Last week, Charles Kennedy spoke in Liverpool as part of the Liverpool John Moore University’s Roscoe series of lectures. His subject was the ongoing debate on Scottish independence and his comments were, as you would expect, enlightening, in fact one of the most enlightening moments of the debate so far. The bar isn’t that high, but Charles’ lecture is actually very good. Here are some of the highlights.
He started off by referring to his 6 years as Rector of Glasgow University, saying that he misses it more than he missed being leader of the Liberal Democrats. He also remembered being told off by a Professor in his own university days for that typical student politico offence of not actually going to any questions. Discussing career options, the academic said to Charles:
If all else fails you can always go into politics.
Charles wasn’t in the mood to sweat the small stuff. He said that people were sick fed up of that sort of being told they would be £50 better or worse off:
l’ll spare you the minutiae. Any sensible member of the Scottish electorate will say “They’re all bloody liars, I’ll make m own mind up.”
The Tay and Clyde and Forth are thinking of divorcing themselves from the Mersey, he said:
Anyone who knows their UK history knows the association between the two and in a metaphoric microcosm there’s an awful lot that is summed up in that thought alone about what that debate is about.
He dismissed the idea that somehow you weren’t a patriotic Scot is you didn’t back independence, saying he was as patriotic a Scot as any Yes voter.
He added that on his gravestone he wanted it to say that he was a Highlander, Scottish, British and EU citizen in that order. He says there’s no problem with being all of these things, adding:
You can deploy each identity when it would be most effective.
Reflecting on the furore over Obama’s comments on independence, Charles joked: “I can’t wait until someone asks Putin what he thinks of Scottish independence.” You can, Charles, you really can.
He was struck by the similarities between Glasgow and Liverpool, two cities whose civil buildings had been built on the prosperity of the 18th and 19th centuries which benefited both parties to the union .
He wasn’t impressed with the arguments advanced by the Better Together campaign. He said that sometimes it seems as if the Yes camp believes that a vote to remain in the union is a vote for “subordination to Westminster and every hate figure from Thatcher to Edward 1” while the No Camp says that a Yes vote would be economic Armageddon and international isolation.
If Scotland voted for independence he said, If we wanted to do it we would do it and we would make it happen. We might not be as well off as we are now but that isn’t the issue.
My argument is that when yo look at movement and migrations of people and capital over the centuries that that in this day and age is a redundant sense of the way forward for a modern company such as Scotland in an evolving UK.
Centralisation
Any good liberal gets very exercised about centralisation of power and Charles is nothing if not a good liberal:
When I went to Westminster, UK was centralised at our expense. SNP Government can be judged by their actions. Highlands has suffered with consequences of increased centralism since Alex Salmond came to power and it’s been politically conscious on his part.
He talked about how Highlands and Islands Enterprise, the Crofters’ Commission, Police and Fire services were being run more and more from Edinburgh. I loved the way he described a croft of the benefit of those in the audience not familiar with Scotland’s small farms:
A croft is an area of ground surrounded by legislation.
I didn’t argue against centralisation at Westminster to replace it with centralisation in Edinburgh. That is the legacy of the SNP in power. They shouldn’t be allowed to get away with the idea that everything is London’s fault.
He said that people in highlands have less control over services in their area than they had before the SNP came to power.
Argument won’t go away
Some of us have been worrying that even if there is a no vote, the Nationalists will want a “neverendum”, to keep asking the question till they get the “right” answer. Charles was perfectly relaxed about it, saying that if he wasn’t going to give up arguing for a change to the voting system, the Nationalists aren’t going to suddenly stop believing in an independent Scotland after a no vote. That has its dangers.
When you win or lose votes, it’s not just winning or losing, it’s the nature by which you win or lose that is so important. Mrs Thatcher won a lot of arguments but look at the residual bitterness she’s left in so many communities along the way. I worry about a Scotland becoming more divided almost irrespective of the outcome of the vote.
But what to do about it? Actually, devolve more powers and make sure SNP are involved in that debate.
I hope SNP will join in discussion because they represent a very significant body of opinion whatever the precise figures on the night and that sentiment has to be built into the future equation.
Salmond’s conundrum
He finished by outlining what he thought was Salmond’s conundrum. He had been pretty complimentary about Salmond throughout;
Alex Salmond puts up a very persuasive case but I believe it’s wanting. but he is asking Scotland to think big and vote small. That’s a curious way to conduct our internal politics far less the politics with its ramifications of the wider United Kingdom.
You can read more about Charles’ lecture here, but I’d recommend you download the podcast. It’s worth devoting 20 minutes of your life to.
Caron's Musings 