What Scotland’s ‘White Paper’ Says About Democarcy.

The Scottish National Party (SNP) revealed their plan for Scottish independence earlier this year in the form of the ‘White Paper.’ This 650-plus page document has only added more questions to the independence debate.

Also recently, Professor Will Storrar – a visiting Scottish Presbyterian theologian and a world leader in public theology – gave a talk at the University of Otago based on this same issue of Scottish independence.

Meanwhile, the Anadarko Petroleum Corporation continue testing for oil and gas deposits off the Otago coast despite public protests.

Who’s Independence?

The whole point of Storrar’s talk was to emphasise that the Referendum is not a matter for the political parties, but for the everyday people of Scotland to decide. But what does it mean for the people of Scotland to decide their future? What does that mean for any people anywhere?

In an age where commerce dominates almost every concern, and when both campaigning sides must be well-funded and therefore must necessarily have vested interests, is it even possible for people to have any ‘independent’ say in their future at all?

At the heart of the Scottish question is the more universal question of whether or not democracy actually works anymore. If it doesn’t, what alternatives are there?

Democracy or Aristocracy?

The first Scottish constitutional referendum was held in 1979. The issue then was whether or not to set up what at that time was to be known as a Scottish Assembly, which would deal with legislative matters in areas such as education and health.

The Scottish voted 51-49% in favour of the idea. The majority won, but this was still ignored by Westminster due to a clause which stated that unless 40% of the total electorate voted in the referendum the vote would fail.

As the writer Philip Temple observed in the Otago Daily Times, are referendums even viable if politicians can decide if and when to honour the results? Is that democracy? If our vote can ultimately be ignored by an elite who know better, isn’t that rather an aristocracy?

Aristotle, Plato and Socrates. The classical philosophers distinguished democracy, aristocracy and monarchy as three alternative models of government. The danger of a monarchy is that the single leader can become a tyrant; the danger of aristocracy is that it can become an oligarchy; and the danger of democracy is that it can become  a 'mob rule' situation.

Power Corrupts . . .

The Scottish Parliament was eventually established but it wasn’t long before it was used by individuals promoting their own special interests. It showed once again that those in power  weren’t really concerned for the everyday people at all – and this time it wasn’t so easy for the Scots to blame Westminster. A similar situation has occurred with Welsh political devolution too.

So what’s new this time around? The drive for independence may seem like a glorious new vision for the future of Scotland but already there are tell-tale signs that exactly the same kind of treachery is already afoot.

For example, the SNP have always been staunchly anti-nuclear. An independent Scotland would boldly banish Trident from its base on the Clyde. However, in the White Paper they now announce that NATO ships would be allowed to use Scottish ports without having to declare whether or not they were carrying nuclear weapons.

This policy has been determined not by and for the people of Scotland but by and for the United States. According to The Spectator, “American military sources have made it clear that they would resist Scotland’s entry to NATO without an assurance that they could continue to use Faslane for their own Trident submarines.”

Black Gold, Old Story.

And of course, we haven’t even touched on Scotland’s untapped oil resources, estimated to be worth at least 120 billion pounds. The Scottish government's oil and gas analytical bulletin of March 2013 estimated that remaining North Sea oil and gas reserves had a combined wholesale value of 1.5 trillion pounds.

Is there anyone left who could possibly believe that this much money won’t affect the long-term outcome in Scotland? And just think what drilling for oil off the coast of the Otago region might do to New Zealand’s ‘democracy.’ They can take our oil but they’ll never take our freedom?

Personally I’m not so optimistic.

‘Fugitive Democracy.’

For all his necessary restraint in the face of secular pluralism, at least Professor Storrar had something positive to point to. He advocated the ‘fugitive democracy’ described by political philosopher Sheldon S. Wolin, where people spontaneously mobilise to protest against the powers that be, and win.

In the information age, people are mobilizing more easily. They’re also better informed on these kinds of issues. The passion is there, as the Occupy Movement showed. And the Arab Spring showed us just how powerful this kind of ‘fugitive democarcy’ can be.

The task is to nurture the civic conscience of society, according to Storrar. “The voices of conscience,” he said, “are always being stifled, through the media, and ultimately by more repressive means. And yet, and yet, the voice of conscience will not be silent, from Edinburgh to Dunedin.”