Before I say anything else I should observe that I’m English and worse than that a Londoner, which by the terms of the Scottish independence debate apparently means I’m not allowed to express an opinion on the matter. To make matters worse I’m a great fan of both the Union and the Monarchy, so I really don’t expect anyone to give two hoots what I think on the matter. I also realise that by having a view, particularly the view I do have, I may rather annoy some people (including some of my friends). Now that that’s out of the way I’ll confess despite trying to follow the debate and get all the facts such as they are I just find myself more and more puzzled. I had hoped that by now so close to the vote much of my puzzlement would have been resolved, but alas not.
(Be warned this may get a bit long I’ve been meaning to write something for a while)
The first thing that greatly puzzles me is how little time has been given to the debate down here, I get that we’re not allowed to have a view and that we get no say in the matter. The latter I can understand if a country or area wants to be independent why should anywhere else get a say. But if Scotland becomes independent it’s not without impact down here, a 300 year old union will cease to be, Britain will cease to be this isn’t exactly a trivial thing. Given all the press coverage given to various Arab up risings I’d have expected at least a few talking heads discussing what the impact would be for the rest of us.
The other big puzzle I have, and all my bemusement stems from these two biz puzzles, is how wet both sides of the debate are, though particularly the Independence side (Spiked cover this very well). All of the arguments that have made it down this far south are about how people will be better off economically, or how things won’t change much. Much like the EU in/out debate (I’m firmly in the out camp – which may make my pro-Union stance seem odd) it all seems to be about how things stack up financially today. Todays financial situation is a fleeting thing, as is who’s in government in Westminster compared to the long march of 300 years of a union. If Scottish independence is intrinsically good then surely it’s good regardless of if financially there’s upheaval, surely it’s good even if things do change radically and there’s inconvenience. If not if you’re just arguing for independence because you don’t like the current government and the current economics that’s really a poor argument for independence. In a similar manner many of the pragmatic arguments for independence, which seem to be no nasty bankers, a shiny new green industry, more free education, more free health care and so forth are based on SNP promises, but we’re told that the SNP may not be in charge so you should vote for independence even if you don’t like them. So what’s the argument for independence without those SNP promises, as far as I can make out it largely boils down to some people in Scotland feeling that how Scotland votes should have more impact on the make up of the British Government that it has done recently. Ignoring the huge amount of influence Scottish MPs have had on recent governments that argument could be made by almost every part of the UK (such as say the Shetlands who allegedly would quite like independence from Scotland) except for a few swing seats. Which yes makes a good argument for devolution which if there was devolution for England as well within the structure of the Union I’d really have no problems with that, but again it’s a bit of a weak argument to break up the union.
From this really rather limp wristed independence debate, as far as I can gather they want to be independent to:
1) Keep the monarchy (bloody sensible idea)
2) Keep using the pound but have no control over it
3) Keep oil revenues but not to use oil as it goes against the green economy idea
4) Become free of a remote Government which doesn’t listen to them in order to join the EU which is even more remote and in which they’ll have even less impact
In a similar vein apparently Mr Salmond would quite like to walk away from the Scottish share of the national debt, which I can understand I don’t think anyone would really want to keep it. But surely a proud, wealthy independent Scotland would have no problem with accepting a fair share of that debt? After all a chunk of it did help out a few Scottish banks that we’re again told won’t be leaving Scotland.
Talking of historic obligations, and to change tack utterly, it would be nice to see explained how both a newly independent Scotland and the rest of the UK will work as far as international treaties go. If Scotland gains independence neither Great Britain or the United Kingdom will exist as was defined by quite a few treaties (as far as I can make out), so either Scotland will inherit all those obligations (including debts) or it will be treated as a new country. From what I’ve seen and I may well have missed many things, the assumption seems to be that Scotland will be treated as a new country (except when it isn’t) and the rest of the UK will in international terms carry on as if nothing happened. Like I say I may have missed something but I really can’t see how that’s going to work internationally, and if Scotland inherits it’s part in those treaties, such as EU membership, then it’s military spending won’t change due to NATO commitments which kind of dents part of how the independence brigade claim they’ll be so much better off.
For something which I’d hope has had the best minds working towards there seem to be an awful lot of things which are expected to “just work” because the magic wish fairy will make them work – on both sides of the debate. Which is of course what one expects from politicians but for something as serious and permanent as breaking up the Union I’d rather hoped for better.
There’s an awful lot of other practical issues which puzzle me, and many which don’t puzzle me but seem to be just being denied by the independence crowd. From things I’ve seen friends say and from reports in the news I think part of the problem is the anger in the debate, not passion for independence but anger and hostility making a calmer debate where the practical downsides can’t be discussed but can only be dismissed. Which is unlikely to do anyone any favours.
This is getting rather too long, and I’m out of beer, so lets look at the allegedly pro-Union campaign. Again as many other people have observed you can’t help but get the impression that it’s being run by people that don’t really like the UK let alone Britain and are rather ashamed of all the great things it has achieved as a Union. How can you possibly hope to defend a thing you’re ashamed to mention? All that’s left is what we’ve seen from the No campaign – predictions of doom if they leave (which may well be accurate but it’s hardly a defense) and promises of bribes if they stay. All a bit tawdry really. On the other hand Daniel Hannan shows us the sort of defence of the Union that could have been mounted, which again if the No campaign actually though that the Union was intrinsically good they could have mounted. But just as many on the independence side don’t really believe independence is intrinsically good, the no campaign doesn’t really believe in it’s side either. Which with neither side showing any sign of respect for the history and traditions of the arguments their fighting leaves the tawdry, hollow debate we’ve seen.
Tragically I think the way the debate has run it’s course is going to leave a country even more divided. If the vote is a narrow no then the argument won’t be settled but will no doubt be revived in the shortest possible time possibly with some violence in the interim and scant chance of improving the state of the Union. If the no vote wins substantially (which I hope will happen), then as Norman Tebbit observes our glorious leaders are doing everything they can to make that as bad as it possibly can be. If the vote is for independence then I fear we’ll see hastily cobbled together settlements and long protracted and acrimonious negotiations as 300 years of shared commerce, shared establishments and shared history are untangled by people who have shown no understanding or respect for it so far. No matter which way it goes really I fear the sort of acrimony and hostility between friends such as can be expected in the fall out from a civil war carried out over facebook and twitter.
If the Union must cease, then I’d like to see an argument for it based on principle and the intrinsic good of an independent Scotland and for it to have had the sort of consideration that untangling 300 years of a Union deserves. If the argument is sound why the unseemly haste to get things split apart without having answers to such obvious questions as what currency to use and how do the international treaties work. Like I’ve said many a time I may well have missed the answers to all these questions, but from this bit of the country it looks like we’re splitting apart 300 years of Union because the current Government is unpopular and people don’t like London much. Sacrificing the Union and our shared culture traditions and friendships because of fleeting economics and politics well it’s as foolish as the image at the top of this page.
