Whither Scotland's flower?

Is Scotland an integral cultural and economic part of the United Kingdom or would it be better off as an independent state in another, looser, union of European states? Malcolm MacKenzie and Neil MacCormick debate the question of Scottish independence.

The impact on Scotland of the 1707 union of its parliament with that of England was colossal. In a History of the Scottish People 1560-1830, T. C. Smout entitles his last chapter "The golden age of Scottish culture". In it he accounts for what he describes as the unprecedented cultural achievements of the Scots in the century after 1740.

This period, often referred to as The Scottish Enlightenment, was graced by names such as David Hume, Sir Walter Scott, Robert Burns, Adam Smith, Joseph Black, James Watt, the Adam brothers and John Galt. Smout writes: "However genius be measured, the galaxy of great and original-minded men that came together within the space of 70 years is comparable in brilliance with that of any other such intellectual constellation in a small country in the history of Europe."

Those who seek to equate Scottish culture with nationalism should reflect that one of the triggers of the golden age was the 1707 parliamentary union, which created a large internal market, gave scope to inventive, entrepreneurial skill and helped to provide the wealth upon which Scottish cultural, intellectual advance depends. While acknowledging the difficulties facing the historian in explaining the Enlightenment, Smout states that the age of Hume and Scott was also the age of economic take-off and that any light which can be thrown on the reasons for the cultural achievements "would reflect some truth about the entrepreneurial as well as the intellectual triumphs of the age".

The union is now under threat, both from nationalists seeking Scottish independence and from those who, whether by design or default, will use devolution as a stepping stone to its break-up. It must be defended at all costs.

In the last resort the argument is about culture and consciousness, even phenomenology. Consciousness is all. Nationhood primarily depends not on economic factors, or whether one set of constitutional arrangements will produce a higher standard of living than another, or on devolved assemblies but on a shared culture which produces a sense of common identity. The British culture, which antedates the United States, cannot easily be discounted or discarded. In this century it has been reforged in the fire of two world wars which also reinforced the image of the Westminster parliament as a bastion of freedom. Of course it is argued by some that it is only the old and the elderly in Scotland who retain this British consciousness. The succeeding generations, we are told, possess an exclusively Scottish sense of identity manifested, for example, in the enthusiastic rendering of "Flower of Scotland", at rugby internationals. It would be a grave error, however, to equate the Celtic penchant for romantic nostalgia with political reality.

The union ensures the recognised existence, even survival, of the British as a people and a culture. This culture is manifested in language, art, sport, fashion, the mass media, literature, lifestyle, a shared sense of history, even, God help us, climate. Although the Scots are proud of very real cultural differences exemplified by the legal and educational systems, and a separate church, they remain embedded in a profoundly British culture. The strength of this culture has yet to be put to the test. Instead of the bizarre notions of referenda currently being promulgated, the Scottish people should be asked one straight question, namely, do they want to remain in the union or not. One suspects that the answer would be an overwhelming decision to remain within it.

The clarity of this issue is being obfuscated by the intellectual morass of devolution, an analysis shared by such unlikely allies as the Scottish National Party's Jim Sillars, and the secretary of state for Scotland, Michael Forsyth. Scotland is not the Basque region of Spain. Once an historic parliament is restored it will inevitably and quite rightly demand autonomous powers in terms of tax-raising and decision-making. It will seek the status voluntarily surrendered in 1707. If the union is to go it must not do so by chance or default. The real political issue, its survival, must now be faced. The argument that devolution will strengthen the union is spurious. We are not talking about devolving administrative powers from a sovereign body to a region but of re-establishing a parliament and, almost by definition, breaking a parliamentary union. That is the political reality which must be faced before the slide into independence begins.

Malcolm L. MacKenzie is senior lecturer in education, University of Glasgow.

Proposals for Scotland

Labour: in favour of a single, two-question referendum - Scottish voters would be asked whether they want a Scottish parliament with the power to vary taxes.

Conservatives: opposed to a Scottish parliament and have refused to hold a referendum on constitutional change. Some Conservatives have warned that Scottish devolution could be the first step to splitting the union between England and Scotland and returning Britain to a warring island.

SNP: believes in independent Scottish parliament within the EU with powers over all domestic legislation and national resources including the power to raise taxes.

Liberal Democrats: in favour of a Scottish assembly within the EU with power to raise/lower income tax by up to 3p in the pound.