We've just recorded a podcast available at www.lesleyriddoch.com on the difference between the two recent Scottish independence debates where I've been a panellist – on BBC Radio 4 Any Questions and last week on BBC Scotland's TV debate. http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01bw82l/The_Big_Debate_Choosing_Scotlands_Future After half a lifetime on the wireless I tend to behave like a radio contributor (or a hard-to-silence presenter!) on both mediums. But the structure and control TV exerts definitely dampens the TV audience I think. Anyway have a listen to the podcast and see whit you think. I've been writing about the vexed second question issue again in the Scotsman – also on www.lesleyriddoch.com.
I see confusion is a recurring theme in this referendum debate -- today's Scotsman front page suggests it's confusing for Alex Salmond to talk of a continuing United Kingdom after independence. It would be more accurate for Lec to talk about a continuing Union of Crowns – this happened in Norway between 1814 and 1905 when the King of Sweden was also King of Norway (although the Norwegians opted to elect him after "local" Prince Christian Fredrik nobly stepped aside to prevent a wholesale takeover when the Danes lost Norway after siding with Napoleon.) Do you follow? Anyway, thanks to Christian Fredrik's quick thinking the Norwegians had already drawn up a very radical constitution at Eidsvoll while the Treaty of Kiel was being signed. So when Swedish regal takeover took place, the internal operations of Norway were largely left to the Norwegians for a "highly devolved" century --except when royal prerogative allowed the King to impose Swedish values. So there were bust ups – but the Norwegians pretty much won them all. Ironically, the Swedish King was forced to accept cabinet government in Norway before he accepted it in Sweden! When things finally came to a head in 1905 over separate Norwegian consular representation, it was the Swedish King who insisted on a referendum to confirm the Norwegian people supported the move. The result was 368392 for break-up, and just 184 against! This helped a peaceful transition. The question of who should be head of state in Norway was also resolved by referendum. The Norwegians voted for a monarchy and Prince Carl of Denmark was asked to do the job. He changed his name to become King Haakon VII. So the "auld enemy" was invited back in to the "big symbolic job"! There is surely all sorts of resonance for Scotland and England in this. Certainly our story is different. Its 100 years later. Support for Scottish independence is far weaker than it was in the Nordic nations who separated from their respective Mother Ships in the 20th century (Finland 1917, Iceland 1944 and Norway 1905). In relative terms, some of those separations involved the same difference in population size experienced by England and Scotland. Iceland at 300k is at least 10 times smaller than the population of Denmark. But then the territories of the two are not contiguous. Finland does share a land border with enormous Mother Russia – but left at a time of revolution and upheaval "next door." The Nordic independence movements do however have one thing in common – theye were all backed by the overwhelming majority of their population at the time and governance had always been more local and empowered than Scotland's. Maybe that's the biggest difference between all the Nordics and ourselves – high levels of doubt about our own abilities that arise from centuries of paternalistic "top-down" governance by a succession of Labour and Tory governments – and from a decision-making class which has always benefitted materially from the economic success of the Union. Still, it amazes me there is so little interest in histories other than our own – and the Irish. The Nordics have handled differences like grown-ups. Surely there are models aplenty for Scotland in there!
Comments