Much of Alex Salmond’s speech on the occasion of his re-election as First Minister was entirely unobjectionable and some of it was even eloquent. A shame, then, that his peroration threw all that away:
A change is coming, and the people are ready. They put ambition ahead of hesitation. The process is not about endings. It is about beginnings.
Whatever changes take place in our constitution, we will remain close to our neighbours. We will continue to share a landmass, a language and a wealth of experience and history with the other peoples of these islands
My dearest wish is to see the countries of Scotland and England stand together as equals There is a difference between partnership and subordination. The first encourages mutual respect. The second breeds resentment.
Emphasis added. This Scotland subordinate? Our multiform, our infinite Scotland, subordinate? Only as a patch of history may be a cliche corner. To a fool who cries ‘Nothing but resentment!’
Salmond’s argument contains the germ of its own refutation too, as he continued:So let me finish with the words of Andrew Fletcher of Saltoun, who addressed this parliament in 1706, before it was adjourned for 300 years. He observed that: “All nations are dependent; the one upon the many.” This much we know. But he warned that if “the greater must always swallow the lesser,” we are all diminished. His fears were realised in 1707.
And yet this Scotland has not disappeared. Far from it. No-one, I think, denies that Scotland remains a nation, least of all Salmond himself. Yet if Scotland had truly been swallowed whole by its larger neighbour how could this remain so? How could so many of the trappings of nationhood, not the least of which are the institutions of church and law, have endured and with such distinctiveness to boot? Scotland did not disappear and Salmond, his party and his parliament are further proof of that.
Furthermore, sensible Scots have long been minded to view the Union as a partership, not subordination. Some might go so far as to say that it has often born many of the characteristics of a stunningly successful reverse-takeover. I think Eck appreciates this, since he also says:
But the age of empires is over. Now we determine our own future based on our own needs. We know our worth and should take pride in it.
In other words, shorn of the imperial project the partnership is no more or has lost its value. As Britain retreated from Empire so Scotland ceased to be a partner and was instead subordinated to England. Or something. That’s a more subtle argument than suggesting that Scotland has been on the short end of the stick for the last 300 years. A better, more plausible one too even if, inconveniently, it’s also rejected by most Scots. Which makes it unfortunate and casually depressing that Salmond should have thrown a treat to those tiresome nationalists who crave perpetual victimhood.
Comments