Scotland: hold your nerve

21 October 2011

At the SNP Conference today in Inverness, Nicola Sturgeon, the Deputy Leader of the SNP, said that this was a “once-in-a-generation opportunity to win independence”.

This suggests that the SNP are not so sure that they will be able to hold the line beyond this Parliamentary session.  Why not?  Commentators have interpreted this in terms of the economy, but if this is so, why does Sturgeon think it once in a generation?  Nor is it simply the large number of SNP MSPs because they need to persuade the country.  How?

Bannockburn fervour: 1314–2014
Brian Taylor’s report said that we don’t know “the question, the date or the outcome”.  In the Holyrood election campaign and in the Manifesto, Alex Salmond said that the referendum will take place towards the end of the current Scottish parliament.  The only idea which has occurred to commentators is that the economy may be better by then.  Rather, it seems to have escaped their notice that this timing takes us to 2014, the 700th anniversary of Bannockburn in 1314.  It is likely that the SNP will stoke up nationalist fervour and try to ride this wave into an independent Scotland.

What do they mean by Independence?
Commentators are trying to understand the nature of SNP Scottish Independence.  As the debate has crystalised, it has become apparent that there are adjustments to earlier ideas.  Finance Secretary John Swinney told the Conference that Scotland will have left the Union within the next decade, but he also told Brian Taylor: “the United Kingdom will be a country that has the same head of state and Scotland will be an independent country.”  So the United Kingdom will continue, because crown and currency will continue, as well as defence.  But what about church and law?  The role of each of these is being eroded.  Angus Robertson said that “Independence means that Parliament is sovereign”, but how can joint defence and currency be handled by independent sovereign Parliaments?

The SNP does not answer these questions openly.  Commentators interpret this as secrecy.  If this is so, then it is another example of government by stealth - by those who have something to hide - which Alex Salmond has already used.  However, it is more likely that the SNP is itself unclear about the full implications.  The SNP is feeling its way towards what it means by independence.  It is part of the political process - politicians often fail to see the consequences of their laws, and the courts unravel the real implications in case law.

The stalking Bill in Holyrood manifested the inability of paid individuals to do their job, and the Scottish Christian Party has lost confidence in our legislature to produce balanced legislation.  The haste with which Alex Salmond wanted to push through his anti-sectarianism Bill only confirms our unease.  So we have little confidence the SNP know what threads will unravel.  The Scottish people need to have answers rather than “uncle Alex knows best”, which seemed to satisfy SNP delegates at their annual conference.

Silence on Christianity
The Scottish Christian Party is concerned about the preservation of the Christian Constitution of Scotland in an independent Scotland.  Alex Salmond has given assurances on the monarchy, defence and the pound, but not on our Christian Constitution.  The SNP has demonstrated its multi-faith agenda, and the homosexual marriage consultation demonstrates its humanistic credentials, but we have still to see its Christian credentials.  These are the three choices for an independent Scotland: humanist, multi-faith or Christian.  The new Scottish Parliament in 1999 followed the multi-faith pathway and the constitutional position of the Church of Scotland was studiously bypassed.

But the SNP is silent about other things as well:

1. the eurozone has demonstrated that full fiscal autonomy and a unified currency do not go together, as predicted over a decade ago by Bernard Connolly in The Rotten Heart of Europe.  So an independent Scottish Government would not have control of its currency.
2. if Scottish fiscal policy affects the pound, Westminster will act in the interests of England and the Bank of England will control monetary policy rather than Holyrood.  This suggests that retaining the pound could be only a temporary measure.

Choices?
So what are the choices?
The SNP wants to break “the Union” with England, but retain the European Union.
They say that they will keep the pound in the short term, but what about the long term?  The euro is likely to survive only if greater European political integration takes place; so will Scotland be integrated into the euro and an increasingly politically centralised Europe?

United Kingdom: one monarch, several countries
It seems that the SNP wants to keep the United Kingdom with one monarch, but with two sovereign Parliaments.  This model of a United Kingdom with sovereign Parliaments might work, and it would be a much better model than the European Union model.  After all, the Christian Vision is a better and larger one than the SNP vision.  The Bible predicts the time when “the kingdoms of this world become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of His Christ” Revelation 11:15.  The monarchs of the world will yet acknowledge the Lordship of Jesus Christ as “King of kings”, so that the blueprint of Christ’s plan is United Kingdoms under Christ.

The spirit of Christ’s kingdom: love your neighbour as yourself
Angus Robertson, SNP Westminster Leader, speaks about an independent Scotland having good relations with its friends and neighbours on this island.  The United Kingdom might not be the best example of how nations should be related to each other, but our constitutional debate may yet be the blueprint for Christ’s intention of uniting all nations, kingdoms or countries under His Lordship.  Christians may see this as an opportunity to fulfil Christ’s biblical injunction to “love your neighbour as yourself”.  However, this is the second commandment, and the first commandment is to love God.  If the SNP promote a humanist or multi-faith constitution for Scotland, then they will simply delay the Christian vision for another generation.

Constitutional or independent?
At the SNP conference there was a hint of a suggestion that the referendum should be seen as a “constitutional” referendum rather than an “independence” referendum.  There are several ways of interpreting this shift.  On the one hand it may be an attempt to downplay the idea of independence in order to sell the Yes agenda to the population; but on the other hand it may be a genuine desire on behalf of the SNP leadership to accommodate the wishes of the Scottish people and retain a United Kingdom.  If the SNP Government will safeguard the Christian constitution of Scotland, resist the humanist agenda, promote the blueprint of United Kingdoms under Christ, we might yet secure a win-win solution for the future of covenanted Scotland as a blueprint for Christendom’s United Kingdoms.

Related Stories