Scottish Independence: The Definitive Debate

There will be a referendum for Scottish independence in 2014. I am recently returned to Edinburgh, and there are already ads around the city. Independence is a common thing for people to talk about. I, as a British citizen with a Scottish address, get to vote in this referendum. Some would point to my Australian accent that this shouldn’t happen. I would point out to those people one word: Braveheart. Seriously though, I am informed on many of the issues surrounding Scottish independence*, and will vote against it. Here’s why:

Scotland already has a lot of devolved powers given to it by Westminster, which remains the sole arbiter for various other powers. For example, the Scottish Parliament has control over various issues such as health and education, which is why Scottish Students have free university education in Scottish universities. These powers are growing in stature and power, and Scotland's devolution is much more strongly developed than that of Wales or Northern Ireland. This allows Scottish people to be overrepresented politically in the UK (a phenomenon known as the 'West Lothian question'). To illustrate, there is a Scottish Parliament, which can legislate on pre-designed (and ever increasing) areas thanks to Devolution. On top of that, as part of Britain, Scottish people are represented by MPs in Westminster in London. Furthermore, Scotland is represented in the European Council by MEPs. This means that Scottish people have three different types of representation for them: MPs in London, MEPs in Europe and MSPs in Edinburgh. If Scotland gains independence the MSP will take the power of the MPs.

This reduction in representation would make sense if the MSPs had full control over everything. That would make sense for an independent country - but they wouldn’t  – the terms of the treaty mean that even if Scotland gets independence, Scotland will keep the pound, meaning that its economy will still be tied to the Bank of England. Furthermore, it will remain part of the Commonwealth, retaining the British Royal Family. Already this prevents Scotland from setting, for example, its own interest rates, and ties them into the monarchy – who are considerable landowners in Scotland (Balmoral is one of the more famous of the highlands properties, as well as other places the crown owns throughout the country, notably Holyrood castle, which overlooks the new Scottish parliament building). In effect this would mean that its independence is limited already – should a country borrow anothers royal family? Shouldn’t a country be able to do with its money as it wants? Go all or nothing with independence- if that doesn’t work, go for more developed devolution without the petty act of declaring independence like an ungrateful pet.

This is my next point – There are tangible benefits to being in the UK for Scotland. ~Being part of the United Kingdom has allowed Scotland to thrive in a way that it wouldn't have had it not been a member. For example, its part in the industrial revolution and in the Empire (later Commonwealth) were important and lucrative for Scotland and the Scottish diaspora. While this may be morally reprehensible to today's eyes, it has been a huge financial boon to Scotland, and is one of the reasons why Edinburgh and Glasgow are as wealthy and beautiful as they are. This wouldn’t have happened had Scotland and England not been tied together. Also, today Scotland is able to put great influence into Westminster, for example recent Prime ministers Gordon Brown and Tony Blair are both Scottish – you could argue that for its population, Scotland has a disproportionate influence in London.

A little known fact is that (until 2010 at least) Edinburgh was the second largest economic centre in Europe, although it was dwarfed by the leader in this race: London. But why is that? Is it because the Edinburgh and London markets are intrinsically linked? Yes. There are benefits to being in a union with England and Wales which any idiot could see. Independence for Scotland would also mean greater fiscal responsibility, something which it has shown an ineptitude for even within a devolved government.

Would an independent Scotland have been able to fund a bail-out of RBS during the credit crunch? Not without great difficulty. Would a country responsible for its own finances have £431m to spend on a parliament building? Would a country which is financially responsible for its own actions continue pumping money into the ever-more-expensive, but ever-less-expansive Edinburgh tram, which is now 5 years overdue and 3 times its budget? No, it wouldn’t have. I think that in these cases a more prudent Scotland would be good, but Scottish nationalists are looking a gift horse in the mouth when refusing the safety net of a joint British economy.

 

A regular argument made by pro-Scots is that the money from the North Sea oil wasn’t given back directly to the Scots, but rather given to the British coffers and returned proportionally by population. They argue that this wasn’t fair, and certainly there are grounds to argue that (although it has increased profits and made particularly Aberdeen a much nicer place than it would have been had no oil been found) – ironically, now that the reserves are (potentially) drying up, and revenue from them is going down, the income would decrease just as Scotland gets the whole control of them.Graphs for the income from North Sea Oil are found here.

Without the oil money coming in, an independent Scotland would fend for itself with ever rising unemployment and drug problems, and a decreasing income from oil. This is particularly true when you consider that growth in other Scottish products, most notably whiskey is on the increase too. The increased demand worldwide for Scottish whiskey should also be a boon to the Scottish economy; however, the largest whiskey producers in Scotland are run out of London, with an obvious knock on effect if that continued.  

A common argument put forward by many (no source, but people I've talked to) is that per capita, Scotland doesn’t pay its way. This is untrue and had been particularly untrue since the discovery of the North sea oil, graphs suggesting this are here. This argument, that Scotland should be ejected from the UK because it isn’t worthwhile having them there, are ridiculous in the extreme and to be ignored. It is easier to find reasons that

Other than oil, banking and whiskey, tourism is a huge part of the Scottish economy. This can be seen during the Edinburgh festival, at new year, or throughout the summer, when nary a Scottish voice can be heard. Similarly, the Highlands is notable for its lack of cars from the UK driving around, and many of the most famous golf courses teem with foreign tourists. Loch Ness is nothing but Taiwanese tourists.  

This is good, but an important piece of information is that many of the tourists are from elsewhere in the UK, particularly England. This coincides with a strong anti-English feeling and sentiment which is being played on already in ads and in public discourse. I see this referendum not as a chance to assert a national authority (while maintaining another countries monarchy and central bank) but as a chance to ‘stick it to the English.’ This is at best, narrow-minded, and at worst, not moving on from things which happened centuries ago: look to the shouts of ‘wanker’ during Flower of Scotland, the national anthem; how will the many English and others feel in Edinburgh, now a multicultural bastion, if this underlying sense of 'other' continues through to independence?Almost definitely, this will lead to hostility and bitterness on both sides of the fence.

I’m not saying that these concerns and memories of past mistreatment aren’t without merit, but it is important for a country to become a nation on its own terms, and not merely to spite the master country. This is exacerbated by the fact that the majority of the English seem utterly indifferent to the Scottish, leading to a little brother big brother mentality which is laughable for Scotland, a country of great culture, history and beauty. For the sake of partiality I’d also like to put on record that I think that Jersualem is one of my least favourite songs of all time. It would be a shame for the Country of Robert Burns, Walter Scott, to start as a nation out of spite, and potentially burn any bridges through a shower of wannabe Braveheart nonsense. I’m not saying that the treatment of Scotland historically isn’t important, but this should be done objectively, especially as the two have been in a treaty binding the country since 1707.

At present there is a political disenfranchisement in Scotland – There is a Conservative and Lib Dem government throughout the UK, but only 1 Conservative MP In Scotland- meaning that the will of a nation isn’t reflected well. This is a point, but powers remain for MSPs to take over, and the breaking of a bond would also be detrimental for England and Wales, who would likely be subject to a bone-crushing Conservative government for the rest of time. There is political disenfranchisement in Scotland, but this will change next election. The fact that an election didn’t go their way isn’t enough to rescind the significant powers that Scottish parliament has, with the comfort net of being part of a country that will help to pay for its failed tram lines and parliaments. The UK as a whole benefits from this, as Gordon Brown and Tony Blair are both evidence of Scottish importance (no matter what your view of them) to a British parliamentary system. (Brown, Blair both Scottish, which would probably lead to England and Wales having a Conservative government for the foreseeable future (for those not familiar with politics, Labour and conservative are both awful choices, but Conservative is far worse)

My final point is this: this whole issue will be decided by referendum next year. In an unusual move, people aged 16 and over are allowed to cast their vote. Some would argue that this is because Alex Salmond realises that people aged 16 and 18 are the most likely to vote for independence. This seems a little like manipulating the boundaries of voting to increase your power, something which a good democrat shouldn't have to do. I am not a fan of referendums anyway, the Referendum on changes to voting system a couple of years ago, or the numerous ones I participated in in Australia, and without getting into it, are at best a snapshot of those who turn up to vote in elections. and I argue that this form of direct democracy is inherently flawed, even before you get 16-year-olds along to vote. There’s a reason that 16 year olds don’t vote in elections: They’re largely idiots. The same is true of people aged over l8 - a referendum is a way for politicians to pass the buck onto its largely ill-informed, often wilfully ignorant populace. I despise the fact that I can research statistics and figures, make an informed choice, and still be outvoted by a bunch of people who have watched Braveheart twice. This is, I believe, a decision for the people to make during elections, and not on a glorified Newspaper dial-up poll.

Furthermore, Holyrood is currently has a majority party by the Scottish Nationalist Party, The SNP, run by the very clever and capable Alex Salmond. A shrewd manoeverer, he will do whatever he can to ensure Scotlands indepdence, despite the SNP having no real policies of its own outside of independence. It has promised an independent utopia that will be at once low-regulation and low-tax to the right, and a strong welfare state to the left. These are incompatible with the declining income of Scottish oil. More importantly, SNP has a troubled history: in 2004 it proposed an independent Scotland should use the Euro, and before the banking crisis,  - they have no real notions of what Scotland and Scottish people are like, or of any of the real exigencies that will arise when and if Scotland was to becoem independent - questions like, what would happen to the Scottish people serving on the armed forces for Britain? What would happen to the Nuclear submarines stationed in scotland? How could you disentangle 300 years of shared law and economics to form a distinctly seperate legal entity? How would the country really be independent if it keeps the British queen and the British pound?

On top of that,  everything Britain has achieved since the union, good and bad, has been together: the trappings and benefits of colonialism, of the industrial revolution, of global conflicts, particularly the Second World Wars. Importantly, the SNP protested against the conscription of Scottish soldiers during the Second World War, something they don't tell you in those terrible propaganda ads  which will air until the referendum is done. How anyone who thinks they are progressive and encouraging self-determination while intending to break the worlds strongest and longest lasting political alliances is beyond me, and how anyone can follow a party without policies which is heavily bankrolled by the Souter family and Rupert Murdoch and call themselves a liberal is as well. Its use of the terms 'National Movement' to describe its aimscertainly brings a chill to my spine, and should send a similar tremor down the spines of all those who though not Scottish, choose to stay there for its tolerance and liberal attitude, and who remembers or has learned what those words mean when combined throughout Europe. 

In conclusion: There are objective and subjective reasons for Scotland to remain part of the United Kingdom - but it boils down to the fact that there shouldn’t be a reason to break up a union which both sides benefit from. This is particularly true as Scotland has so many powers given to it already without the need to declare independence. I’m going to vote against it. However, I think it will pass after a long and potentially bitter battle, only to have the woad-wearing idiots have their dreams crushed when they realise that life on your own is more difficult, and that without the English to blame, there is no one but yourself. 

* This will refer to 'Scottish' and 'English,' rather than 'England, Wales, and Northern Ireland' -  why? because the UK is primarily England's work, and Northern Ireland and Wales don't count because they are nothing. There I said it.

P.S. this needs proof reading and extra references added to it, but I'll get there.