.jpg)
As I write we are 10 days away
from the Independence Referendum which will decide whether Scotland leaves the
United Kingdom, and becomes an independent country or not. The polls have
narrowed and the result seems uncertain. The Yes campaign has made up ground
and seems to have gained some traction, in particular based on scare stories
about the future of the NHS.
I believe the Yes case is
actually a rather weak one, driven by nationalists who have always wanted
independence simply because that is what they have always wanted - opportunistically taking
advantage of a malaise across the western world of global financial crisis and
disillusion with political establishments.
And the Nationalists have been
joined in this enterprise by some from the left and a hotch-potch of idealists
looking for change. A disparate group. The problem is everyone is
projecting their own dreams onto Independence. It can't be about all of them.
In fact the Yes case seems to be
not much more than this: Bad things happen. Westminster is to
blame. Vote for independence and bad things won't happen anymore.
My concern is I have seen very
little, if any, serious analysis of why we have had an economic crisis and
austerity, and I have seen no solutions offered up by the Yes side. There
is much said about poverty and inequality but no serious discussion about how we
can tackle these issues.
What we have instead is plenty of
faux anger and overstated argument. Plenty of demonising and othering of
scapegoats - mostly summed up by the concept of 'Westminster'.
The Yes campaign see themselves
as the real change makers, the catalyst for a thousand lights of radical
thought to make a better nation. They believe they are civic nationalists
building something new and good. Civic nationalism of course takes its
inspiration from enlightenment thought and the American Revolution of the 18th
century. One of its great writers was Tom Paine. His seminal work "Common
Sense" would resonate with many a Yes supporter almost as much as it
inspired the revolutionaries of 1776. In it he wrote, “We have it in our
power to begin the world over again".
But here's the thing. The
Scots are in truth quite conservative. The future that is on offer
through independence, far from being progressive about how we can take forward
a modern free market welfare state adapted for the 21st century, seems rather more
likely to be a regressive step back to the 1970s. This is a vision that
if realised would be unlikely to achieve the results hoped for.
The challenge for Scotland
remains, whether we vote Yes or No, how do we spread the prosperity we undoubtedly
enjoy in the East to central and western Scotland, and how do we improve our
health issues.
But don’t take it from me.
The nationalists' case is disingenuous and a false one and there are many good
reasons to remain part and parcel of Britain. I have set many of them out
below each with some background should you want to read further.
1. It's not just about
the numbers
It's not
about the numbers (Kevin Hague in Chokka Blog)
Why our shared values matter
"At the heart of Britain
there is a fusion of Scottish principles of solidarity, egalitarianism and
civil society entwined with English values of liberty, tolerance and
pragmatism that has created a union for social justice where we pool and
share risks and resources across the entire United Kingdom."
(Gordon Brown Labour)
We are not just part of Britain,
we made Britain (Ruth Davidson Conservative)
I will vote No because I love
Scotland (Ming Campbell Liberal Democrat)
Head and Heart (Archie McPherson)
2. More Powers
The argument is that Scotland already enjoys the best of both worlds - we have a strong Scottish Parliament, with full control of the NHS, schools and policing, and also the strength and security of being part of the UK.
And each of
the three political parties supporting Better Together has, over the last two
years, considered developed and published thought through proposals for more
powers and further ‘federalising’ the UK.
The three parties have made a public and joint commitment to work
together to deliver more powers after a No vote. Parties working together originally delivered
devolution in 1999. The parties have now
delivered a detailed timetable about how they will move swiftly to implement
this after the referendum.
Labour’s
proposals
The
Conservative proposals
The
LibDem proposals
3. The economy
Scotland could go it alone but is
better as part of the UK (The Economist)
66% of the Scottish economy is in
the private sector. About 40%, or 859,000 jobs, are dependent on trade
and ownership links to the UK, while the remaining 26% are linked to the wider
world economy. (Prof Ashcroft Strathclyde University - Scottish Economy Watch)
Our economy within the UK is
highly interlinked and London is actually (on balance) an asset to the Scottish
economy.
(Prof Ashcroft Strathclyde
University - Scottish Economy Watch)
The effect of having a border - trade
flows, migration flows and capital flows are significantly lower across
international borders than within a unified country.
(Prof Ashcroft Strathclyde
University - Scottish Economy Watch)
Scotland's exports to the rest of
the UK accounts for 70% of our 'exports'
(Prof Ashcroft Strathclyde
University - Scottish Economy Watch)
Small countries are neither more
or less successful than large ones but are more volatile. (Prof Ashcroft
Strathclyde University - Scottish Economy Watch)
Some small states can do well out
of independence in some ways.
(Prof Ashcroft Strathclyde
University - Scottish Economy Watch)
The greater tax receipts we have
received as a result of oil were invested for the people of Scotland, creating
jobs and investing in public services. We have in effect had our oil fund
all along.
(Prof Ashcroft Strathclyde
University - Scottish Economy Watch)
We would not be £8.3bn better off
under independence. This is untrue.
(Kevin Hague in Chokka Blog)
A summary of some other key
talking points (Kevin Hague in Chokka Blog)
- Companies in Scotland that trade with the rest of the UK would probably
be damaged and suffer job losses by the effect of establishing a border.
- GDP
per head does not tell you how rich a country is - an independent Scottish
economy would be a middle ranking economy with high levels of foreign
ownership.
-
Scotland would face some significant hurdles to EU membership and any terms on
which we joined.
- The start up costs for an
independent are probably close to £2.5bn after
analysing the range of estimates.
- Business for Scotland does not
represent business in Scotland and is not a serious think tank in any way.
4. The NHS
The Nationalists are lying about
the NHS to gain electoral advantage. (Dr Gregor on the BBC)
Health service spending in
England is increasing in real terms, there is more spending per head of
population on health in Scotland under devolution, the Scottish Government
makes extensive use of private firms to provide healthcare, there is no
political party proposing ending the NHS in England - it would be political
suicide to do so. What political arguments there are in England are over
the best way to provide healthcare with an ageing population and increasing
costs of technology - not over taking away free healthcare.
5. Poverty
The SNP's record on poverty is
not a good one. In 7 years in government in Scotland, despite having full
control of health and education the SNP have not introduced a single
redistributive policy - not one!
6
The EU
An independent Scotland would
start her life outside the EU; even thereafter Scotland would enjoy EU
membership on terms far less beneficial and generous than those enjoyed now by
the UK. (The definitive guide to the process to joining the EU following
leaving the UK by Prof Adam Tomkins, Glasgow University)
7. Pensions
Pension schemes operating between
Scotland and the remainder of the UK would be classed as ‘cross-border’ under
EU law if Scotland votes ‘yes’. This means EU solvency requirements would have
major cost and cash flow implications for employers with cross-border pension
schemes. This would be a major financial challenge for employers. (ICAS
report)
Scotland faces a challenge to
provide pensions after independence for both state pensions and private pension
schemes. (Malcolm MacLean, Pensions expert writing in Money Marketing)
Scotland faces a pensions
timebomb due to our ageing population. Pooling resources across over 60m people
to provide pensions is one of the big advantages of the UK. (Daily
Record)
8. Financial Services and
bailing out the banks
An independent Scotland would
have seriously struggled to bail out the banks in the crash of 2007/08.
In this it is vital to understand the the distinction between giving distressed
banks short-term liquidity help and bailing them out. During the crises, UK
banks were, for instance, given short-term liquidity help from both the UK
government and other governments where they were operating, such as the US
government. The bail-out of UK banks, however, came from the UK government, to
the sum of somewhere in the vicinity of £66 billion, or over half of Scotland’s
GDP in 2010 (which stood at about £110 billion). (Brad MacKay, University
of Edinburgh "The Future of the UK and Scotland")
9. The advantages of being
part of the UK
If you are serious about looking
into how Scotland works within the UK and the benefits to Scotland of being in
the UK, and there are many, read the Scotland Analysis papers from the UK
treasury.
Some of the key advantages of the
UK to Scotland include
- Being part of the UK energy
market
- The pooled resource across a
union for social justice in pensions
- Being part of an integrated
single market and currency union
- Science, research and our
universities sector within the UK.
- Our financial services industry
and banking within a UK sector which due to regulation, tax and currency would
have to fragment after separation.
- The value of UK Defence
industries and military shipbuilding to Scotland
10. The Nationalists'
questions
Is there a democratic deficit in
Scotland? (Effie Deans blog)
The McCrone Report myth - the
extent of North Sea Oil was never a secret.
The Wee Blue Book from extreme
nationalist website Wings over Scotland is erroneous in many of its details or
deliberately misleading as it is written with an agenda of nationalist
propaganda. Consider this evidence. (Kevin Hague in Chokka Blog)
Business for Scotland do not
represent businesses that employ anyone or that deal cross border. They
have no credibility. The detail (Kevin Hague in Chokka Blog)
It's not about the SNP - yes it
is! (Effie Deans blog)
Wings over Scotland is an extreme
nationalist blogsite with an agenda of nationalist propaganda. It is
homophobic and mysoginistic. It also has a consistently angry and
outraged tone aiming poisoned articles at its targets. This is negative
and provokes needless hate and division and as such has no place in the debate
over Scotland's future. (Edinburgh Eye)
Think again - (Nupateer.Com)
