Scottish Independence - what’s in it for Scottish civil society?

The case for Scottish independence is usually argued in terms of the economic benefits first and the social benefits second.   But it would also strengthen that vital dimension of a nation’s public life known as ‘civil society.’

Civil society is that part of society which is organised independently of the state, is not for profit and professes a public benefit purpose.   Its importance as a force for social and economic development has grown in recent decades as faith in the capacity of the state has waned. 

The core of civil society are voluntary associations – churches, trades’ unions, political parties and  of course those welfare, environmental, housing, arts, children’s, health, anti-poverty, human rights and other  organisations which are collectively known as the voluntary sector.

What makes civil society so important to the health of a nation is that this voluntary core is made up of individual citizens who choose to combine with other citizens to pursue their vision of the public good by providing services directly out of their own or donated funds or by campaigning to persuade the public and politicians of the need for state action.  In an age of declining participation in traditional institutions including public elections and political parties the role of voluntary organisations in identifying new social needs, articulating society’s ambitions, championing causes and subjecting the state and its agencies to informed  criticism is vital to the survival of democracy and the health of society as a whole.

Civil society has played a key role in Scotland’s recent history.  It served as a catalyst for the creation of the devolved Scottish Parliament and in the short lifetime of the Parliament has campaigned for such causes as Freedom of Information, free social care for the frail elderly, land reform, the ban on smoking in public places, increased rights for people with mental health problems and better protection for children and vulnerable adults.

While Scottish civil society appears healthy enough it  falls far short of contributing its full potential to Scottish life.   Many activists believe that the sector could play a much larger part in delivering high quality public services and in empowering local communities.  While voluntary organisations have been effective campaigners and lobbyists of the Scottish Parliament they have been less successful in translating their service experience and their ambitions for the public good into persuasive policy proposals.  The few Scottish policy ‘think tanks’ which exist are desperately under funded leaving Scotland over dependent on London for new policy thinking.  The asset base of Scottish civil society is weak: only about 3% of the income generating assets of grant giving trusts in the United Kingdom are owned by Scottish trusts.   Extraordinarily, apart from the Shetland Charitable Trust whose grants go exclusively to the 22,000 residents of Shetland, no oil funded charitable foundation has been created in Scotland during Scotland’s three decades to date as a major oil producer.

Scottish independence would offer no magic solution to such weaknesses but it would strengthen the dynamic for change.  While civil society is independent of the state at its best it is in dynamic interaction with the state.  A Scottish Parliament with responsibility for all areas of Scottish life and the powers to match would stimulate Scots in all fields of activity to raise their ambitions for Scotland.  Independence would require that Scotland judge itself by the standards of the  best small countries in the world - to be found mostly among our independent northern European neighbours - rather than by the standards of UK regions.   It would strengthen the incentives for concerned citizens to mobilise to influence the Scottish public, Parliament and Government.

Given the bias of Scottish politics it would also improve the opportunities for some of the key causes championed by voluntary organisations. For example Scotland’s anti-poverty organisations could hope that Scots’ acquiescence in one in five of their children growing up in poverty would not survive benchmarking with other independent countries such as Norway and Sweden where child poverty levels are below 5%.  Environmental groups could expect that a progressive Scottish consensus focused on Scotland’s potential as a centre for alternative energy would be developed in a country newly responsible for its own environment and for its impact on the global environment.  Peace groups could hope that a Scottish Government would follow other small social democracies such as Norway and New Zealand by denying the use of its territories to nuclear weapons, so challenging the future of the United Kingdom’s nuclear deterrent as it faces massive replacement costs.  International development organisations might hope to persuade the Scottish public that their contribution to international development should match that of the Norwegians and Swedes at 1% of GDP instead of the UK’s 0.4%.  Civil liberties and human rights organisations could work to ensure that an independent Scotland rejected the UK’s impulse to meet its security needs by military intervention abroad and authoritarian clampdowns at home.  And control of the oil revenues would provide the means of rebuilding Scotland’s capital base, including the strengthening of  the voluntary sector’s endowment base.

None of these outcomes can be guaranteed.  A nation’s future direction of growth can never be predicted with certainty.  But the application of the principle of self-determination to Scotland’s political future would inject new energy to a civil society which draws its energy from the same source.

Would you like to comment on this Blog?

If so send us your comment and we will upload it.

Home :: About Convention :: The Petition :: Myths&Truths :: Forum :: Contact Us :: Links & Resources :: Events :: Media :: Sign-Up :: The Blog :: Youth Link