Andy Maciver: We can't begin to sort Scotland's problems until another, final referendum

These characteristics typified perhaps the most successful time in the history of our nation – the Scottish Enlightenment. Our Enlightenment figures (whom we now spend most of our time posthumously lambasting for their 19th century views on 21st century issues) borrowed from the Western Enlightenment of the time and applied it in practical ways, to improve Scotland and the lives of the people in it.

Scotland was a nest of debate and discussion. A place where brilliance was welcomed and rewarded. A country which could justifiably claim to be leading the globe, whether it be by Adam Smith’s invention of the capitalist economy which has lifted hundreds of millions of people from poverty, or Rabbie Burns’ provision of poetry which has traversed the world for 200 years, and will do for 200 more.

We used to be that country. But, my goodness, it would take breathtaking naivete to think that we are that country today. We are stuck in treacle. We are shouting at each other, but saying nothing. We are hearing from each other, but never listening. Our national debates, inasmuch as we can call them that, are diseased.

At the heart of it all is the question of whether Scotland should be an independent country, or whether it should remain part of the UK. I find myself in a conflicted position on that issue.

I am not someone driven by national identity. Perhaps it is due to living here, and living through this, but either way I find it difficult to be particularly passionate about being Scottish, or being British. I’m perfectly content with both, but it doesn’t go much beyond that. I don’t feel like being Scottish or British is a unique blessing which has been bestowed on me. I’m sure being Swedish, or Slovakian or Senegalese is equally satisfactory. I don’t feel exceptional.

However I live here, and work here, and my kids go to school here, and for all those reasons and more I am desperately keen to see us do better. And because we can’t do better until we talk better, I am desperately keen to see Scotland rediscover its ability to debate with tact and tenacity, rather than to argue with fire and fury.

This column will be the first of three in which I hope to share my opinion on how we can do that. Today I will analyse the environment in which I think we find ourselves. My next article, a fortnight from today, will offer a view on how those in favour of independence could debate better, and ultimately encourage more of the middling 20 per cent of voters to vote Yes, and my final column will do the same for the pro-UK side.

It is important, at the outset, to say that each side thinks this is the fault of the other. The truth lies somewhere in between, as it usually does.

Pro-UK thought leadership is characterised by anti-nationalism rather than pro-unionism. There is very little focus on the benefits of being part of the UK, particularly on the Conservative side of the fence, and the underlying assertion that Scotland is not capable of thriving under independence is omnipresent, even if it is sometimes unspoken.

Pro-independence thinking is similarly infected by the noise of its own Twitter echo-chamber, busily excoriating those who are not ‘Yes yet’ and doing almost nothing to persuade people who voted no in 2014 that they have a better vision of what Scotland can achieve as an independent country.

If this was limited simply to the constitutional debate, that might be able to be handled; to be ‘baked in’ to politics in general but still leave space to talk about major issues without requiring a constitutional slant to be placed upon them.

Alas, it is not. Instead, some issues of deep and lasting significance are branded according to constitutional positions.

Let us look at nuclear power as an example. In France and Germany, there is an active and reasonable discussion about the use of nuclear power. Into the debating ring is thrown energy security in the face of Russian aggression and the threat over gas supplies, the journey to net zero, the safety of nuclear power, cost and return on investment and so on.

France is currently coming down strongly on one side – in favour of nuclear power – and Germany on the other. This is not about ideology – both governments are of the centre left. Instead, it is a decision, informed by debate, and indeed changeable by debate.

Our nuclear power discussion, on the other hand, resembles a student union’s CND pub quiz. Nationalists will claim that being anti-nuclear is an inherently Scottish position; if you’re in favour of nuclear power, you’re really pro-England.

Discussion about public services is not dissimilar. Unionists will point to the slightly more consumer-orientated health and education services in England, a country which under-performs in both, and argue for their importation into Scotland, a country which under-performs in both, instead of looking beyond our shores for ideas (as our Enlightenment thinkers would have done).

And the debate over Covid restrictions is the most current, and perhaps clearest example of our constitutional argument overtaking a debate which has nothing to do with constitutionalism. I have little confidence that the view of nationalists or unionists about Covid restrictions has much to do with medical or scientific evidence or modelling. Instead, it seems that independence supporters are compelled to advocate ongoing restrictions, with the Brits having to back whatever policy emanates from Downing Street.

It is dismal. It is depressing. However, in my view, the only way to move beyond it is to have another, final referendum. We have to answer this question properly, based on two positive choices, before we can answer any others.

We will have to go deeper into the tunnel before we are going to see any light at the end of it.

This is going to have to get worse before it gets better. Brace yourselves.

Andy Maciver is director of Message Matters