This House Supports Scottish Independence

The Union has now passed its 300^th birthday and throughout that time Scotland has maintained as distinct role and identity. This is grounded in a tradition and history that is quite different from that south of the Border and includes legal and education systems that have always been separate.

That has manifested itself in a distinct policy agenda since devolution and areas such as free care for the elderly and the abolition of student tuition fees.

Despite the opinions of doomsayers before devolution it has been proved as a remarkable success and massive approval throughout the UK with 70% saying it has been a success.[i]

[i] The Scotsman. “70% of Britons support devolution for Scotland, poll suggests” 8 May 2009.

There are many differences between devolution and independence. Surviving events such as the banking crisis and the European sovereign debt crisis are much easier within the confines of a larger, richer state such as the UK.

Nobody denies that devolution has, broadly speaking, been a success. However, it’s been achieved in quite a different context than that facing a nation state.

It has left difficult decisions to Westminster. It allows the Scottish Executive the luxury of being oppositionist on issues such as nuclear power, fantasists on renewables while leaving the problem of how to keep the lights on to politicians at Westminster.

Not only has the policy agenda been different in Scotland but so has the model of politics. It has seen the emergence of new political parties and a better representation of the diversity within existing ones.

The nature of political discourse, although vigorous and not as consensual as initially hoped, has proved to be more consensual – both during the time of the SNP minority administration and the preceding coalitions than politics south of the border.[i]

The contrast between the coalition governments at Holyrood, the Scottish parliament, where Scottish Labour and the Scottish Liberal Democrats were allied between 1999 and 2007, and the internecine warfare going on between Conservative and Liberal members of the current Westminster coalition could not be more stark.

[i] Cairney, Paul, ‘Coalition and Minority Government in Scotland’, Political Studies Associations Conference, 1 April 2010, http://www.psa.ac.uk/journals/pdf/5/2010/121_820.pdf

It may well be the case that the model of politics at Westminster needs to be reviewed but that does not speak to the issue of independence. Furthermore, it is interesting how many of the parties’ ‘big beasts’ (influential) chose to stay at Westminster – including Alex Salmond for a term.

Equally, in the light of the credit crunch, it is questionable as to whether constantly giving away populist freebies such as free eye-tests[i] when the parliament is not responsible for raising the taxes to pay for it hardly represents good politics.

Furthermore, in its brief life, there has been no shortage of political scandal at Holyrood, including the resignation of one First Minister in disgrace over an expenses scandal.

[i] BBC News, ‘Scotland brings in free eye tests’, 31 March 2006, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4865828.stm

Many of Scotland’s problems are grounded in the fact that its potential has consistently been held back. Because the focus for economic development from a Westminster perspective has focused for generations on North Sea oil and the coal fields of Lanarkshire, huge opportunities were missed and the best and the brightest tended be dragged down south for jobs worthy of their skills.

Even with the limited powers allowed by devolution a burgeoning life-sciences sector, a growing IT sector in silicon glen are adding to the traditional industries. Since 2003 Scotland has generally had faster economic growth than the UK with 13% during the period from 2003-2007 compared to the UK’s 11.4%.[i] Independence would stretch people still further.

[i] CPPR Centre for Public Policy for Regions, ‘The changing pattern of Scotland’s economic growth since Devolution’, CPPR Briefing Note, June 2011, http://www.cppr.ac.uk/media/media_202573_en.pdf  

Firstly, if these industries are already emerging under the devolved powers then there seems to be little reason for expanding those powers. Nationalism has always relied on the fantasy that magically everything about the country will change the day after independence.[i]

The reality is not quite so rosy; with a disproportionately high level of employment in the public sector[ii] as well as consistently high levels of multi-generational unemployment, pretending that these problems would be swept away following autonomy is just fantasy. These constitutional wrangles are a distraction from the real issues of addressing employment and chronic ill-health are much higher concerns.

[i] Chakrabortty, Aditya, ‘Can Scotland pay its own way?’, The Guardian, 20 May 2011, http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/may/20/can-scotland-pay-its-way

[ii] Simon Rogers. “The public sector employment  map of the UK: the full data.” The Guardian. 21 November 2011.

The Union has now passed its 300^th birthday and throughout that time Scotland has maintained as distinct role and identity. This is grounded in a tradition and history that is quite different from that south of the Border and includes legal and education systems that have always been separate.

That has manifested itself in a distinct policy agenda since devolution and areas such as free care for the elderly and the abolition of student tuition fees.

Despite the opinions of doomsayers before devolution it has been proved as a remarkable success and massive approval throughout the UK with 70% saying it has been a success.[i]

[i] The Scotsman. “70% of Britons support devolution for Scotland, poll suggests” 8 May 2009.

There are many differences between devolution and independence. Surviving events such as the banking crisis and the European sovereign debt crisis are much easier within the confines of a larger, richer state such as the UK.

Nobody denies that devolution has, broadly speaking, been a success. However, it’s been achieved in quite a different context than that facing a nation state.

It has left difficult decisions to Westminster. It allows the Scottish Executive the luxury of being oppositionist on issues such as nuclear power, fantasists on renewables while leaving the problem of how to keep the lights on to politicians at Westminster.

Not only has the policy agenda been different in Scotland but so has the model of politics. It has seen the emergence of new political parties and a better representation of the diversity within existing ones.

The nature of political discourse, although vigorous and not as consensual as initially hoped, has proved to be more consensual – both during the time of the SNP minority administration and the preceding coalitions than politics south of the border.[i]

The contrast between the coalition governments at Holyrood, the Scottish parliament, where Scottish Labour and the Scottish Liberal Democrats were allied between 1999 and 2007, and the internecine warfare going on between Conservative and Liberal members of the current Westminster coalition could not be more stark.

[i] Cairney, Paul, ‘Coalition and Minority Government in Scotland’, Political Studies Associations Conference, 1 April 2010, http://www.psa.ac.uk/journals/pdf/5/2010/121_820.pdf

It may well be the case that the model of politics at Westminster needs to be reviewed but that does not speak to the issue of independence. Furthermore, it is interesting how many of the parties’ ‘big beasts’ (influential) chose to stay at Westminster – including Alex Salmond for a term.

Equally, in the light of the credit crunch, it is questionable as to whether constantly giving away populist freebies such as free eye-tests[i] when the parliament is not responsible for raising the taxes to pay for it hardly represents good politics.

Furthermore, in its brief life, there has been no shortage of political scandal at Holyrood, including the resignation of one First Minister in disgrace over an expenses scandal.

[i] BBC News, ‘Scotland brings in free eye tests’, 31 March 2006, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4865828.stm

Many of Scotland’s problems are grounded in the fact that its potential has consistently been held back. Because the focus for economic development from a Westminster perspective has focused for generations on North Sea oil and the coal fields of Lanarkshire, huge opportunities were missed and the best and the brightest tended be dragged down south for jobs worthy of their skills.

Even with the limited powers allowed by devolution a burgeoning life-sciences sector, a growing IT sector in silicon glen are adding to the traditional industries. Since 2003 Scotland has generally had faster economic growth than the UK with 13% during the period from 2003-2007 compared to the UK’s 11.4%.[i] Independence would stretch people still further.

[i] CPPR Centre for Public Policy for Regions, ‘The changing pattern of Scotland’s economic growth since Devolution’, CPPR Briefing Note, June 2011, http://www.cppr.ac.uk/media/media_202573_en.pdf  

Firstly, if these industries are already emerging under the devolved powers then there seems to be little reason for expanding those powers. Nationalism has always relied on the fantasy that magically everything about the country will change the day after independence.[i]

The reality is not quite so rosy; with a disproportionately high level of employment in the public sector[ii] as well as consistently high levels of multi-generational unemployment, pretending that these problems would be swept away following autonomy is just fantasy. These constitutional wrangles are a distraction from the real issues of addressing employment and chronic ill-health are much higher concerns.

[i] Chakrabortty, Aditya, ‘Can Scotland pay its own way?’, The Guardian, 20 May 2011, http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/may/20/can-scotland-pay-its-way

[ii] Simon Rogers. “The public sector employment  map of the UK: the full data.” The Guardian. 21 November 2011.

The UK acts as a big player on the international scene sitting at the top table of most international institutions. It is questionable as to whether the remaining part of the UK would continue to sit on the UN Security Council; one thing that is certain is that Scotland would not. Equally they would have little clout on European bodies, damaging their influence on key Scottish interests such as fisheries policy.

It would also lose the advantage that many companies see Edinburgh as a convenient base within the UK but would be unlikely to see much benefit to it as a base in an independent Scotland[i].

[i] David Sinclair. “Issues surrounding Scottish independence.” September 1999. Published by the Constitution Unit, Tavistock House.

Scotland already has a distinct global profile including world-class national brands such as whiskey and salmon. Arguing that Scotland would have ‘less influence’ as an independent state is frankly absurd as, at the moment, it has none. Westminster leads in international negotiations and rarely considers Scottish interests.

Additionally, considering the damage that the UK government has managed to do to its international reputation with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan putting some clear, tartan water between Edinburgh and London would seem to be quite a strong diplomatic move.

For over three centuries the two nations have cooperated much to their mutual advantage. The majority of Scots are happy with their British-ness.

In terms of culture and art the two nations have maintained distinctive traditions but ones which have been enhanced by their interaction. There are many people who have relatives from Scotland and another of the Home Nations for whom British is the more obvious identity.[i]

After centuries of fighting with each other the Union brought peace and mutual benefit.

[i] Mitchell, David, ‘If Scotland does secede, I won’t be alone in mourning for my country’, The Observer, 15 May 2011, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/15/david-mitchell-scotland-secession-britain

Ignoring the fact that Opp is putting forward a version of history that is decades rather than centuries old there are other flaws. Scottish cultural traditions were actively destroyed by English dominance and continue to receive very limited support.

Linguistic traditions such as Scots and Gaelic were completely ignored and frequently suppressed.

In addition it has not been 300 years of mutual benefit as Scotland has been largely overwhelmed by its more populous neighbour. Scotland’s resources, including its intellectual ones, have been – and continued to be – effectively stolen by England.

The Barnett established the model by which money is divided up within the regions and nations of the UK. The formula works greatly to Scotland’s advantage with a net flow of funding heading north.

The English taxpayer subsidizes Scots to the tune of £19bn a year (2009-10).[i] Without that subsidy The Scottish government would not have been able to give away the many benefits that have been handed out by the devolved authorities.

Scotland needs English support financially just as she does in terms of diplomatic representation or political muscle.

[i] McLaren, John et al., ‘Financial Implications of Different Fiscal Arrangements For Scotland’, CPPR Centre for Public Policy for Regions, June 2011, http://www.cppr.ac.uk/media/media_202570_en.pdf

The Scottish budget runs at a surplus of about 1%, unlike the UK’s, and so the Scots are actually subsidizing their neighbours.[i] It is also important to take into account the vast amount of wealth that has fled south in the shape of North Sea oil revenue and the talent that has been sucked up by London in terms of not only work but also with the number of Scots soldiers sent to fight English wars.

Perhaps the best example of this historically is Glasgow which literally built the British Empire – mostly to English benefit – only to be discarded to some of the worst poverty in the developed world when it was no longer useful

[i] Chakrabortty, 2011