Until recently the imminent referendum on Scottish independence, which has certainly stirred passions in Scotland, has left the rest of the United Kingdom largely unexcited. That is probably because few people south of the border seemed to think there was much chance that the Scots would actually decide to go it alone. But the narrowing of the opinion polls has changed all that. The result is now too close to call. And that means every citizen of the United Kingdom has to take notice. Our country may be on the verge of changing irrevocably Let’s look at the arguments for each side.
“YES”:
The fundamental reason for Scottish independence is that Scotland, is incontrovertibly, a nation. Nations, it’s argued, form the best and most stable foundations for democratic government because the sense of belonging that most people within a nation feel for their country gives legitimacy to the coercion that government inevitably entails. So Scotland should be independent because it is a nation.
It’s also a nation with a very different political make-up from the rest of the UK, especially dominant England. Ever since Margaret Thatcher alienated the Scots with policies that decimated heavy industry and treated the country as a guinea pig over deeply unpopular measures like the poll tax, Scotland has been a virulently anti-Tory country. From having had a majority of Scottish parliamentary seats in the 1950s, the Conservative Party now has only one. Scotland is essentially a left-wing, social democratic country and independence is essential if the country is not once again to come under the thumb of a right-wing government in London for whom the Scots have not voted.
Scotland is in favour of the European Union but remaining part of the UK threatens this. The rise of UKIP, to which not only southern English Tories but also the northern English Labour Party has to pay attention, has led to a real possibility that the UK could leave the EU. David Cameron has already promised an in-out referendum in three years time if he is re-elected prime minister; Labour might well have to promise the same one day. So Scotland needs to leave the UK in order to be sure of staying in the EU.
As for the economy, it is quite strong enough to stand on its own. Most importantly, Scotland has oil. 90% of North Sea oil reserves are in Scottish territorial waters but while Scotland has been part of the UK much of it has been ripped off by the rest of Britain. There is still quite enough left to sustain an independent Scotland and in any case the country doesn’t have only whiskey to fall back: there is a thriving banking and financial industry in Scotland and much else.
“NO”:
Of course Scotland is a nation, and within the UK it already enjoys many of the freedoms of nationhood: it has its own church, its own legal and educational systems and since 1999 it has had its own parliament, which has been promised increased powers if Scottish voters reject full independence. But as part of the UK, Scotland shares in wider benefits that can come only with membership of the union. By being part of the UK it is part of one of continuing big players on the international stage, with a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council, and within the G7 and the G20. That membership of the union has benefits Scotland recognises is proved by the fact that an independent Scotland wants to try to keep some of them, notably the monarchy and the pound.
As for avoiding being run by the Tories, there is a simple alternative to independence: vote Labour. That was the message Ed Miliband took to Scotland recently when he confidently predicted he would be prime minister by this time next year, intent on pursuing social democratic policies not just in Scotland but throughout the UK. And a Labour government under him would have no truck with leaving the EU.
On the economy the No campaign says that Scottish prosperity is much better secured within the union. For one thing there is much less oil left than the Yes campaign is claiming and the sheer uncertainty created by a Yes vote would threaten Scotland’s financial industry and risk major capital flight. What’s more, independence would put an end to the advantageous system whereby public spending per head (and funded from London) is appreciably greater in Scotland than in the rest of the UK.
Those are the fundamental arguments. But more narrow ones have taken centre-stage in the last weeks of the campaign. The No side has honed in on the currency issue. Their opponents have claimed that an independent Scotland would keep the pound by agreeing a currency union with the remaining part of the UK. But all three main parties in London have rejected the idea outright. They insist that such a currency union would be unworkable unless London had control over Edinburgh’s fiscal policies, something which would be contrary to the whole point of independence. So, they argue, a vote for independence could lead to a real crisis over which currency Scotland would be able to use.
The Yes campaign has focused on the NHS. Although the Scottish Parliament already has control over the health service in Scotland, funding for it comes from London. With planned cuts in overall UK public spending not yet half complete, there is a real threat to the funding of the Scottish NHS if the country remains in the UK: better to go independent and have total control over the country’s health service in its own hands.
These, then, are the issues over which the Scots have been fighting. But what about the rest of the UK: which is the better outcome of the referendum?
There is a minority in the rest of the UK that actively wants Scotland to break away. Some argue a purely financial case. They say: We have been subsidising the Scots for too long: let them go and let’s save our money. Others favour independence from a narrowly party political point of view. It has not escaped the notice of many Tories that without Scotland, and all the Labour MPs it tends to elect, it would be a lot easier for the Conservative Party to win a majority at Westminster.
It’s probably the case, though, that most people in the rest of the UK favour a No vote simply because they are happy with the status quo and don’t want change. The trouble is that they are going to get change whatever the outcome. The question is: which change is more palatable?
If Scotland votes Yes there will then be at least eighteen months of negotiation to agree the terms of separation. Those negotiations will be difficult and thwart with acrimony. What to do about the pound will be top of the list, but there will also be the issue of how much of outstanding UK government debt an independent Scotland should shoulder. There is the vexed issue of what to do about the UK’s nuclear deterrent, whose submarines currently dock at Faslane in Scotland but which an independent Scotland would want removed.
If these negotiations were not difficult enough, there is an added problem: they would be taking place during a period in which there is due to be a UK-wide general election. Polls suggest the result is likely to be tight. If Labour were to win but depend on its Scottish MPs for its majority, then many would claim that it was not a legitimate government since the Scots had already voted to remove those MPs from Westminster. We could find ourselves in a major political and constitutional crisis. Britain would suddenly look very different to the rest of the world: a country breaking up and radically uncertain about its own future.
But a No vote would not remove the need for radical change. In particular, because all the main parties have promised the Scottish parliament extra powers if the country remains in the UK, the long-unanswered ‘West Lothian’ question would once again come to the fore: why should Scottish MPs have a vote on issues affecting only the rest of the UK when neither they nor other UK MPs have a vote on similar issues affecting Scotland? To answer it, further constitutional upheaval is unavoidable and that too could have a lasting effect on the viability of the United Kingdom.
So there is a huge amount at issue on 18 September. If you are a Scot, which arguments will sway your vote? And if you live elsewhere in the UK, which outcome would you prefer?
