This story will not resonate much in England, and so I share it here. As the Herald newspaper in Scotland has noted:
Prominent figures from the arts and academia have piled pressure on Nicola Sturgeon ahead of the SNP conference by publishing their own “declaration of independence”.
The 50 signatories - including actor Brian Cox, author Val McDermid and historian Sir Tom Devine - said staying in the Union meant Scots giving up their right to “decide their own destiny”.
The 12-point declaration set out the “guiding principles” for a new state, including a written constitution, and the expulsion of the Trident nuclear deterrent.
The declaration is as follows:
The Declaration of Independence Full Document
It is the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of government best suited to their needs (A Claim of Right for Scotland, 1989)
Guiding principles for a new and better Scotland
- It is the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of government best suited to their needs, now and in the future. In all political deliberations, decisions and actions their interests should be paramount.
- Scotland should be an open and democratic society in which no individual is excluded, oppressed or discriminated against on account of their race, colour, faith, origin or place of birth, physical or mental capacity, sex, sexuality, gender or language.
- Scotland should have a written constitution which clearly lays out the rights of its citizens, the country's system of government and the relationships that exist between government, its instruments and powers and the rights of individual citizens.
- Scotland should take its place as an independent country on the world stage, free to join international organisations and alliances for purposes of trade and commerce, and for the protection and care of the planet's natural environment, without which the human race cannot survive.
- Scotland should uphold internationally acknowledged values of non-aggression and self-defence, and should refuse to maintain, stock or use, for itself or on behalf of any other power or government, chemical, biological or nuclear weapons or any other weapons of mass destruction.
- There should be clear separation of the powers of the Scottish parliament and government (the executive). The judiciary should be completely independent of government.
- Independence will provide an opportunity to review and, where necessary, change the systems of both national and local government, in order to make them more accountable to the people and more beneficial to their needs.
- Ownership of land, property and natural resources should be subject to open and democratic scrutiny. The ability of communities, both rural and urban, to own the land in and on which they exist should be enhanced and extended. There should be total transparency in the way property in Scotland is bought, sold or possessed.
- Freedom of speech and action, and the freedom to work, create, buy, sell and do business should adhere to principles of environmental and communal sustainability and responsibility. Profit and economic growth should not be pursued at the expense of the wellbeing of the people or their habitat or that of other people or nations.
- We affirm the values of care, kindness, neighbourliness and generosity of spirit in all our dealings. Such values are the foundation stones of a fair, free and open society where all citizens have the opportunities to lead the best, most fulfilling lives they can.
- It is our belief that the best option now open to the Scottish people is for Scotland to become an independent country.
- The alternative is to accept that Scotland's fate would remain in the hands of others and that the Scottish people would relinquish their right to decide their own destiny.
Signatories: Iain Anderson, broadcaster; Peter Arnott, playwright; Neal Ascherson, journalist and writer; Aly Bain, musician; Margaret Bennett, folklorist and singer; Robert Black QC, Professor Emeritus of Scots Law; Christine Borland, visual artist; Stuart Braithwaite, musician; Calum Colvin, visual artist; Roddy Buchanan, visual artist; Stuart Cosgrove, writer and broadcaster; Brian Cox, actor; Robert Crawford, writer; Sir Tom Devine, Professor Emeritus of Scottish History; Lari Don, writer; Jenni Fagan, writer; Rt. Rev. Richard Holloway, writer and broadcaster; Robert Hodgens, musician; Kathleen Jamie, poet and writer; Jamie Jauncey, writer; A.L. Kennedy, writer; Liz Lochhead, poet, playwright, former Makar; Val McDermid, writer; Jamie MacDougall, singer and broadcaster; Lorraine Mackintosh, actor and singer; Dr. Dolina Maclennan, writer and broadcaster; Aonghas MacNeacail, poet and broadcaster; Dr. Ann Matheson, literary historian; Karen Matheson, singer; Alexander Moffat, artist; Jemma Neville, author; Andrew O'Hagan, writer; Aidan O'Rourke, musician and composer; Don Paterson, poet; Karine Polwart, musician and writer; Eddi Reader, singer; Prof. Alan Riach, poet and academic; James Robertson, writer; Donald Shaw, musician, composer and producer; Ross Sinclair, visual artist; Donald Smith, storyteller; Elaine C. Smith, actor; Alan Spence, writer; Will Storrar, minister and academic; Gerda Stevenson, writer and actor; Sheena Wellington, singer; Prof. Gary West, musician and broadcaster; Ruth Wishart, journalist and broadcaster.
CommonWeal added this note:
James Robertson, one of the originators of the Declaration: "We recognise that the direction of travel for the UK seems to be in the complete opposite direction from the kind of society that we want to create and live in."
I would agree with that. And it is precisely because there are those who still think it possible that a nation can be a force for good that this move is worth noting south of the border as well as north of it.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Where do I sign!
This “Declaration” is a step in the right direction.
What can this 312 year old Union do for Scotland that Scotland, with our own self determination, cannot do for ourself?
This declaration most welcome Scotland independence supporters voices must be aired and this articulate and thoughtful piece needs exposure to all
The Herald states ‘Prominent figures from the arts and academia have piled pressure on Nicola Sturgeon ahead of the SNP conference by publishing their own “declaration of independence”’.
Since the contents of their declaration largely mirror the policies of the SNP it’s hard to see how they’ve piled any pressure on Sturgeon. The Herald is an MSM newspaper and this is typical of how the MSM consistently seeks to cast any news involving the SNP in a critical or derogatory light.
I see nothing controversial in the declaration: its aims are by and large the same as SNP Policy and the principles outlined in Robin MacAlpine’s chapter about the need for a post-Indy written Constitution in the book ‘How to Start a New Country’. Indeed the SNP has already sought to initiate the process of developing a written Constitution, which necessarily requires input from the whole of Scotland’s people, but has predictably been told by Tories, Labour and Lib-Dems that they will have nothing to do with it, which obviously undermines the legitimacy of the exercise.
Richard, given the urgency of achieving independence, and the now clear view of the Scottish people, don’t you think the time for a referendum has passed? Isn’t the time now right for the Scottish Parliament to declare independence itself?
It’s an interesting idea
I do not rule out that its time might arrive – especially if there is no s30 agreement
I think this also. Perhaps turning the elections into plebicites on independence, perhaps with the prevision of half the electorate voting for pro-independence parties. Stating clearly it is a mandate to negotiate a settlement with the UK government.
There could also be merit in promising to hold a referendum, on the final agreement. This would surely attract the cautious voters into seeing what could be had from such an event. If it goes bad, they can always vote No. If it is a good settlement, they can give their blessing.
I’m for Independence but this constitution does not go far enough to actually guarantee the rights to citizens including the right to self-defence (including the right to bear arms) and the total right to freedom of speech as well as a fair, impartial trial. Some areas, as much I am against discrimination in any way, seem to want to enforce social justice (for rabid SJWs to follow) and include Soviet-style collectivism on private property rights. When it mentions freedom of speech, it then states that effectively only have the right to speak freely only applies within the rules of society (in other words, communism) so that if groups of people become offended by what you say, you then get denied your rights as an individual. So overall I would not sign it at all until it gets updated to be very similar to the USA Bill of Rights (albeit updated to reflect modern society).
Modern society would not agree that there is a right to bear arms
And social justice is precisely what a Bill of Rights should endorse
And as for communism….of dear, you really do have a lot to learn if you think anything in this is about it
I suggest you open your eyes, see the harm that the opinions you espouse have caused to the world and people around you and think again
When considering coming generations this is the only route to the Scottish future in line with declared intention.
Along with That, the Scottish Government have been working on This,
It looks like much work has been going ahead and preparations are well in Hand,
Good to see some Public figures come to the Fore
http://wiki.scottishconstitution.com/index.php?title=Corpus_Of_Scottish_Law
The MSP for Argyll & Bute (Mike Russell) is, in the main responsible Bill…
Brain the size of a planet …!
Where is our commitment to membership of the European Union, for which the peoples of Scotland have voted by an overwhelming and comprehensive – in every council area – majority, then in 2016 of 24%? – for a continuation of which polls show there is now, in the face of the unfolding threat to scores of thousands of Scottish jobs, a majority in Scotland of around 40%?
There are two elephants in the room of politics in Scotland at present – and only one of them is being addressed here, albeit with glowing ideals.
This so-called ‘Declaration’ – unlike the fourteenth century letter from the community of the realm, which it intends to evoke – remains a refusal to face up to the most incendiary issue of our day. Worse, it is a refusal to harness the overwhelming – at this moment larger than the polling for Independence – desires of the peoples of Scotland to be a full and independent part of the Europe to which our culture – unlike England – has always belonged. In the presence of the present and pressing crisis – economic, social, cultural as well as political – the real-world tests that count, it is as pathetic as the vacillations of Corbyn. Shame upon its authors for their ducking of the most immediately urgent issue that really – but really – counts.
We need to have a redraft, which puts our country’s Independence back where it belongs, as a part of the great European project which is – as our peoples’ opinions repeatedly and increasingly show – exactly where Scotland belongs
Interesting point Nigel
Make it in the National….
Nigel,
From the point of view of getting a clear 60% plus vote for Independence you should avoid conflating a variety of issues into one vote. Yes 65% would like to be in the EU but they are not the same 50% plus that want Independence. So about 30% of Indy supporters would vote against EU membership, some would vote No in Indyref 2 if you also make it a vote on EU membership. The way around all this is a simple Yes / No to Independence and then once that is in the bag then have an EU membership referendum followed at some stage by a Monarchy / Republic referendum and possibly others. Otherwise you could easily end up with a No to Indy because those that are strongly opposed to the EU vote No, those that love the Royals vote No, those that think land reform threatens them vote No, etc etc. Divide it all up and answer each question separately.
I think thta you will find that the alleged 30% of Indy supporters who are wedded to Johnson’s Brexit is a fast diminishing number. Equally the number of former ‘No’ voters who are migrating to ‘YES’, is a rapidly growing one.
On keeping the monarchy v a fully democratic constitution as issues separate from the idny question, of course, I agree.
But the difference between the two ‘pairs’ of issues is fundamental. The Europe with Independence pair does address the two main real world issues of the day, for they are – in the real world – inextricably linked, as it is only our lack of independence which is threatening to remove our EU membership and our individual citizenship rights. To face that and to engage directly with it is not only an obvious necessity – it is honest politics. To evade/duck it is both numerically foolish – and, worse, it is gutless, dishonest and negligent of the real world dangers which our peoples – and our EU resident friends – actually do face. If we do not fight that unavoidably linked battle for them – who will?
I hope we’ll get a chance to talk at the weekend 🙂
Agreed, Tim
Nigel, while I agree that a Scottish written Constitution needs to acknowledge the necessity of close involvement and interaction with our European neighbours, it needs to be couched in fairly general terms.
If/when we win independence we need to choose the most appropriate form of European alliance, bearing in mind our need to maintain a close trading relationship with what remains of the UK. Thus our European relationship might be “full-fat” EU membership or some other configuration of customs union, single market etc. Besides that, our Constitution has to be flexible enough to accommodate future changes in public attitude to Europe as the EU etc develop.
As to a redraft, this declaration is a voicing of opinion by a small segment of Scottish society at this moment in time and I think should be seen as a positive reinforcement of SNP policy. I firmly believe our destiny has to involve close alliance with Europe, but until we gain Independence and know how the secession negotiations pan out, we can’t conflate the Indy campaign with the EU campaign.
I hope that I will have, Richard, as the above is a slightly fuller version of the comment which I sent to their website last night – and, so far, it seems to be the only one to have picked up this angle.
I really don’t want to rain on the Declaration’s parade – and the overwhelming reactions are idealistic and positive, which is good. But ducking the chance to twin Independence with Scottish popular commitment to EU membership – which is very real – is both craven and politically foolish.
I get where you are coming from Nigel, but this declaration is about the kind of country we want to be and the right to choose our future, as in the last paragraph – “The alternative is to accept that Scotland’s fate would remain in the hands of others and that the Scottish people would relinquish their right to decide their own destiny.”
I don’t think such a declaration should cover topics like membership of the EU. At most, it might cover the issue of how Scotland will decide about making international treaties, including how the decision making process should involve society.
On the issue of Brexit, on balance I think it is a bad idea, but the EU is certainly not perfect. One example being that Josep Borrell seems about to be elected as their foreign policy chief. For anyone not aware of him, I suggest watching him being interviewed by Tim Sebastian at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UinbGbdyfQ.
Would it be too idealistic to wish for a similar declaration for the UK as a whole? (If that gained any approval, then maybe Scottish independence wouldn’t be necessary.) We certainly need some visionary inspiration to lift us out of this mire of party politicking, divisive name calling and widespread dishonesty displayed by so many of our political leaders.
It would be good
But what meaning would it have?
England as ‘The Courageous State’ perhaps? If only.
I fully agree with those commentators about an alignment with the EU but Tim has it right with his ‘one day at a time’ sequential approach.
BTW – I understand why you want to go but I wish you weren’t. Still, nevermind…………………
The logic of Scottish independence escapes me, especially when discussed alongside Brexit.
The current basic argument of Scottish Secessionists seems to be:
“The UK coming out of the EU is economically NUTS.
SCOTLAND voted to STAY in the EU and that vote must be respected.
SCOTLAND wants self-determination and to be an independent nation FROM THE UK.
SCOTLAND leaving the UK is economically SOUND.
Things have changed since the IndyRef; Scotland should LEAVE the UK or at least have another IndyRef.”
(Don’t be alarmed by the capitals, I’m using them to make a point)
No doubt I’ve drawn it down to a low common denominator of reasoning and I’ve missed legitimate reasons and nuance, but in a nutshell, my feeling is that statement pithily sums up the position. And on the face of it, there appears to be nothing unreasonable in that argument. But, I don’t know, I’m sure being English doesn’t help, but still the positivity around Scots Independence and the liberal support for it escapes me when compared to the motives of Brexiteers like the ERG.
If I similarly render it down, the basic argument of the ERG, it seems to be:
“The UK coming out of the EU is economically SOUND.
THE UK AS A WHOLE voted to LEAVE the EU and that vote must be respected.
The UNITED KINGDOM wants self-determination and to be an independent nation FROM THE EU.
SCOTLAND leaving the UK is economically NUTS.
Things have changed since the IndyRef, SO WHAT!? BOTH REFERENDA SHOULD BE RESPECTED.”
The UK coming out of the EU is DEFINITELY nuts and I have to side with the Indy Scots on that, but then it gets messy. Both points in the second sentence are valid — you may support one above the other, but that is your tribal view, I cannot see how the validity of one is greater than the other. The third sentence is interesting — we mercilessly mock this ‘sovereignty’ view of the ERG: the UK has a lot of self-determination in the EU and, yes, we give a little up, but that’s the price you pay for the benefits of being in a bigger union. We are rational, and we see that. The ERG doesn’t see it or don’t accept it. I have to say though, if we belittle this view of the ERG then why isn’t it just as belittle-able of Indy Scots?
The fourth sentence is one we can add some numbers to: Scottish exports in 2017 were £48.9bn Rest of UK (60%), £14.9bn Rest of EU (18%) and £17.6bn Rest of the World (22%). Unfortunately, I couldn’t find 2017 figures for the whole of the UK (doing this in my lunch hour) so I’m using 2016, but I can’t imagine it is far off. UK exports in 2016 were £27.5bn EFTA (5%), £235.8bn Rest of EU (43%) and £284.1bn Rest of the World (52%). I have to say, based on those figures alone, the UK leaving the EU looks marginally more economically rational than Scotland leaving the UK. This is one simple set of figures and I appreciate that you cannot make an argument from this alone, but if we are saying it is economically nuts for the UK to leave the EU, then Scotland leaving the UK appears to be just as nutty, if not nuttier.
I’ve got to go back to work now, but the fifth sentence is the one that is most politically arguable. As someone who desperately wants a second EU Ref I have to allow the principle of a second Scot Indy Ref. I just hope that if the 2ndEURef falls to Remain then ScotIndyRef becomes unnecessary, and if the first doesn’t happen or we still choose for the UK to Leave the EU then Scotland will think carefully before abandoning its union with England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
You ignore the fact that Scottish nationalists want to be in the EU – and have always assumed England would be too
I don’t ignore it, but I didn’t want my original post to be twice as long as it already was. The people in Scotland I have the most sympathy with are the natural Scots Independence voters who ignored their heart and voted with their heads to remain in the UK explicitly because it was in the EU. They are the ones you are referring to and they must be utterly bereft. I genuinely feel sad or them
The people I have least sympathy with are SNP politicians who in 2014 used similar arguments to get out of a Union with EW&NI as the ERG are using now to get out of the EU. As I said above, the SNP-ers were happy to disrupt trade (at 60% of their exports) with rest of the UK, with no absolute guarantee of being admitted to the EU (thereby jeopardising another 18% export market). Compare that to the ERG wanting to get out of our biggest market, the EU, and jeopardising trade deals with Japan, etc. But now the SNPers are saying that they can’t abandon the EU so they must get out of the UK (which is still their biggest trading partner). Surely that’s a fair point to make, and I find it hypocritical of them and for rational people not to call them out for the same lousy reasoning that they share with the ERG.
You may say I’m comparing Apples with Pears.
I think I’m comparing English Cox’s Pippin with Lass O’ Gowrie apples.
If you look at the £49 billion of Scottish exports to rUK (which exclude crude oil) then about £20 billion of that is electricity and refined petro-chemicals. Those go mostly by wire and pipeline and are not going to stop (unless you want the lights to go out in Northern England). So that leaves £29 billion of which about half is services (e.g. insurance, banking, investment, etc). So about £15 billion is actual boxes crossing the border, so that is about the same as to the EU which is almost all boxes of stuff. While EU exports are rising about 10% pa, rUK exports are static. On something important like whisky then only 6% goes to rUK versus 45% to the EU and the remainder to the rest of the World. More than half the fish goes to the EU, same for farming.
A Constitution is for centuries so it should not seek to bind the people of Scotland to any institution furth of Scotland. Most of the signatories are pro-EU but the decision to join/remain/leave is for the people.
Well said Sheena. My post above made the same point, but you’ve said it MUCH better.
(For anyone who hasn’t spotted the connection, Sheena is a signatory of the aforesaid declaration – and well known for performing the Robert Burns song A Man’s A Man For A’ That at the opening ceremony of the Scottish Parliament in 1999.)
Agreed
Interesting document. The only reason I am not already investigating possibilities of finding a flat somewhere like Fort William or Inverness in anticipation of independence is that getting to and from Addenbrookes for my regular check ups would be exceedingly difficult from there.
Scotland has an NHS…
Scotland has an an extremely good NHS which us why other countries including England come to Scotland to learn from our successes.
Why are the signatories in such a narrow band of occupations? Where are the scientists, engineers, businessmen, economists, politicians etc.? Nice idea though. Can UK have a UDI and get ourselves a written constitution?
Norman asks “why are the signatories in such a narrow band of occupations?”
The signatories are almost exclusively prominent figures in the Creative Arts in Scotland and, with a population of just over 5.4 million, they are all likely to know each other. That obviously makes it easier for a reasonably large group of people with similar views on Independence to come up with a document like this.
It’s entirely possible that other groups representing different elements of Scottish society might make similar statements, but, as I pointed out in an earlier post here, the document is basically an expression of SNP policy and the views of the wider Independence-supporting population, so it’s hard to see what another group might produce that would be sufficiently different and move the discussion further along.
The other thing to be aware of is that the Creative Arts have a high profile in Scotland, so artists making a statement like this can have a definite impact on public opinion.
Thanks Ken
Sheena – I sort of guessed the meaning of furth but for other puzzled Sassenachs Wiki confirmed it as meaning out of town or out of country.