmond, writing about SNP ideological (in)coherence…

“The unifying factor was a belief in (varying degrees of) independence, but many leasing proponents of that ‘big idea’ held different hopes and aspirations for an independent Scotland. Paul Henderson Scott, for example, wanted it to be pacifist (not a view shared by the SNP’s defence spokesman Angus Robertson); Michael Fry to unleash neoliberalism; Joyce Macmillan to salvage social democracy; Gerry Hassan to think big and positive, and so on. The point, as the party frequently insisted, was that ‘Scots would decide’ what the New Scotland looked like, although it seemed unlikely all of them would be happy with the end result.” (Salmond: Against the Odds (2011), p. 412).

How to keep this ragbag coalition of (N/n)ationalist opinion together, with its divergent conceptions of what a just Scottish state would look like, while advocating a sufficiently potent and concrete conception of what Scottish independence would and could do, to justify the effort? I’ve written before about “being the cartographers of a new Scotland”, worrying about the proposition that the SNP should be regarded as simply “a vehicle to deliver independence, which will then afford an opportunity to choose what sort of state to choose to be”.

Not being in the envisaged “end phase” of gradualist Scottish nationalism, I worry that any strategies premised primarily on reassurance of the electorate just won’t cut it. Let’s be frank. Scottish independence is no small step for the nation to take, and strategies suggesting otherwise just won’t do. Put simply – and exceedingly tritely - if I go to sleep one night in the United Kingdom, and you tell me I will wake up to dawn in an independent Scotland and nothing substantial will have changed – you may feel reassured, but seriously, why bother?

I do recognise the tricky balance between spooking the electorate and making a concrete case for independence’s transformative potential. As I noted, this is an attempt to articulate a niggling anxiety – a tension if you like – rather than a programmatic critique of anyone. For myself, I can’t find much vividness in any overly-inclusive case for independence from the SNP in our political situation, basically amounting to delivering the bare autonomy to decide in future what sort of society and state we should have, with the SNP as neutral arbiters between the conflicting ideologies of its Frys and Macmillans. I don’t see how such a gingerly constructed case can be compatible with a serious-minded civic nationalism, premised on authentic, plausible and meaningfully elaborated social democratic political commitments.

I was struck by the enthusiasm generated by Gerry Hassan’s latest Scotsman column, “From the ‘How’ to the ‘Why’ of Scottish Independence”, with eleven specific areas addressed, encompassing poverty, inequality, defence, Europe, foreign affairs – and UK Tory government. This lively response was no doubt partly generated by folk who share Gerry’s range of political concerns and commitments, and find the vista thus painted to be a compelling one. In his recent speech in Inverness, Alex Salmond repeated the idea that the SNP must “take sides in Scotland as well as taking Scotland’s side”. Gerry’s article demonstrates the extent to which, I believe, Salmond’s logic must be extended to our thinking about independence. While a desire for inclusion is no bad thing, we haven’t got the luxury of the relaxed gradualist, well down his road towards independence. Not being in circumstances of “minimal difference” between Union and not, different expedients seem called for. It is insufficient for the SNP simply to take the side of an independent Scotland. We must also take sides, on what sort of Scotland that ought to be.

The Campaign for Fiscal Responsibility ...

It must have been difficult picking the name. The Solemn League and Covenant (2) - This time its  for Mammon, I understand, was never really in the running. A pity. In the spirit of presentist modernity, they decided on the more workmanlike title of The Campaign for Fiscal Responsibility. Coordinated by Reform Scotland, the campaign insists that it is time for a new fiscal covenant for Scotland and the devolution of most taxation. Any "Independence" implied here should be read "with a small i". Eck's pulpy eminence can only be detected in dappled outline, lurking in the foliage. The responsibility and autonomy the Campaign have in mind is more in the spirit of the rugged liberty of a yeoman farmer and the self-reliance, self-subsistence of Lockean fantasy rather than denoting secessionist political tendencies per se. We'll return to this theme. First a bit of the detail. Opening with a declaration, sympathetic souls can subscribe their names. At the moment of writing, 146 signatures have been collected. Before turning to the queer coalition of opinion which is suggested by those who have already signed, its worth tarrying over the text itself ~

 THE DECLARATION

A Scottish Parliament with far greater responsibility for raising the money it spends would lead to better government in Scotland. It would make politicians more accountable for the financial decisions they take while giving them both the incentive and the fiscal tools necessary to achieve improved public services and faster economic growth - vital in the current economic circumstances. Further, it would help to foster a healthy relationship between Westminster and Holyrood.

All of the main Scottish and UK parties agree that the Scottish Parliament should have greater financial powers. The debate is now about which powers should be devolved and when.

Much has changed in the last year and the opportunity now exists to go further than the limited financial proposals outlined in the Calman Commission report.

Therefore, we are calling for the control of most current taxes to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament as soon as possible.

Implicit themes of the sickliness of dependency and doubts about what these rich fellows mean by better government might well evoke a certain justified discomfort in some of you. You may wonder if you've accidentally strayed into David Cameron's office in Downing Street, while George Osborne whets his razor and whispers sour fiscal nothings into the PM's shell-like. The list of signatories include some familiar faces from the Scots blogosphere - Gerry Hassan, Joan McAlpine - Tartan Tory historian and journalist Michael Fry, professors, economists, directors of various companies - and so on.  The Campaign has received plenty of press coverage, including a series of grim prophecies and Unionist declamations from that black-bearded, brass-throated Old Testament prophet Alan Cochrane ~ 

“The truth is that this is a huge issue on which there is no overall national agreement but Mr Salmond is using the CFR for his own separatist, political ends to claim that there is now a consensus of Scottish opinion in favour of full fiscal freedom. Those who say they support Mr Thomson’s organisation should be aware of this. Unless they are already.”

Like Nationalist opinion of a certain stripe, Cochrane is an inevitablist on independence. Concessions are largely conceded as a mistake, Tory collusion in whipping up such sops invariably the object of critical scorn. It is interesting, however, to see the Campaign in the context of Scottish Tory self-doubt and self-analysis.  At times, the "absence" - or more properly, muted voice - of the centre-right in Scotland is imagined as a sort of pathology among Scotland's many neurotic constitutional tendencies. Incompleteness in the political field can become conceived of as a sort of sickly repression, a fundamental denial of some natural tendency to balanced polity. I'm not sure that I find this sort of reasoning terrifically convincing - but there is no question that it is the way many folk conceive of and talk about our enfeebled and hobbling forces of Conservatism. Among his various cherished theorems, Pater Peat Worrier firmly believes that Scottish Tories or some offshoot of that species will shed their Unionism before the Labour Party. While this Campaign may not be toddling up that merry high road just yet, that it is mapping such terrain and forming a like-minded coalition along those lines seems to me undeniable. Its economic vocabulary and the Campaign's quiet inferences are expanded on in an acute piece by Iain MacWhirter, cautioning us that with full fiscal freedom, we may be given reason to fear most the very thing we desired. Here's the nub of his contention:

“But here’s the twist: the CFR supporters want fiscal federalism, not to get a better financial deal for Scotland, or get their hands on oil revenues, but to “end Scotland’s benefits culture”. Thinking Conservatives now realise fiscal autonomy is not an inherently socialist proposition but is actually quite Thatcherite, in that it implies a reduction in the size and scope of the state in Scotland. Reducing public spending to something nearer what is raised in tax would almost certainly slim down the public sector and would certainly enforce rigid fiscal discipline on the Scottish Parliament. No more giveaways on bridge tolls or prescription charges.”

MacWhirter must be right - up to a point - but it seems to me that the essential point of contestation at stake here is this. Many will, I suspect, be content enough to enter into this odd coalition, sustained by the sense that agreement on setting up new structures is and can be kept distinct from what we do, having secured those powers. Thus, while there may be those in the campaign who wish to devolve taxation powers to dismantle the public sector's gear and tackle and trim - there is no inevitability about this economic agenda pursuing full(ish) fiscal responsibilities for Scottish institutions. It is a skirmish for another today. We cooperate now, content to cross cudgels tomorrow. MacWhirter's point, as I understand him, concedes that Scotland's tax revenues will be lower than the amount presently spent through Westminster administered block grants. Full fiscal responsibility would, therefore, very necessarily result in a pairing back of public spending to some degree. 

That the animating reasoning behind this campaign differs substantially from the "social union" thematic of Calman is worth reflecting on. Although rubber-faced media jobgobbers like Jammy Paxman or Andrew Neil don't always realise what they're doing by appealing to brute equality arguments about spending across the United Kingdom - here meaning all  parts of the country should get the roughly the same amount - they are advancing a very particular theory about what fair spending looks like. Such arguments from equality (denoting "sameness") tend to ignore features like geographic dispersal and indeed the care which might inform other political movers and shakers - assessments of the relative needs of different parts of the country. MacWhirter's point is that such UK-wide "fairness by need" spending goes out the window, once taxation and the application of those revenues is undertaken separately. Just like idea that Unionist equality is the same level of spending displaces more nuanced assessments of what is an equitable distribution. Fiscal responsibility takes this one stage further. Instead of baking a single cake with the diffuse fiscal ingredients yielded up by taxation and distributing it slice by equal slice - suspicious eyes turn to the ingredients and even equal spending becomes problematic, if contributions of eggs and flour don't mirror the equality in distribution. On this logic, each to your own, earn what you spend takes on a deductive inevitability. It is the only taxation version which is not easily assailable on the critical reasoning employed at the very beginning.

None of this need be necessary however. Alternative notions of equality and fairness in spending can certainly be justified, on incompatible premises. However, an idea of justifying spending along the lines of differential need presses against the grain of contemporary metropolitan commentary. We're all used to hearing about we bloated Scotch slurpers, milk dribbling down our flabby chins and pooling in our folds, slimy slug-lips pressed to the wasted teat of English spending. If it is true, such a position could still cogently be defended, but crucially, not from the position of spend what you earn, if we also assume Scotland's tax intake is less than its spending. Interestingly, it may be that the Calmanesque notion of the social union may well furnish a hostile Scottish Labour Party with a cogent basis to criticise and oppose the  innovations of full fiscal responsibility while arguing for the continuing relevance and virtues of the Union. I am not saying I would agree with the argument - indeed as a supporter of independence and enhanced powers for Scottish institutions I'd reject it - but it is undeniably an articulated and reasonable position to adopt.

If any of that appeals to you, you can add your name and make your own solemn fiscal declaration here.