Salmond may be a great Scot but is no Hitler

WORLD VIEW:Scotland's first minister has sought to use the 'home rule' slogan for the separatist cause

WHEN RIGHT-WING English historian Dr David Starkey earlier this week compared Scotland’s popular first minister, Alex Salmond, to Hitler, it was a strange backhanded compliment to Salmond’s effectiveness that said a great deal about the pathological, almost paranoid, hatred that some English unionists have of Scottish nationalism. This goes deep.

“Alex Salmond is a democratic Caledonian Hitler, although some would say Hitler was more democratically elected,” he told a Tory Bow Group debate.

As historical analogies go it is close to barking.

But linking Salmond to other historical figures is tempting. And, as we celebrate the 100th anniversary of the Home Rule Bill, Arthur Griffith, journalist, founder of Sinn Féin, and one of the architects of the new Irish State, springs easily to mind. At least, in one important respect.

To woo waverers tempted by the independence cause but retaining an affection for the queen, Salmond recently embraced the idea that an independent Scotland would not become a republic but would share the British monarch with the remnants of the UK.

He has even demanded that the question being put to voters in the referendum on independence he hopes to hold in 2014 will not be “Do you wish to leave the UK?”. After all, if Scotland is to remain a kingdom . . .

In doing so, Salmond has revived Griffith’s long-dormant – until Gay Mitchell enthusiastically rediscovered it in 2006 – idea of a “dual monarchy”.

In his seminal pamphlet, The Resurrection of Hungary, Griffith argued that a new relationship between a free Ireland and Britain as equals could be built on the successful model of Austria- Hungary and its shared monarchy (though both shared a cabinet that governed foreign policy, the army and common finances – not what Griffith had in mind for his Anglo-Irish empire). It was an idea, however, that William Gladstone even toyed with in his first Home Rule Bill in 1886.

In fact, Sinn Féin would not discard monarchism until 1915 and an influx into the party of determinedly republican members of the Irish Republican Brotherhood. But even in 1917 the party’s ardfheis agreed a motion committing it to establishing a republic before holding a referendum on whether to install a monarchy (albeit not under any circumstances a Windsor).

Although Salmond also shares Griffith’s determined separatism, rather than settling for a form of devolved power, or home rule, the former rejects abstentionism from Westminster and is quite prepared to work a devolved system, as he is doing in Holyrood.

Salmond understands that most Scots remain sceptical of independence, even in good economic times – polls show the option is unable to climb above the 40 per cent mark. So there is a willingness, while pitching for the real prize, to settle for second best, not least because he believes that effective devolution can whet the appetite for more – a slippery-slope argument that preoccupied Ulster’s unionists in their battle against Home Rule.

Last year’s remarkable majority victory in the Scottish parliamentary elections has fast-forwarded the Scottish National Party’s route map to independence. But some in his party see Salmond’s pragmatism as a too easy willingness to compromise on key values. His latest heresies include Scottish continued Nato membership and an acceptance that the Scottish pound will not be part of the euro.

It has led him to support the idea, though others must make the case, of a second question on the referendum ballot: a halfway-house, home rule option, known as “devo max”, with Scotland raising its own taxes and spending its own money within a continuing UK. (The latest Ipsos Mori poll finds that 59 per cent of Scottish voters want two referendum questions.)

To muddy the waters, the canny Salmond has also sought, with scant regard for history, to appropriate the “home rule” slogan for the separatist cause. He told a recent conference that “home rule with independence beats Tory rule from Westminster, any day”.

It prompted unease among some party members and the understandable response from Scotland’s Labour leader, Johann Lamont, that “if Alex Salmond thinks devolution is a stepping stone to leaving the UK, he’s got another think coming. Home rule and independence are two opposing concepts. One means we are part of the UK, and the other means we aren’t.”

Whether voters will understand the distinctions . . .

“Home rule” has been the catchcry, almost the property, of the federalist Scottish Liberal Democrats, the party of Gladstone after all, and they are set shortly to propose more powers for the Scottish parliament that would only be transferred after the Scots had voted to stay in the UK.

This week the Scottish parliament took a further step towards enhancing its devolutionary powers – though it is never enough for the SNP – in unanimously backing UK legislation giving Scottish ministers the ability to raise up to £6 billion (€7.3 billion) of its budget and to borrow more than £2 billion, as well as a range of other minor powers.

The UK government had rejected Salmond’s calls for additional responsibility for corporation tax, the Crown Estate, excise duties and broadcasting, and for a formal role at EU meetings.

Griffith would certainly not even have asked.

psmyth@irishtimes.com