20 February 2012
Independence for Scotland may depend on economic realities
Scotland has featured prominently in the news over the last week. First it was the collapse of Glasgow Rangers FC. Later in the week British Prime Minister David Cameron was in Edinburgh to meet with Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond. The subject of an independent Scotland has been simmering for quite some time and Mr Cameron is leading opposition to it. There are positives and negatives associated with the desire for Scottish independence. They will, no doubt, be set out clearly when the Scottish people vote in the forthcoming referendum.
For centuries Scotland was a separate sovereign nation. They had their own royalty and laws as well as many unique customs. The differences between Scotland and the rest of Britain are quite striking and many there feel tied down by the union. Just like in Ireland, the Scots are proud of their heritage and don’t always take kindly to being spoken for by London. This is especially true when the Conservatives are in office – as is now the case.
The ‘West Lothian Question’ is brought up whenever Scottish autonomy is mentioned. This is the anomaly, thrown up by devolution, by which Scottish MPs can vote on issues pertaining to England, yet English MPs cannot vote on issues related to Scotland. However what’s never stated is the tiny number of Conservative MPs north of Hadrian’s Wall. A minority vote Tory in Scotland but, in the past (particularly during the Thatcher period), Scottish people had to put up with laws being foisted on them from Westminster. Surely this is as bad as the ‘West Lothian’ issue? Why should Scotland have to accept a government they didn’t vote for in the first place? It is fundamentally undemocratic.
The introduction of devolution has had a beneficial effect in Scotland. The country has now got a government that the people there can relate to. It is very true that Mr Salmond is a clever operator and is much better at reading the Scottish political temperature than Mr Cameron. However this does not mean necessarily that independence is the best option. Some are pointing towards Ireland’s economic woes and saying that the same, or worse, could happen to Scotland if independence were to come about in the future. Can the Scots be trusted to take up the reins of their own economy from the Treasury in London?
When economic issues are discussed the arguments for Scotland remaining within the union are powerful. This will be a difficult challenge for the SNP government in Holyrood House to deal with. Mr Cameron says he wants the union to continue. He believes this with “head, heart and soul”. Following his meeting, last week, with Mr Salmond the British PM described the talks as “quite frustrating”. A lot more persuasion will be needed to promote the benefits to Scotland of voting “no” to separation.
The benefits of Scotland staying in the union are considerable, despite the popular support the SNP government can boast at the moment. Historically if a nation wanted independence wars were fought (the US, Ireland, India). However today economic tools have taken the place of sword and bullet. The Scottish people may not appreciate a knock on the door from the ECB or IMF, such as the Irish experience.
Would Alex Salmond be lauded if his administration presided over an economic collapse? One thinks not. If he and his colleagues can persuade the Scots that, economically, they’ll be better off outside the UK, then that may be enough to win independence. It is the opinion of THE FAT DUBLINER that this will be the First Minister’s greatest challenge as the referendum debate heats up.
An independent Scotland in the 21st Century is a fine aspiration, held by many, but the reality of going it alone could cause problems. The financial world is now intertwined and what goes on in one country can affect another – just look at the crises currently afflicting the EU. The other parts of Britain also need the union to remain intact. Independence, if achieved, could be good for Scottish national pride but when the dust settles the scenario might not look so rosy. The referendum campaign ought to be fascinating to observe as the weeks and months progress.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"Scottish people had to put up with laws being foisted on them from Westminster. Surely this is as bad as the ‘West Lothian’ issue? Why should Scotland have to accept a government they didn’t vote for in the first place? It is fundamentally undemocratic."
ReplyDeleteThis is a bit too facile. On two occasions, there have been UK majority Labour governments with another party with more seats in England (1964 and 1974). This has happened in the obverse direction 3 times in Scotland (two Thatcher and one Major government). I think on those occasions people in England just thought "that's the way the cookie crumbles", and I expect the same was true in Scotland, at least initially. No doubt people in Birmingham vote differently from people in London.
In is only in recent times that these kinds of arguments about lack of mandate have arisen. One consequence is that we will probably get the same argument in reverse the next time we have a Labour UK government with a Tory majority in England. Time will, but devolution certainly seems to have brought in a period of fragmentation.
"Scottish people had to put up with laws being foisted on them from Westminster. Surely this is as bad as the ‘West Lothian’ issue? Why should Scotland have to accept a government they didn’t vote for in the first place? It is fundamentally undemocratic".
ReplyDeleteThey don't have to. They can vote for independence. Of course, so can we English!
One difference between English commentators and Scots on issues such as the West Lothian question is that this is the first time in 300 years that the tiny population of Scotland has been in a position to properly influence England and just look at the reaction yet this has been the reverse position for centuries. Also when people make silly arguments based on the difference between London and Birmingham they are ignoring the fact that at least these places share the same national identity and have done so for over a thousand years. When people want to wax lyrical about Britains shared 300 year history, we should remember the previous 1700 years post Roman invasion of Britain where the countries were very separate. Ps Wales is a Principality and Ulster a set of counties. This means that when Scotland leaves the UK the English will also be independant.
ReplyDelete