An irate Scottish nationalist member of the online community – or ‘cybernat’ as they are now known – once told me that a speech I had just given was ‘simply words’. A pertinent and insightful observation you might say. However they were words with an explicit purpose, designed to contribute to decisive change.

Nicola Sturgeon’s speech to announce the constitution for an independent Scotland yesterday was not meaningful; it was a hotchpotch of political aspirations and marginal constitutional issues.

Talk of a constitution avoids essential and practical issues that will affect Scots in a tangible sense such as the costs of setting up an independent state, the electoral system and a bicameral chamber system to replace Holyrood’s committee system, which merely provides a Scottish National party talking shop rather than a meaningful forum for discussion.

As with most of the SNP’s suggestions, it is a deliberate diversion in order to avoid answering questions they simply cannot answer: what will the currency be? How much will it cost to set up a new state? Will Scotland immediately join the EU?

Yet it is also divisive for those who come under the Yes Scotland umbrella. One cannot imagine that those who are part of Radical Independence will be accepting of the Queen as head of state in Scotland. It shows how Alex Salmond is not only trying to gazump us into independence but into his vision of a separate state, which is at odds with the wishes of large swathes of the Scottish population.

Salmond is used to setting the agenda; his con at the Edinburgh Agreement by gaining control of the timing and setting the date of the referendum, compounded by his use of taxpayers’ money to compose a vague white paper for independence, based on falsehoods and misinformation, shows the arrogance of the first minister.

Incidentally, the events of the past week, where the courageous Clare Lally and JK Rowling were the latest victims in a long line of scurrilous abuse by supporters of independence, mean SNP talk of an ‘inclusive nation’ seems somewhat far-fetched. If Scotland were to vote for independence, I suspect it would not be a welcoming place for non-believers.

I confidently believe that the people of Scotland will back the United Kingdom on 18 September. However, if there were a yes vote it would be the responsibility of the UK parliament to legislate for the consequences. While there would naturally be negotiation, there is no doubt that any future constitutional change must be legislated for at Westminster.

In the albeit unlikely event of independence, the UK government must set up a civic convention to consider the elements of a Scottish constitution such as the head of state, the electoral system, unicameral or bicameral parliament, relationship between parliament and government and the date of elections.

Once a new independent Scottish parliament is elected it would then have the mandate and the authority to draw up a constitution and make decisions on nuclear weapons, education and local government, which the SNP have spatchcocked into their mongrel constitution.

This SNP paper should be put aside until they can answer meaningful questions about how they plan to finance the setting up of a new Scotland and how that will take place. The rest of us will press ahead to make sure that Scotland remains not only a part of the United Kingdom, but one with a developing system of devolution and decentralisation.

——————————————————–

George Foulkes is a member of the House of Lords. He tweets @GeorgeFoulkes.

——————————————————–

Photo: Brent MacAloney