FREEDOM AND FAITH by Donald Smith
There is a strong tradition in Scottish society of support for international aid, and Scotland played a very active role in big public campaigns such as the millennium initiative for debt relief – ‘Break the Chains’ and ‘Make Poverty History’.
It is likely that an independent Scotland would expand international work for the relief of poverty in line with the established work of the voluntary sector. Public opinion would be strongly opposed to aid being tied to political, economic or military interests. The bias might be in the other direction with the ability to assist in disaster emergencies being a criterion for how an independent Scottish Defence Force might be constructed.
Decisions on war and peace are politically momentous but also the toughest moral choices faced by politicians. In recent decades Britain has gone to war in the Falkland Islands, Kuwait, Iraq, the Balkans, Afghanistan and Libya.
Apart from the Falklands War, Britain’s forces have been part of some international coalition, usually led by the USA, and in most cases acting without the full support of the UN. Many Scottish politicians have opposed these military interventions.
Scottish public opinion is normally torn between traditional loyalty to the Scottish regiments once deployed, and opposition to the intervention. As a community, Scotland knows the human cost of war and is reluctant to see lives put at risk. In many cases scepticism about longer-term outcomes from the sacrifice involved has also proved well founded.
The loss of public trust in Tony Blair as a national leader was strongly connected with the perception that he misled the public on the reasons for the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
This brings into sharp focus the difference between devolution and independence. Decisions on war are the prerogative of the nation state. An independent Scotland would have the power to decide. As Scotland’s military capacities would be limited, there would be a bias towards opting out of global military interventions in favour of peacekeeping missions and emergency relief. The use of military force is one of the main ethical questions surrounding Scotland’s future political options.
The stakes on this issue are hugely raised by the present location of Britain’s independent nuclear deterrent on Scottish soil. ‘Independence’ in this case may be questionable given the dependence on US technology, but theoretically Britain could launch a devastating nuclear strike from a submarine anywhere in the world, offensively or defensively. Retaliation would come next. The consequences in loss of life and environmental catastrophe seem disproportionate to any political objective. Meanwhile, Scots house this risk on their doorstep, but have no say over location, management or deployment.
The removal of nuclear weapons from Scottish territory, and the potential disabling of Britain’s nuclear capacity, is the biggest moral issue in the current independence debate. It raises further questions about Scottish membership of Nato and the financial implications of withdrawal from the UK military. But these aspects are subsidiary to the main choice – nuclear or non-nuclear. The SNP and the Greens have made the removal of nuclear weapons part of their platform for independence, while the other established parties have made Scotland’s part in Britain’s defence and defence industries a main plank of their campaign to stay British.
But though this choice has huge moral resonance, can it be decided on primarily moral grounds? An underlying desire for ‘security’ and protection might prevail. The economic case for sharing in UK defence investment could sway some, while a psychology of patriotism and military support might be more widespread in Scotland than is generally conceded.
These trends may be longer lasting and more influential than the current period of immediate debate. Again wider considerations of confidence, freedom and fear may play their part.
Choices between the status quo, devolution max and independence have ethical implications because they involve different levels of responsibility. The argument for greater political autonomy brings with it the potential for moral impact as well as greater risk. At the same time it is apparent that the moral calculus does not operate in isolation from other factors.
From Freedom and Faith by Donald Smith; published by Saint Andrew Press, ISBN: 9780861538133, £14.99, paperback, available now in book shops or online www.standrewpress.com
Donald Smith is a storyteller, theatre director, and theologian, who has been on the frontline of change in contemporary Scotland for 35 years. His topical new book, Freedom and Faith, discusses and explores the so-far overlooked key questions about religion, culture and Scottish Independence. Reflecting on the massive, unprecedented changes during his own lifetime, he poses fascinating, insightful and urgent questions about Scotland’s future.