Tony Benn famously set out these 5 questions of democracy and urged all of us to ask them of those in power:–

• What power have you got?
• Where did you get it from?
• In whose interests do you use it?
• To whom are you accountable?
• How do we get rid of you?

I have unashamedly plagiarised the great man’s style but this time urged people to ask 4 fundamental questions on the future of our country.

• What type of country do we want to create?
• What powers do we need to create it?
• Where should those powers lie?
• How do we deliver them?

Keep these questions in mind as you read this article.

If we survey the political and constitutional landscape of the UK we see a shambolic, hotchpotch of  district councils, parish councils, unitary authorities, boroughs national and London assemblies, parliaments, metro mayors, police and crime commissioners , the house of lords, the house commons and go knows what else. The Covid crisis has exposed the often competing and incoherent ways in which these different bodies and their political leadership works. Who can forget the incredulity on the face of the Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham as he gave a press conference about negotiations with the Government on lockdown support for his region only for an aide to show him a mobile phone message of what the Government was going to impose on the region he is supposed to accountable for.  That is no way to run a country in the 21^st century.

Covid and Brexit have exposed the crisis in our local democracy and decision making. There is a palpable feeling across the country that decisions must be made more local and more accountable. Our towns and cities, regions and nations have their own distinct regional and cultural identity. Regional foods, accents, words, customs, art, humour, music are what makes our local communities unique, lively and vibrant. We are rightly proud and protective of them, we have connection and affection for the history, the landscape and the idiosyncrasies of them. In so many ways they survive in spite of the system not because of it. It is only because of human resilience, a driving sense of injustice and the organisational abilities and determination of different communities of people that the grotesque failings of capitalism are resisted and at times rebuffed and our identity protected from bland homogeneity.

This brings me to answer the first question I set – ‘What type of society do we want to create?’

The Covid crisis has brutally exposed the failings of the neoliberal system. Across the world even the most right-wing governments have been forced to accept that market economics could not answer the biggest question posed since WWII. What would have happened if there had been no state intervention across the UK to defeat Covid? Unemployment would be into the tens of millions, families would have been left literally starving and destitute, businesses would have closed in every sector, workers would have been left unpaid and in such circumstances there would have been a real threat to the complete breakdown of society and law and order as desperate, abandoned people tried to survive. The reality is that the government was forced to adopt policies that run come completely contrary to the philosophy. Massive state intervention shored up the economy, paid wages to workers to stay at home, sector after sector had tax payers money pumped into it where previously they would be left to go under. Projects were funded to feed the hungry, computers bought to help home educate children and subsidies paid to transport operators running empty buses and trains. In short the government resorted to a socialist, interventionist approach to deal with the crisis. This therefore begs the question if we can adopt a more socialist, caring, compassionate and inclusive society where the state steps in to support those in real need at a time of crisis, why can we do this in normal times to create the better society?

I want to see a society of full employment, where no one goes hungry, and every child has the same opportunity to learn and flourish, where public services are funded and supported to meet community needs and where we protect our environment for future generations. One where political power and decision making is returned to local communities with councils re-empowered and funded and no longer seen as just an administrative layer to take the blame for cuts handed down from above. I want a planned, regulated economy where human endeavour is applied to meet society’s needs not to pursue the ‘holy grail’ of wealth accumulation.

What powers do we need to create it and at which level should these powers lie?

The basic principle on which I would answer this is based on this principle – that all powers be devolved to the lowest possible level unless there is a logical and overwhelming reason not to do so.

Let’s take two examples. First, drugs. To our national shame Scotland has the worst rate of drugs death in the developed world – it is therefore logical that all policy headings related to drugs be fully devolved to Scotland to address the crisis here. Why would we not do this? Scotland, Wales, Merseyside and every other English region should equally be able to develop policies to meet their local needs, pressures and circumstances. We can then hold Government and public bodies to account for their decision making and measure the success or failure of policy without them having anyone else to point the finger at.

  Let’s look at another area, the border. We live on a small island nation with a well-developed internal trading market with free movement of goods and people within our border. No one with any sense is arguing that this should end but we need to ensure that we maintain and develop the highest possible standards in areas such as food production, employment rights, consumer protection and environmental standards. So I would argue that it makes no sense to erect internal borders between the regions and nations of this island and that control of the border remains reserved at a UK level but we have the flexibility necessary to meet our own specific national and regional needs including immigration.

These are just two examples but if we systematically work through all powers then we can see the natural level of government for each power to rest. There will be debates and disagreement about where a minority of powers should lie, these can be resolved through negotiation.

Finally how do we deliver these powers?

I have long argued that we need a third option in any future constitutional referendum – one that is not the status quo nor independence. That option should be based on the maximum practical and beneficial devolution of powers to the most appropriate level – subsidiarity as it used to be called. This option isn’t a cop out or fudge. It is the most logical, practical and beneficial proposal for Scotland’ long term economic, social and political well-being, with the potential to transform our country. I hear some say argue a multi option referendum is impracticable and is just a ruse to prevent independence and others argue that it is a copout to nationalism and would divide the anti-independence vote. It is neither, I would not be associated with it if it were. In this publication Prof James Mitchell of Edinburgh University explains exactly how multi option referendums have been used across the world on over one hundred occasions and how it could work in the Scottish context.

I have now answered my own four questions, I would ask readers to consider them and answer them too and once you have done so I hope you’ll accept that whether you believe in independence or Devo Max then there is much more that unites us than divides us. We can build on that by coalescing around a campaign for a multi-option referendum.

In the 1990s some nationalists and socialists we are able to set aside their differences and come together in the ‘Scotland United’ campaign for a multi-option referendum. It is my belief that this is what is required now, it needs us to set aside tired hostilities and put down the boulders we have been lobbing at each other for decades and work on a set of common principles that build unity around that call.

It is clear that Boris Johnson has no intention of conceding a referendum to the SNP and that they have no plan B. However faced with a cross-party, united call for a multi-option referendum Johnson is in a much more difficult position.

 My final question is whether our leaders will rise to the occasion or retreat into the trenches and reach for more boulders?