[Firstly, I would like to apologise for the delay in uploading this to the blog. However, this piece is just as relevant now as it was a month ago when Ross wrote it]
![]()
![]()
“The independence of America, considered merely as a separation from England, would have been a matter but of little importance, had it not been accompanied by a revolution in the principles and practice of governments. She made a stand, not for herself only, but for the world, and looked beyond the advantages herself could receive. Even the Hessian, though hired to fight against her, may live to bless his defeat; and England, condemning the viciousness of its government, rejoice in its miscarriage.”
- Tom Paine, Rights of Man (1792)
Few SNP policy positions annoy me as much as the pro-monarchy stance. What little enthusiasm that institution can inspire. Standing firmly in the republican camp, I struggle to understand why some people don’t instinctively cringe when they see ‘a royal’ on TV or in a newspaper. To illustrate the point, take the royal wedding last year. What a self-indulging, silly little charade the whole thing was, propped up by the rest of us gawking, curious subjects. It was a proud display of Sycophant Britain, the BBC leading the way in kiss-arse broadcasting. We’ll no doubt soon see more of the same, as ‘her majesty’ prepares for another milestone year.
The SNP’s reluctance to not only distance, but remove, itself from this dimension of British politics and society is significant. Whether it’s a deliberate act to gather and sustain wider support, or the genuine feelings of the party top brass, it’s a position that earns little respect. To me it undermines some of the social democratic rhetoric that the party surrounds itself with. It might even betray a slight conservative vein that runs through the party.
However, none of its policy positions are more important than the adherence to a neoliberal economic framework. If the absence of republicanism undermines the social democratic mantra, then this engineers to blow it out of the water. The corporation tax rate of an independent Scotland, for example, will remain a curiosity for anyone with an interest in what kind of country this is going to be. Further, if the word ‘billionaire’ is ever to become a pejorative, then Donald Trump and Rupert Murdoch hardly seem the type that a social democratic government should be entertaining. The Government has put up little challenge to the neoliberal model – a model which has come to dominate entirely the political and economic discourse since the 1990s. And courting big business has arguably been a hallmark of the SNP’s modern success.
I’m being too harsh on the Nationalists (you still have my vote, don’t worry). This engulfs the UK left as well.
Take the budget announcement a few weeks back for example. The adherence (the conformity) to this orthodox economics was proudly on display. Profoundly so, I thought. You could sense the complete lack of any meaningful challenge. Everybody was playing the same game. There was humming and hawing, smiling and frowning, nodding and outrage at the Chancellor’s economic orchestra: a spending lever here, a tax break there. The neoclassical train ride: which way best to economic growth?
All aboard! Everyone in the Commons, it seems, is a macroeconomic genius. That’s good. That’s excellent news. I’m glad we’re in safe hands. But what did that wee red briefcase mean? Actually, come to think of it, what does economics mean? It seems that economics and neoliberalism have become almost interchangeable; in meaning and in practice. Given that the main parties are often accused of policy convergence (measured in Rizla paper thickness these days), you’d be forgiven for thinking that a genuine alternative to neoliberalism would be given at least some political consideration.
But only four years after the crash of financial markets the world over, this already seems unlikely. Isn’t it amazing that fundamental change (or even just a challenge) to the economic system isn’t even remotely near the political agenda? You sometimes hear the obliged - and reluctant - nip and tuck from the power holders: ‘tax the bankers, change their bonuses’. A change to the bonus structure of bankers? That isn’t an economic remedy; it’s political homeopathy. A drop in the ocean compared to the larger problem. It feels like an administered dose of Marx’s proverbial opium; charlatan talk designed to pacify and placate. Nothing will change at the foundations.
A recent interview with the Green MSP Patrick Harvie however revealed some intriguing alternative thinking within the political arena. If the mainstream pro-independence camp (I’ll exclude any Scottish fascists out there) can be broadly divided in two - let’s call the first the ‘nationalist vision’, and the second the ‘pragmatic left’ - then it is the latter that is generating the most appealing vision of an independent country. Independence as a pragmatic tool for challenging the economic conventional wisdom is about as radical as it gets in British politics. A move for the SNP from the first stance to the second would help provide Scotland with a broad base for a genuinely social democratic future.
Any such change though remains unlikely. Because it is unorthodox it is impractical. As Harvie points out, “The SNP cannot hope to make Scotland both a model for a low carbon economy and a rapidly growing Celtic tiger – the two are mutually exclusive.” Where is this kind of rejection from the mainstream political left? Greens aside, where are the politicians talking about the larger picture? Overpopulation, depopulation, genuine environmentalism, an unsustainable global economic framework: these are going to be huge issues going forward. What can the way we perceive economics and challenge orthodoxies possibly have to say about just such issues? It is precisely because these issues are hard to hear that means we should be talking about them.
They should be the remit of the political left, but instead we see a First Minister chasing the rich and powerful, and hear a Labour Leader relentlessly uttering the phrase ‘jobs and growth’. I may be an idealist, but I’m not an idiot. I appreciate the immense difficulty in trying to articulate an alternative economic agenda - and then actually realise it. But what’s the point in the left if it’s not going to be idealistic? Labour and the SNP should be showing some radical thinking on this front. Instead we see the same agenda of neoliberalism; hear the same rhetoric of neoclassical economics. Why can’t they be a bit more imaginative? Changing an economic system is an immeasurably difficult task. But the abandonment of that ideal is truly diminishing the political arena. It is lamentable that the main parties shy away from the debate on economic change. And as admirable as the Green position is, it is the bigger parties that are capable of taking such notions and grinding them through the cogs of democratic government.
Where does independence come in? Its greatest potential, Harvie concludes, lies in pragmatism: “I have very little interest in flags and identity and 300 years of grudge and grievance – that’s not what it’s all about”. These are wise words, coming yet again, from an increasingly alienated party of the UK left. [I’d be lying if I said that national identity is a complete irrelevance in my own support for independence, but fully appreciate the reason, logic and value of his argument.] We shouldn’t feel empathy with politicians who see economic growth as something we’re destined (or is it doomed?) to chase. The world can do better. The biggest challenge facing economics today is sustainability. And like renewable energy, an independent Scotland should try and find a way to lead in that respect, however great the challenge.
If cutting the state from 60 million people to 5 million makes radical social democratic change that bit easier, then it is to be welcomed. Might it even increase the likelihood of incorporating aspects of green/feminist/alternative economics into public discourse? Admittedly, that’s a very hard proposition to make. But the alternative of chasing economic growth inevitably leads in only one direction.
By the end of the budget, one important question had been answered (if further clarification was needed). Has the case for economic heterodoxy been completely abandoned by the mainstream political left?
Sadly the answer to that is that it seems so. Who then is left to call for that revolution in the principles and practices of government? And will Scotland ever answer it? For once, it would be nice to see the mainstream centre-left in this country taking the radical approach – by advocating (or more realistically reconsidering) both republicanism, and more importantly, an alternative economic agenda.
And whilst [as Tom Paine would have argued] independence in itself is of little importance, social democratic Scotland would get off to a nice start by swiftly arranging the first, and then articulating and incorporating the second.
Of course, the SNP and Labour - being Scotland’s political big dogs with the burden of governmental experience - shouldn’t be wasting their time with such lofty ideals. There are far more important things to do.
Carry on with our lives. All aboard. Jobs and Growth.
Ross Croall, @croall89
