The Increasingly Confusing Campaign for Scottish Independence. By Hannah Harrison
I am slowly starting to wonder what would be the point in Scottish Independence? I feel I should state at this point that I am against independence but even as a ‘no’ voter, I am becoming increasingly disappointed, confused and disillusioned with the SNP’s plans for an independent Scotland. It is getting to the stage that I am not even sure the SNP themselves know what they would do if the country votes yes. This was evident on last week’s edition of Question Time.
I was perplexed by the statements made by the SNP MSP Alex Neil and the actor Alan Cumming, who both claimed that they were proud to be British and would continue to be so in an independent Scotland. With Mr Cumming commenting; “I’m still going to be Scottish and British after independence.” I found myself asking if you’re so proud to be British then why do you want to leave the UK? Why not just have greater political autonomy as part of the UK? Mr Neil tired to equate the situation to that of Norway and Sweden who he claimed are both proud to be Norwegian and Swedish but are also proud to be Scandinavian. Even though this is probably true, the two situations are not comparable. Scandinavia is a region, neither Norway nor Sweden voted to leave Scandinavia as Scotland would be opting to leave the UK. The debate then shifted to the rather trivial issue of flags. Both Mr Neil and Mr Cumming stated that an independent Scotland would incorporate the Union Jack and that the blue element of the Union Jack would remain. They in fact laughed off suggestions from other panellists that the blue would be removed as Scotland would be leaving the UK.
Also on the subject of continuity, the SNP have already stated that an independent Scotland would keep the Sterling and that the Bank of England would set interest rates. The notion of monetary ties with London was further reinforced this week in a speech by Finance Secretary John Swinney in which he spoke of a “sterling zone” with the Bank of England continuing to oversee monetary policy. Again I find myself asking, what would really change?
However what has also struck me is the false option the SNP are offering voters. Again referring back to Question Time, those in favour of independence framed the debate in terms of a vote against independence is a vote for a Conservative government, a statement which is completely inaccurate. I am against independence but I am not a Conservative voter, nor am I ever likely to be. There are more than two options; it is not simply a case of one or the other. The fact that the pro-independence panellists were presenting it in this light shows to me that they know that they cannot win the referendum on the merits of independence alone so will now try to play on the strong anti-Conservative mood which exists in Scotland.
If I didn’t already know that the SNP were campaigning for independence, based on the arguments I have heard, I would have presumed that it was Devo-Max they were after not independence. Given the fact that the SNP have been waiting for this opportunity their entire political lives, I expected a better, more thought-out campaign from them. I feel sorry for undecided voters, as the issue of independence is becoming muddier not clearer.
Hannah,
The cause of at least part of your confusion stems from the lack of distinction being made in the sense of social and political when the terms British and UK are used.
British, in the political sense, applies to the Treaty of Union in 1707, the peoples of the islands which constitute Scotland, England and Wales, and subsequent developments since. In the social sense it is a geographic description as well as a term not limited by any political restriction.
The United Kingdom or UK has existed since 1603 through the so-called Union of the Crowns although initially between 1603 and 1707 it existed as two distinct kingdoms.
Scottish independence would be the restoration of Scottish national sovereignty.
Michael Follon
I think the problem is that as the cause of scottish independence becomes more popular it incorporates a wider and wider church of opinion and there becomes less uninimty on what independence would mean. So far Alex Salmond, a consumate politician, has been very good at disguising this, but as the referendum nears and they have to get into the nitty gritty of the proposal they are going to struggle to come up with something that will be acceptable to everyone.
As for Britishness, the argument that the SNP currently makes, that scots would remain British in a scadanavian sense, is theoretically plausible and I have no doubt that Alan Cumming at least is sincere in this, however it is likely that it would be a victim of the fallout of what is likely to be an acrimoniously fought campaign, not to mention the bloody negotiations that would follow with the remains of the British state. Could “Britishness” survive the inevitable bustups over the exact division of the oil, the nuclear weapons, division of the national debt ect and even if it did wouldn’t the SNP be so paranoid that westminster would try and reasert control of scotland that any overt demonstrations of Britishness would likely be deeply frowned upon.
And then there is the turnout of the vote itself. On current polls it seems highly unlikely that the SNP would acheive more than a bare majority of the votes even if things go their way. In that case scotland would be split down the middle. If 51% of scots vote yes and 49% vote no, where does that leave Scotland? Wouldn’t no voters feel disinfranchised in their new state?
So where does this leave Scotland? The status Quo isn’t without its problems. Scots are obviously drifting away from England and Wales, at least in a political sense, and the political divergence (no one in Scotland votes conservative and yet in the rest of the country thay remain the only real alternative to Labour) seems untenable in the long term regardless of the outcome of the referendum. How about a Federal Britain? with the British parliament controlling defence and foreign affairs and everything else controlled by devolved parliaments, and yes England would need one as well. However, given what happened with devolution wouldn’t many see this as merely another stepping stone to full breakup. After all, if Scotland could control its own economy why not its representation in the world?. Certainly the SNP would argue that. Would the english majority be willing to go through all the effort and expense of a massive consitutional change if the scots just absconded altogther a few years later. I don’t think it is really fair to expect the British government to play gradual midwife to Scottish independence.
I remain a committed believer in the concept of Great Britain as a country, however I can understand why many scots feel underepresented by a Britain that is so often conflated with “England”. It isn’t really in my power to influence this debate. I am neither a scot nor a resident, although I have always been vaguely intrigued by this place that is both part of my country and yet also seperate, ever since I saw syvester Mccoy roll his rs against evil in Doctor Who as a kid.
I would be sad to see the breakup of the UK, but I respect the right of the Scottish people to decide their position in the world, I just fear it will not be as easy as they are being told.