It was a bright spring day as well-kent faces from a variety of political backgrounds came together in Edinburgh to sign a declaration affirming Scotland's right to make its own decisions in its own way.
No, not the SNP's Yes to Independence campaign on Friday, but the Claim of Right Declaration of Sovereignty in 1989. I've been knocking around Scottish politics longer than is good for me, and I couldn't help comparing the text of the SNP's declaration with the one I saw signed back in the day.
Friday's Declaration of Independence read as follows: "I believe that it is fundamentally better for us all if decisions about Scotland's future are taken by the people who care most about Scotland, that is by the people of Scotland."
Roll back nearly a quarter of a century and the Claim of Right affirmed "the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of government best suited to their needs and [the undersigned] do hereby declare and pledge that in all our actions their interests shall be paramount".
No, they're not identical – the language is different, but the spirit is very much the same. They are both assertions of the sovereign right of a people to determine their future. And it is quite difficult to disagree with either proposition. Though, of course, the SNP did boycott the Claim of Right, which was signed by all of Labour's Scottish MPs except for Tam Dalyell.
The former, of course, says that "all decisions" should be taken in Scotland by Scots, but not even the SNP believes that is possible any more. Under their plan for independence the Bank of England would still be taking some of the most important decisions of all – interest rates and monetary policy. Then there are all those decisions that are taken in Brussels by the European Union, which, if it survives, may by 2014 be a federal body imposing common fiscal policies across European countries. No nation is an island any more and self-determination is very much diminished by international treaties and economic relations.
I'm not just trying to make clever debating points here. Lots of people who do not believe in independence could sign the SNP's declaration, just as Unionists could sign the Claim of Right. I agree that all decisions should be taken where possible in Scotland by Scots. But this does not mean I'm a signed and sealed Nationalist. Many decisions will still have to be taken jointly with England and this implies, to me, a form of federalism.
The Nationalists seem fairly relaxed about this – they say they want to create a network of support that goes beyond party and is rooted in the community. Fair enough. But if everyone is allowed into this broad church, isn't there a risk that it will mean all things to all men?
The SNP is not proposing to put together a draft constitution for an independent Scotland.
The SNP say that it will be up to the government elected to Holyrood in 2016 to decide what independence is going to look like in practice. The SNP confidently expect it will be them, but what if a non-nationalist coalition wins that election? What exactly would an incoming Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition Holyrood in 2016 make of it all?
Well, based on the Independence Declaration, First Minister Johann Lamont might say: "The referendum commits us to nothing specific – like the Claim of Right, it is vague. Scotland is already nation with its own parliament, all parties agree on keeping the Monarchy and the pound. We believe the Scottish people wish to see maximum possible economic powers devolved to Holyrood. We call this 'Independence in the UK', as it was once so described by Donald Dewar."
Perhaps Labour should be launching a "Unionists for Independence" campaign next week.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article