The party of Scottish self-government

"Absolutely no one will run the affairs of this country better than the people who live and work in Scotland." 

The words are Alex Salmond's, but the sentiment resonated throughout the Yes campaign. We lost on the 18th of September. Scotland will not be an independent country any time soon. But as we take stock, and the SNP doubles in size with inflocking new members, reassembling its leadership around Nicola Sturgeon, it seems to me that we should pin this statement to the wall in bold, bright letters. In black and gold, if you like.

"Absolutely no one will run the affairs of this country better than the people who live and work in Scotland." 

That cause endures. It is not a statement of principle for an independent state alone: it is the red blood of the argument for Scottish devolution within the United Kingdom. During the referendum, in proprietorial mode, the Labour Party would occasionally trot out the line that the SNP don't believe in devolution, keen to erect a wall of fire between aspirations for a separate Scottish sovereignty and the demand for greater autonomy within the United Kingdom. In one, very limited sense, they were right. Independence is, in some important respects, categorically different to devolution of power within a larger state. In international law, states are a distinct sort of entity. They do things which a region within a greater polity - forgive the term - cannot do. States sit at tables which Scotland will not now be invited to. That's beyond dispute.

But this pettifogger's distinction obscures more than it illuminates. The broader claim that seeking greater Scottish self-government has no connection to ideas of independence -- that's poppycock. Anybody who has been paying attention during the last two years cannot but have detected the overlapping logics of devolution and independence. The connecting tissue of the two arguments is a belief in greater self-determination. The difference, really, is one of degree. Certainly, full-fat home rule is different from the semi-skimmed version now available to us, but the idea that the pro-indy bod has nothing in common with the devo-thusiastic has the distinct ring of pish to it.

It is now up to the SNP to be the party of Scottish self-government, making the case for the greatest level of Scottish autonomy within the United Kingdom. Marco is absolutely right. Put all talk of future referendums from your mind. Give it a rest. That battle is over for the foreseeable future. We must win the peace declared by the two million people who voted to remain in Britain last Thursday.

We must be constructive but critical, ambitious but realistic, holding the covenanted people of the No campaign to their undertakings with ferocious tenacity. After the sapping ennui, the activity. We don't have the time to mope or to stand still. And we must take heart. In many respects, we remain in a remarkably strong position for a defeated campaign. And for this, we have the fretful temporising of our opponents to thank.

There are some times in negotiations when it pays to hold back and allow your opponents to show their hands. This isn't one of those times. The territory of aspiration for greater Scottish self-government, the gap between the promises of the Better Together parties and the impression they allowed to be cultivated, is up for the claiming -- but only if we're speedy. The initiative is there to be seized -- if we're quick. Will we get everything we want? Not a snowball's chance in hell. But better for the Tories, Labour and Liberal Democrats to dance to our tune, than to wait for them to fluff the melody.

This commitment is not at odds with the logic of the Yes campaign, but simply its application to our new circumstances. The case for Scottish independence was not rooted in national identity, but in the virtues of national self-government. It was not a case from romantic feeling, but of practical concerns of democratic control of our affairs. It was an argument not for separateness, but for finding new, more satisfactory ways to work together in these islands to realise the political aspirations of the Scottish people. The people have chosen to continue that work within the United Kingdom, and they are never wrong.

That work may initially be contemplated by Nationalists with little enthusiasm, and with a good deal of pessimism about Westminster's willingness and capacity to transform itself. But this founding axiom - maximising Scottish self-government - can carry us through and structure our engagements with this process. It is even a moderately exciting thought. As Nicola recognised in her statement launching her leadership bid yesterday, we can be disappointed, but we must not be discouraged. There's no good in us hanging back, waiting to be foiled, bathing passively in the embalming fluid of low expectations, met.

Smooth equivocations to the contrary, in the dying days of the No campaign, its movers and shakers gave out the distinct impression that Scotland could expect significantly enhanced autonomy if independence was rejected. Devo-max. Devo-super-max. Real home rule. Almost federalism. Everything short of the key functions which the UK needs to exist. Much greater autonomy or an end to the Union, went up the cry.

On any register, this patter was calculated to leave the impression that there would be a significant advance on the proposals set out by the Tory, Liberal Democrat and Labour devolution commissions. Now that independence is safely defeated, the sleekit are attempting to reverse ferret, and to insist that these modest proposals were always the be all and the end all of their devo-something offers. 

That won't do. They know it won't do. Britannia, once again, finds herself between Scylla and Charybdis. Remarkably, the No parties have worked themselves into a position where they may well deliver on their plans for enhancing Holyrood's powers, but where they are more or less predestined to disappoint not just the Yes voting 45%, but the wider community who believe in "significantly enhanced" Scottish autonomy within the Union. As political achievements go, it is a beezer.  Mugged by the sea monster and kicked in the teeth by the scowling beast of the rocks. That's our opportunity. 

So, in these negotiations, let's use Gordon Brown's criterion. He told us that we could expect the maximum devolution compatible with continuing Union. Cameron and Miliband gave him the nod.  Let's take them at their word. In discussing the new settlement, the critical question cannot be "why should that power be devolved?" but "why should this power be reserved to Westminster?" Let's go through schedule 5 of the Scotland Act. Foreign affairs, currency, defence, imports and exports, immigration and extradition - sure, they must remain at the Westminster level. But misuse of drugs? Control of the Crown estate? Firearms? Elections? Equal opportunities? Elections? Insolvency? Energy? Embryology and the cutting edge of medical research? Are they the glue holding the state together? I struggle to see it.

Applying Brown's test, where no reasoned or compelling case can be made for a power's retention, going to the heart of the Union, the power should be devolved. That's our opening gambit. In some areas, the SNP has a snowball's chance in hell of achieving consensus. This, it should frankly be admitted, is the key limitation of the all-together-now structure set up under Robert Smith by the Prime Minister.

And to be franker, our key problems is the stubborn dunce in the room, wearing the big red jacket. What if the best consensus capable of being formed excludes the Labour Party? Which value do you privilege? Are we to proceed at the pace of the slowest student in the class? Must we dawdle as we wait for the Labour Party to recover any kind of ambition for Scotland or coherent idea of why it supports devolution? Will the parties formerly known as Better Together privilege their own coherence, and a united front, or aspire to the greatest level of self-government possible?

In the current atmosphere, it is difficult to say for sure. Smarter sorts in the Labour Party might regard it as a kind of relief: a rare opportunity to pry themselves from off the wretched hook they spiked themselves on with their pitiful and incoherent devolution plans. Nobody will even gloat about it.  But we owe it to ourselves, and all those across this country who voted for greater autonomy, to bash on, undiscouraged. 

Any process which involves the Labour Party will almost certainly not achieve anything like "extensive" new autonomy for Scotland in welfare and social security. Their instrumental case for the Union, and (largely unconvincing) disavowal of British nationalism sets Labour precisely at odds with any such devolution of power. That before we've factored in the universalising ambition behind Iain Duncan Smith's consolidated UK universal credit, which makes hiving off particular strands of social security particularly challenging. To my mind, the Strathclyde Commission proposals represents the minimum floor beneath which the Better Together parties cannot fall without ratting on their vows. But they must be encouraged to go further. 

The challenge for the Westminster parties is to explain to the Scottish people why, in the fields of tax, welfare and social matters, they're better placed to take these choices, to explain why the Union's life depends on excluding them from the Scottish Parliament's sway. But Scotland expects, vows have been uttered, and the SNP has a good answer: "Absolutely no one will run the affairs of this country better than the people who live and work in Scotland." 

Prove us wrong.