With the New Year, I've been reflecting on decades of supporting Scottish independence, and it's interesting to note how perceptions of the road to an independent Scotland have changed over the years.
Back in the sixties, when it seemed a remote possibility, there was an assumption that Scotland would achieve a mandate for independence by electing a majority of SNP MPs and this would be followed by negotiations and autonomy.
Little was said of a scenario where the SNP achieved a majority in the popular vote but not in seats - which would have been interesting. Of course, the thought of a referendum based on an SNP majority in a Scottish Parliament was beyond consideration - and remained so, even after the Parliament's establishment, given a structure which was intended to make an overall majority difficult if not impossible.
However, one element, for me at least, remained pretty consistent. Whenever I imagined the tone and content of the debate over the country's future, I foresaw a constitutional discussion about the important questions involved.
Has a nation any right to abdicate responsibility for running its own affairs? Was it not time to leave the 'big boy did it and ran away' political culture and face up to governing our own country? Should Scotland not play its full part in the world community, rather than being filtered through the UK as a tenth of its population? Would we not want to build stronger links with the countries around us, including England, in a manner that reflected the wishes of the Scottish people? Was it time for a different way of governance, with policies and intentions suited to Scotland's history and culture?
They are big questions and not simply debated, but surely merit attention when we are considering the entire future of our country? We might have expected a basic version of these issues in the popular press, but surely the tone of the debate would have been on a more philosophical level?
I would not have believed it could have been watered down to "Do you like Alex Salmond? Or "Do you trust Alistair Darling?" While both men have impacted on Scottish and UK political life, they are hardly the stuff of centuries of history.
Most depressing of all, however, is the willingness of both sides to reduce the whole discussion to the level of "Better off", even to the point of quantifying it on an annual, numerical, basis. This 21st century echo of Harold Wilson's "Pound in your Pocket" is essentially meaningless. How better off? Who better off? Does it mean more spending money for all? Or less for some, but more for the majority? Is it the 'better off' indicated by living in a country with good effective social policies and responsive government? Or the "better off" suggested by membership of the Security Council and G8?
Or is it a compliance with the marketing dream that the more you have to spend individually, the happier you will be, and the 'better off' the country will be.
I hope that will not be the reality of 2014: a nation of voters unable to see down the years past the big sign which reads "What's in it for me?"
What was that about a Parcel of Rogues?
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