tag:theconversation.com,2011:/africa/topics/tom-devine-11981/articlesTom Devine – The Conversation2014-08-25T09:03:14Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/308502014-08-25T09:03:14Z2014-08-25T09:03:14ZChris Whatley: why Tom Devine switch to Yes is confusing and short-sighted<p>Sir Tom Devine’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/tom-devine-why-i-now-say-yes-to-independence-for-scotland-30733">conversion to the Yes cause</a> may seem like a road-to-Damascus event, but should occasion little surprise. </p>
<p>Most Scottish historians who have come out on the independence question are yes supporters. Their reasons for so doing differ from individual to individual but will owe at least something to their pioneering work in discovering aspects of Scotland’s history which for too long have been hidden, untold and unappreciated. </p>
<p>In itself this is uplifting and adds to a sense of pride and self-respect both on a personal level and for the nation as a whole. Sir Tom is right to point this out and can feel rightly proud of his own pre-eminence in the field – though it is worth remarking that the Scottish history project, which has gone from strength to strength since the 1970s, has been a collective endeavour that has involved many scholars. Unlike historians of some other nations that have been part of union states, in Britain they have been free to explore what they want and write without fear. </p>
<p>I too am a historian of Scotland and, like Sir Tom, my family’s roots lie deep in the traditions of the Labour movement. I agree with Sir Tom that since the devolved Scottish parliament was inaugurated in 1999, our MSPs have demonstrated that they are capable of governing and -– at times – of holding the executive to account. This was never seriously in question, it must be said, given the influence and high offices of Scottish politicians at Westminster and other key British institutions; and the remarkable achievements of Scotland’s local authorities (in the past – they have less autonomy under the present administration). </p>
<p>Nor do I have any doubt that an independent Scotland could be a success economically – though I suspect this will take time, due to the dislocation caused by breaking with the rest of the UK; the costs of setting up a new state (which the Scottish government has surely seriously underestimated); and finding a currency arrangement that has the confidence of savers, the financial markets and investors.</p>
<h2>Curious timing</h2>
<p>What is somewhat puzzling is why Sir Tom should have allied himself with the Yes campaign so late in the day. None of his new-found allies will mind, of course. A last-minute conversion is a lot better than no conversion and, given Sir Tom’s high public profile, might even cause a handful of voters to follow suit. </p>
<p>Yet few if any of the factors he presents as having led to his change of mind are of recent origin. Like Sir Tom was, I am still persuaded that what he terms the “devolution maximus” option is the best for Scotland. But unlike him I see nothing in his portentous explanation for his own changed position to persuade me to do likewise at this stage in the campaign. </p>
<p>It is difficult to follow the argument that the “catalyst” for his apparent volte-face “has been how threadbare the union has become” since the early 1980s – a point he links to the “transformation of Scotland”. It is not as if this transformation has just happened, even if few would disagree that it has taken place. It includes a more diversified economy, along with the employment generated by what Sir Tom calls the “vibrant” public sector. He argues that Scotland’s economy has become both resilient and independently sustainable, owing to its oil and wind power assets. It is no longer dominated by the “industrial dinosaurs” of the past (the decline of which, uncharacteristically for such a forensically-minded historian, he attributes at one point to the “radical surgery” of Thatcherism and elsewhere to “historic inevitability”).</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/57194/original/vkdfgkxz-1408731399.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/57194/original/vkdfgkxz-1408731399.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/57194/original/vkdfgkxz-1408731399.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=404&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/57194/original/vkdfgkxz-1408731399.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=404&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/57194/original/vkdfgkxz-1408731399.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=404&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/57194/original/vkdfgkxz-1408731399.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=508&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/57194/original/vkdfgkxz-1408731399.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=508&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/57194/original/vkdfgkxz-1408731399.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=508&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Dundee is a city being transformed.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/pamilne/5993901284/in/photolist-9iW2iX-77sNhJ-77oSR4-77oSN8-77oSTK-7H1whq-7GWB8p-eVwEtw-8z8rjs-5gcZp7-6dCjSa-a8Btdc-eZEB8s-6Zp1aM-a8EaTG-a8EmgE-a8Ej2A-a8BxKP-a8EnoA-a8EtrA-a8BFuz-a8Es8w-a8ByWF-a8EuMA-a8EvZS-a8Eovf-a8EeMf-a8BqSp-a8EgU3-a8BoJe-eZtwr8-a8E9Wy-a8BjL4-a8BmGV-a8Bg8k-a8E98y-7H1wzU-a8BkKB-8yTgga-e7DC9W-8urP12-8urNq2-kbejS6-8jddCd-ebpWZ7-3bqhxY-3bqpTo-3bkpFp-3bpCCN-aas2j7">Philip Milne</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Most of this may be true, but the case being made here seems less compelling now than it was a few months ago. That Scotland’s economy is adjusting to its post-industrial status is undoubtedly welcome. Aberdeen is Europe’s oil capital. Dundee is reinventing itself from its days as the world’s jute-manufacturing centre to a city of learning and innovation, world-class scientific research, and creativity. The Commonwealth Games have been a major stimulus for Glasgow. But in both these former industrial powerhouses – as elsewhere – there is still a high level of dependence upon public sector employment and other state funding.</p>
<h2>Nationalist cracks</h2>
<p>Awkward questions have been asked, mainly by the UK treasury and Better Together (No) campaigners, about an independent Scotland’s currency arrangements. The first minister’s responses have hardly been persuasive, while his normally sure-footed finance minister <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11044552/John-Swinney-admits-no-Bank-of-England-talks-over-currency-union.html">has had to</a> correct the understanding that the Scottish government and the Bank of England had been in discussions on the matter. Little wonder then that the <a href="https://theconversation.com/scotland-decides-14-is-the-nhs-fair-game-30750">Yes campaign has diverted attention to the NHS</a>, although the grim picture painted in the event of a No vote of this entirely devolved organisation’s future smacks of desperation. It is hard to square with the seriousness of what is a debate about the future of a nation and its people. </p>
<p>Industry voices <a href="http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/salmond-faces-grilling-after-tycoon-warns-oil-running-out.25104443">have been raised lately</a> about the manner in which potential gains from North Sea and other oil fields off Scotland’s coast have been based on the upper end of what are estimated barrel numbers rather than geological certainty. Some energy experts <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/70bacdb0-987a-11e2-867f-00144feabdc0.html">have begun to</a> visualise a not-so-distant future in which global demand for oil will subdue, with a consequent lowering of its price, owing to new discoveries of natural gas (including the shale revolution); more efficient oil-fuel usage (in vehicles for example); and scientists making substantial advances in solar power. In Scotland the wind blows, but intermittently and often at the wrong time. </p>
<p>None of this is to suggest that Scotland shouldn’t be independent or indeed that even diminished oil reserves aren’t a unique asset, as indeed is wave power. It does however raise the question of how well prepared those who are leading the Yes movement are for independence. </p>
<p>It’s difficult for a historian of the union like me – though not a unionist historian, <a href="http://ourscotland.myfreeforum.org/archive/scottish-history-event-in-dundee__o_t__t_2952.html">as is sometimes alleged</a> – not to offer the observation that those Scots who took the nation into the British union state in 1706-07 had a far more detailed knowledge of what was being planned than those who want to take us out of it today. Scotland was to adopt sterling, and the country’s share of England’s national debt and compensation for the Scottish losses <a href="http://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofScotland/The-Darien-Scheme/">incurred at Darien</a> were agreed down to the last half-penny. Tax rates too were settled prior to ratification. True, today’s London-based ministers don’t want to talk divorce terms at this stage, but even so it should come as no surprise that the other party is not going to agree to give away the shared assets without a fight.</p>
<h2>Don’t dismiss sentiment</h2>
<p>Which takes us to Sir Tom’s reference to the union as forged in 1707. This he describes as a “marriage of convenience”. Maybe so – if we ignore the enthusiasm of Queen Anne and those (admittedly few) Scottish politicians who saw union as a means of preserving constitutional monarchy and other civil liberties hard-won at the time of the revolution of 1688-9. But there’s no doubt that for most of its 300-plus years it’s been a marriage in which both partners have been content – and at times, very happy. Now, says Sir Tom, all that’s left is “sentiment, history and family”.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/57195/original/5f72w82b-1408731564.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/57195/original/5f72w82b-1408731564.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/57195/original/5f72w82b-1408731564.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=879&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/57195/original/5f72w82b-1408731564.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=879&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/57195/original/5f72w82b-1408731564.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=879&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/57195/original/5f72w82b-1408731564.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1105&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/57195/original/5f72w82b-1408731564.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1105&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/57195/original/5f72w82b-1408731564.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1105&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Queen Anne: unionophile.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne,_Queen_of_Great_Britain#mediaviewer/File:Queen_Anne_of_Great_Britain.jpg">Charles Jervas</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But these shouldn’t be dismissed as irrelevant. Families spread across the current UK don’t want their members to become foreign nationals. The welcome ascendancy of Scottish history can’t erase the many generations of shared British history. The peoples of England and Scotland have lived in harmony for three centuries, whereas beforehand the two nations were often rivals, even resorting to war at times. There’s little likelihood of this recurring post-independence, but already we can see signs of the re-appearance of the inter-nation bitterness at a popular level that was a factor in persuading reflective people in the early 18th century on both sides of the border of the calming potential of closer union. </p>
<p>Similar to the position of the Scottish government, Sir Tom asserts that only through sovereignty “can we develop a truly amicable and equal relationship with our great southern neighbour in every possible field”. This should, he says, encompass economic sharing, including research costs and cultural relationships. But should is not will, and proclamation is not mutual agreement. If these things are in our former partner England’s interest, yes they’ll happen. But even if they do, that is no guarantee for the future.</p>
<p>The union as agreed in 1707 was also about defence – of Protestant Britain united against French aggression and resurgent Roman Catholicism. Happily, for all but a few die-hards, religion is no longer a pillar of the British union state. Yet Sir Tom is much more sanguine than I am about the external environment. He can see no “obvious other” threat that has galvanised and united the British people in the past. Yet Russia under President Putin seems to be on the march again, posing a grave threat to those smaller states on its borders. The emergence of Islamic states in Iraq and Syria, Jihadism, political turmoil in Libya, the conflict over Gaza, and Chinese expansionism in the east represent potential challenges to the west. Arguably they would be best countered if necessary by the greater strength of a British military force as part of NATO, which is currently over-dependent upon the United States. </p>
<p>It seems to me that rather than walk away from a marriage that has lasted for so long, we should explore first what’s not working, whether it can be saved, and whether indeed it can become harmonious once more. Is the prospect of a finding a new partner – or maybe a number of new partners – so attractive that the price and pain of permanent separation are worth enduring? (Committed nationalists will answer in the affirmative – an honest position for which I have every respect, but the current campaign for independence is premised on little cost and greater prosperity.) </p>
<p>Only two years ago, it would seem, this was Sir Tom’s position. He’s now anxious that as many people vote Yes as possible so that in the event of a No result, pressure will be put on the pro-union parties to deliver on their assurances of greater devolution. I share the aim but the tactics are risky. With a Yes vote there is no way back. The marriage is over.</p>
<h2>The real risk on September 18</h2>
<p>Unlike Sir Tom, my concern isn’t about the consequences of a crushing No vote (which is highly unlikely), but of a narrow No victory. My guess is that a greater sense of grievance, disappointment and distress would follow. It could conceivably turn into a witch-hunt against the “guilty” men and women who allegedly “betrayed” Scotland. This is hinted at in one of the comments beneath Sir Tom’s piece, which refers to the prospect of Scotland “once again” becoming a peripheral nation in the eyes of an unspecified “international interest” if there’s a No vote. (An independent voice may be louder but on the European or world stages there’s no certainty that it would have greater force than it does as part of the UK – a reason why some Scots wanted the union in the first place.) </p>
<p>Essential then in the event of a close No vote would be delivery of the promises on further powers for the Scottish parliament made recently by the Conservative, Labour and Liberal-Democrat parties. Supplemented by pressure from the English regions, there should also be a serious examination of the prospect of a federal Britain. This would require a series of parliaments with economic powers to spread the advantages of London’s success but also to counter its adverse effects, operating with the levers required to implement policies according to local needs. </p>
<p>The union, for many of the reasons Sir Tom Devine articulates, is seriously at risk and has been for some time. There are moments when I’ve been tempted to opt for independence. Having read much European history I can’t but concur with him that neither nations nor union states are forever. But contrary to Sir Tom, I’ve been struck in recent weeks by the growing determination of pro-union politicians to make the union fit for purpose in the early 21st century. If there’s a No vote and they don’t deliver quickly and with enthusiasm and genuine recognition of Scotland as a nation within a restructured union state, it could well implode. And I for one would then be for going it alone.</p>
<p><em>Now, read this: <a href="https://theconversation.com/tom-devine-why-i-now-say-yes-to-independence-for-scotland-30733">Tom Devine: why I say Yes to independence for Scotland</a></em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/30850/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Christopher A Whatley does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Sir Tom Devine’s conversion to the Yes cause may seem like a road-to-Damascus event, but should occasion little surprise. Most Scottish historians who have come out on the independence question are yes…Christopher A Whatley, Professor of Scottish History, University of DundeeLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/307332014-08-20T19:45:35Z2014-08-20T19:45:35ZTom Devine: why I now say Yes to independence for Scotland<p><em>Tom Devine, Scotland’s most celebrated historian of recent years, sent shockwaves through the country when he revealed in a news report in The Observer newspaper last weekend that he intends to vote in favour of independence on September 18. Now, for the first time, the full text of Devine’s declaration, made on August 15, in the Grill on the Corner restaurant, Glasgow, is published by The Conversation. It was made in the presence of New Zealand academic Angela McCarthy and Observer correspondent Kevin McKenna.</em></p>
<p>My engagement in the Scottish independence referendum campaign before now has been restricted to impartial academic interviews. And although I’ve only come to a Yes conclusion over the last fortnight this has been a long journey for me. My preferred option would previously have been devolution maximus, but that’s not available. Moreover, even if there is not to be a Yes win, it’s imperative that the Yes vote is as high as possible in order to put pressure on the unionist parties to commit themselves to granting increased devolved powers, and as soon as possible thereafter. </p>
<p>I’ve never been a member of a party and am still not, so my position does not indicate support for the SNP; it’s simply in favour of independence. The SNP just happens to be a significant force in the campaign. The Yes campaign is now a widespread movement and that’s encouraging for me. </p>
<h2>My journey with Scottish nationhood</h2>
<p>I come from a Labour background that includes my grandfather, mother and father and I was very much anti-independence at the start of the campaign. For me, the catalyst for change has been how threadbare the union has become since the early 1980s and linked to that is the transformation of Scotland. I wouldn’t have voted for this in the Scotland of the 1970s or 80s. It’s the Scotland that has evolved since the late 80s and 90s that is fuelling my Yes vote. It now seems to me to be in a fit condition to run a successful economy. There is a list of reasons for this. </p>
<p>There has been a Scottish parliament which has demonstrated competent government and that parliament has also indicated, by the electoral response to it, that the Scottish people seem to be wedded to a social democratic agenda and the kind of political values which sustained and were embedded in the welfare state of the 1950s. In fact, you could argue that it is the Scots who have tried to preserve the idea of Britishness in terms of state support and intervention, and that it is England that has chosen to go on a separate journey since the 1980s.</p>
<p>There has been an enormous increase in a sense of Scottishness and pride in Scottish identity which has itself been sustained by an explosion in Scottish writing and creative arts since the 1980s, especially in relation to my own subject. We now have a proper modern history of Scotland which we didn’t have until as late as the 1970s and 1980s. We now have a clear national narrative sustained by objective and rigorous academic research. In 1964, one of my great predecessors Professor Hargreaves said that the history of modern Scotland is less studied than the history of Yorkshire. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/56914/original/5y6dz2md-1408534953.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/56914/original/5y6dz2md-1408534953.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/56914/original/5y6dz2md-1408534953.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/56914/original/5y6dz2md-1408534953.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/56914/original/5y6dz2md-1408534953.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/56914/original/5y6dz2md-1408534953.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/56914/original/5y6dz2md-1408534953.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/56914/original/5y6dz2md-1408534953.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Declining heavy industry such as Clydeside shipbuilding made independence a hard sell a generation ago.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/mariancraig/8626055930/in/photolist-GMm4-akJhCA-5vrwSy-dvRQrD-9vfQ6f-6rzDTL-akJhzh-7S6wBH-BkNb-zzkyX-mdofeD-mdorHk-mdngHV-mdnyNM-e9fMUf-h7C3W8-mdndqc-mdo9Hi-9aqwdY-7AfkCK-8ZSXYB-8ZT3HP-8ZWamE-8ZW1Kh-8ZT1r8-8ZWaZu-4M2BL2-acTqjo-oei3og-ovLYBV-oehhHn-ovuRie-ovuFUe-ovK4VG-oegWZf-ovyNUS-5wrNZC-7kQcRt-7zHHxF-93Pag8-8ZVWp7-8ZVUvo-7GLoLA-e1X1q9-6Y8kof-2S22L8-2cUAxC-ovKg79-oxwQrR-otK37N">Marian Craig</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>There has also been a silent transformation of the Scottish economy. As late as early 1980s it was not sustainable owing to the continuing domination of the dinosaur heavy industries. The problem there was simply that labour costs not be sustained in an emerging global economy where goods and machines could be made cheaper elsewhere. Of course the process could have been managed much more sensitively and more thoughtfully by a Labour government, instead it was the radical surgery of Thatcherism and Toryism that had its way. What we have now – and this has been the case since the mid-1990s and de-industrialisation – is a diversified economy in which heavy industry, light manufacturing, the electronics sector, tourism, financial services have come together. And the vibrant public sector is important in terms of employment. We now have a resilient economic system. </p>
<p>We also have considerable reserves of one of the most important things for an independent state and that is power; power through the assets of oil and also through the potential of wind energy. Scotland is disproportionately endowed with these, compared to almost all other European countries. So, in other words, because of this economic transformation, which has undoubtedly led to social dislocation for many communities – and let’s not forget that – we now have an economy that can sustain itself in a resilient way in world markets.</p>
<h2>The Irish Catholic dimension</h2>
<p>One of the chief manifestations of that is the emancipation of the Catholic Irish working class. In 1901 their American cousins gained wage, occupational and educational parity. In 2001 the same thing happened here. So that tells us a substantial upward mobility has been going on in Scotland which took place between the early 1960s and the mid-1980s. </p>
<p>It’s important to state here that I reject the view, chiefly espoused by George Galloway and some others, that Catholics in Scotland would become more vulnerable in a smaller country. This is nonsense; George is, as usual, talking rhetoric. None of those assertions is based on any academic understanding or knowledge. The ordinary Catholic population of Scotland simply doesn’t share this view. Indeed the most recent data from the <a href="http://www.natcen.ac.uk/media/176046/2012-who-supports-and-opposes-independence-and-why.pdf">Scottish Social Attitudes Survey in 2012</a> demonstrated that, of the three main Scottish groupings – Catholics - Protestants and non-believers - the Catholic sample indicated that 36% were committed to Scottish independence; non-believers were about 27% and the Kirk 16%.</p>
<p>This, I think, demonstrated further that people of Irish Catholic ethnicity for the first time felt comfortable in their Scottish skins. This may also be attributed to the decline of Britishness, in a similar way to the experience of the Asian community. I think that Irish community finds it easier to identify with Scottishness rather than Britishness because the latter still has vibrations of former imperial power. </p>
<p>There has also been a transformation in Scottish higher education. As late as the 1950s, we were pretty second rate in research terms, but there has been a revolution here. Four Scottish universities are now in the world’s top 200. And in my own field of humanities, the University of Edinburgh is ranked 11th. In terms of citation indices, Scotland has regularly been in the top three and sometimes number one. We get 16% of the UK’s competitive funding despite having only 10% in terms of population. That means that, as long as we can get the application of research into industry and into the economy, the future, which will be all about brain-intensive industry, will be a bright one for Scotland which will have a significant head start. This also adds to the potential resilience of the economy. </p>
<p>What we need to do much, much better in, though, is in the performance of our schools. We need to engage in long-term investment of the type implemented by Finland to bring them up to the models of the elite countries of the world because there is no doubt in my mind that the future lies in a highly educated workforce engaged in what you might call value-added activity and not simply routine activity. </p>
<p>So all of this means that Scotland is a much more resilient nation and this is underpinned by our proven track record since devolution. We can actually run a country effectively and the electoral record of the Scottish parliament over the last six or seven years shows that the Scottish people want a certain type of governance. They are also seeking a certain type of political approach which is different from that currently favoured south of the border. </p>
<h2>The trouble with devo max</h2>
<p>I’ve also come to the conclusion that even devolution max would just prolong a running sore. Even if you accept the positive spin of devo-max in terms of more powers granted, would that not make many English people unhappy? They’re already unhappy about the Barnett formula which they think favours Scotland. This is one of the other reasons why I think there has to be sovereignty. Only through sovereignty can we truly develop a truly amicable and equal relationship with our great southern neighbour in every possible field. This should include economic sharing, sharing of research support costs and it should also include close cultural relationships. The final legislative authority, in order to secure that amity, really has to remain north of the border. </p>
<p>Up until the early 1980s the relationship between England and Scotland, from the Jacobite rebellion of 1745, was stable. There was hardly any gross interference from the London governments in those areas we regarded as specifically Scottish. And when big government did happen after World War Two, Scotland probably gained in the birth of the welfare state. It also benefited from state intervention in the nationalisation of the big industries. There was also duality: Scottish identity was strong within the union. This was also manifested in the convergence of voting patterns. If England voted Tory, Scotland tended to vote Tory. If we voted Labour, ditto. </p>
<p>From about 1979 on, the cracks begin to appear. And here I don’t think we should get hung up on Thatcherism. The changes in our industrial landscape were almost an historic inevitability, though they could, perhaps, have been a little more benign under a Labour government. Whatever the reasons, there was now a structural gap in electoral behaviour between Scotland and England. In a highly centralised state, which the UK was before devolution, that’s a recipe for tension.</p>
<p>I think it’s also important to state here that there’s absolutely no evidence for claims that Scotland has become a divided society, as espoused by people such as the author Alexander McCall Smith at the Edinburgh book festival. What I see in families and in pubs and in the public debates that I’ve attended is serious, sometimes fierce, sometimes very strong, engagement. But I simply don’t see any evidence that the political division has caused the kind of societal division that McCall Smith talks about. Where do people like these, like George Galloway, get their evidence? My trade is based on generalisation and evidence and the teasing out of the tensions between the two. And unless they can come up with some data to support this it’s just whistling in the wind. </p>
<p>I also believe that because of all these changes in the nature of the union and Scotland’s cultural and economic re-emergence, not even the most enthusiastic unionist nowadays would seriously suggest that the Scottish nation cannot go it alone.</p>
<h2>Worst of all worlds: a heavy Yes defeat</h2>
<p>What I dread most in the referendum is the possibility of what happens in the event of a crushing defeat for the Yes campaign. I don’t think that would be a good thing for the collective psychology of the nation. I can remember what occurred after 1979 (the first devolution vote) among certain social groups. A crushing defeat could lead to a substantial portion of the population feeling very aggrieved, disappointed and, in some cases, distressed. I think it’s different for the No camp. I sense that the majority of them haven’t invested the same degree of emotional capital as Yes.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/56918/original/xx9ymc2k-1408535801.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/56918/original/xx9ymc2k-1408535801.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/56918/original/xx9ymc2k-1408535801.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/56918/original/xx9ymc2k-1408535801.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/56918/original/xx9ymc2k-1408535801.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/56918/original/xx9ymc2k-1408535801.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/56918/original/xx9ymc2k-1408535801.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/56918/original/xx9ymc2k-1408535801.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Beware the independence enthusiasts if they are badly beaten.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/martainn/9883206373/in/photolist-eFfcTu-eFfcYE-4uLyRs-ancit-nzdi73-eiABox-beMbcF-g4jwxz-g4m1VT-iZa41u-iZ7tpc-iZ8jPW-d7E4Uw-oCWsQK-omHFS6-omHFzH-8fL6YH-dNkRDm-5nXfNb-o3sai5-beMbpD-ddqJBA-ov5T3e-ddqSHe-dS6BQY-dd2xHF-oLRsew-gbZU8Q-dds1ZS-ddqR6u-ddqL8z-oqXuUd-dpFD3o-ddrUZf-ddqzQJ-emh4LK-dds6pL-dd2pYn-dd2giB-dd2vMK-dd2sCD-dd2pV7-dd2ukg-dd2rxB-dd2va3-dd2p2a-obNidP-aAZWP6-8fPjc1-ajv2ig">Màrtainn MacDhòmhnaill</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>I’m not suggesting that this will manifest itself in any violence. But there’s a real political dynamic going on in the country over the referendum and that will, in my view, completely collapse, in the event of a heavy defeat for Yes. There has also been a huge degree of international interest in what’s going on here and in their eyes we may once again become merely a peripheral nation. </p>
<p>However, I also have a degree of sympathy for the No campaign in terms of its perceived negativity. It’s very difficult to support a negative with any enthusiasm. Many of these people are enthusiastic Scottish patriots but I also accept that they are at ease with Britishness and they see major risks in the collapse of the union. In the event of a No vote and after the Yes campaigners have recovered from the trauma, we’ll be back on to the same problem of destabilisation and tension within the union. </p>
<h2>The reality of the union</h2>
<p>The Union of England and Scotland was not a marriage based on love; it was a marriage of convenience. It was pragmatic. That’s why I don’t think there’s the same degree of interest in England about the possible dissolution of the union. To begin with, the union was very unstable between 1707 and the 1750s and was one of the main stimuli for the Jacobite risings. From the 1750s down to the 1980s there was stability in the relationship. Now, though, all the primary foundations of that stability have gone, or have been massively diluted: the empire; Protestantism as a unionist ideaology; the Church of Scotland, which has lost two-thirds of its membership since the early 1950s. </p>
<p>The English and imperial markets were once a great seduction for Scotland, but now Europe is of great importance. In terms of Scottish militarism we had 13 regiments as late as 1957 and now there’s only one. Then there has been the weakening influence of the monarch and the absence of an external and potentially hostile force which once would have induced internal collective solidarity. I refer here to the end of World War Two and the collapse of the old Soviet empire. There is no obvious other at the moment. When you put all of these together it’s possible to argue that there’s very little left in the union except sentiment, history and family. Most of the pragmatic reasons for the union which emerged in the 18th and 19th centuries are now no longer there. And alongside this weakening and in parallel to it you’ve got the emergence of a more powerful and more mature Scottish democracy and economy. It is an idea therefore, you could say, that’s time has come. </p>
<p>It’s these two factors coming together which has caused the destabilisation of the union. And this will never end – devo-max will just be a sticking plaster – until you get an amicable separation and a full set of equal relationships between the two countries after independence. </p>
<p>The great French historian Ernest Renan in the late 1880s <a href="http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=5guRLMVcYGoC&pg=PA9&lpg=PA9&dq=Ernest+Renan+blood+and+soil&source=bl&ots=WYaO9Ga1aj&sig=qzGverKK9Igoc7SsMWlgShQOu6k&hl=en&sa=X&ei=6n_0U46_FeeZ0QX3zYCQBQ&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Ernest%20Renan%20blood%20and%20soil&f=false">denied that</a> a nation was based on ethnicity and language or blood-and-soil nationality. His argument was that a nation consists of people who have a collective shared sentiment and that sentiment is based on myth and history and a series of symbols and markers of identity. There is a constant referendum going as to whether that sentiment still exists in the union. Renan’s concept of a nation is that it can be ephemeral; it’s not there forever, it is not a permanency as it varies according to circumstances. This is a very intriguing parallel with what’s going on in the UK today.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/30733/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tom Devine does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Tom Devine, Scotland’s most celebrated historian of recent years, sent shockwaves through the country when he revealed in a news report in The Observer newspaper last weekend that he intends to vote in…Tom Devine, Personal Senior Research Chair of History, The University of EdinburghLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.