A case for Independence

macnumpty · A case for Independence

This is the first of three posts - I'll put them together on this thread - on my own approach to independence. It's not a definitive nor an authoritative look at the subject, but a collection of my thoughts so that readers can get a feel for where I'm coming from.

Independence and the Economy

Much of the battleground in this election between Labour and the SNP is over the economics of independence, and whether Scotland can afford to go it alone. Both sides are trotting out experts and we have been dragged into a 'My statistics are bigger than your statistics' row.

I am not an expert, I am not an economist, and I am not a statistican. But I can tell you two clear things:

1. Scotland will not transform into a land of milk and honey where the streets are paved with gold should independence be declared.

2. Scotland will not turn into a third-world country where five year olds work in shoe factories for $1 a day should independence be declared.

The fact is, little will change overnight: it'll be the actions of a post-independence government that influences matters. They might get things right, they might get things wrong, but to be fair, that's true of the UK Government as well. So what's the biggest economic bonus?

Answer: when trouble does come, an independent government will be better equipped to respond to it than under the present system.

The main Unionist argument these days is to cite globalisation and the rise of free trade without barriers as a reason why Scottish independence would run against the current tides of global geo-politics. Now, free trade can be maintained through continued membership of the European Union (or at the very least, membership of EFTA). As for globalisation? It's true that the world is getting smaller, but interconnectivity is not the same as homogeneity.

The best example of this is five years ago, in the middle of the so-called 'global downturn'. Gordon Brown liked to tell us all how the UK had avoided the sharpest effects of it. But at this time, Scotland entered a brief period of recession, thanks to the multinational technology companies based in Scotland feeling the pinch. They had to cut back, and so they reduced the investment they had in Scotland, and while Brown (who represents a Fife constituency, remember) would be trumpeting the UK's economic success on Page 4 of a newspaper, there would be reports of a factory closure in Bathgate on Page 5. Not only did the UK government fail to solve a problem, they didn't even seem to notice that there was one.

So Independence, for me, isn't about creating a glorious, golden Scotland. It's about making sure that Scotland is capable of responding to what is thrown at it, rather than waiting for someone else to sort out the mess.

macnumpty · Part 2

Politics and Interests in Inverhypothesis

Duncan (of doctorvee fame) has argued, "The main reason why I don’t support nationalist movements of any form is that I just don’t believe that it matters where you are governed from. What matters is how you are governed." There's a logic to that argument. I beleive, though, that even when the Union was founded, Scotland kept its own legal, ecclesiastical and civic structures, and even under direct rule, there was a recognition that Scotland was a distinct entity: this is why the UK Government created the Scottish Office to oversee government policy in certain areas north of the Border. In this post, I'm going to argue that while where we are governed shouldn't be the be-all-and-end-all of politics, it has a direct impact on how we are governed.

One of the principal arguments against independence challenges the notion that it will bring government closer to the people. As far as people in remote Highland or Island communities are concerned, how will government from Edinburgh be different from government from London?

Under the Scottish Office system, and under the present constitutional set-up, such a hypothetical community - let's call it Inverhypothesis - has to jump through two hoops. To be listened to, they need to get the Scottish arm of government on their side. If they manage that, they then have ot hope that the Scotland Office and the Scottish Executive get enough funding from the UK government, or persuade them to act, in order for anything to be done. If you take out one of the levels, you streamline the process. So, we can improve things by taking out a level. But which?

Having accepted the premise, as Westminster has done, that Scotland is a distinct entity, let's discuss politics using the key word in all foreign policy decisions: interests. You have the entity England with its interests, and the entity Scotland with its interests. When these interests co-incide, things are OK. When they don't, there's a defect in the Union: rather than both sides benefitting from mutual co-operation, one has to succeed in its goals at the expense of the other, unless a compromise can be found. When interests differ, Scotland's interests come to the fore if English opinion is so sharply divided (and Scottish opinion is clearly on one side or another) that Scotland has a 'casting vote'. So the good people of Inverhypothesis can only have a prayer of getting their way if they happen to want what the English want, or the English are too busy squabbling about what they want that Scottish MPs make the decision for them.

That's the problem with the Union: it only works if both sides are singing from the same hymnsheet. When they aren't, one side pays for it. A separate Edinburgh government cuts out that element of chance, and reduces the need to rely on a favourable political landscape in England. It also means that Scotland can't blame that landscape when things go wrong. When there's a problem, an independent Scotland's government can and must find the solution. In the Union, it's all too easy (and sometimes there's no other option) to leave it to London to sort out. And if London doesn't, then the problem doesn't just go away by itself.

macnumpty · Part 3

The third, final and most self-indulgent part. This is where I look at identity, and it's as much an exploration of who I am as it is of the Union.

Borders and Identity

This is a very personal argument for me. Those who heard me on Radio Scotland will know that I'm from England. But that's not the whole story. I was born in England to an English mother and a Scottish father. It's the latter's influence that has always been the strongest in terms of identity. On the outside, the house looks like all the others on the street. On the inside, the talk wouldn't be out of place in a living room not in Lancashire, but in Renfrewshire (where my dad's from), Lanarkshire, Dunbartonshire or Ayrshire. In other houses it's the Mirror, or the Sun that's bought. The posher ones buy the Express or the Mail. At home, it's always the Record. We listen to Radio Scotland.

Around this place, 'we' in sporting terms can mean Wigan Athletic, Bolton Wanderers, Preston North End, Blackburn Rovers, Manchester City, Man United, Liverpool or Everton. It can even mean Wigan Warriors, the Rugby League club. In my family, 'we' means Rangers, though it can equally mean Wigan for me (and incidentally, I was following them before it was fashionable: I spent many Saturdays freezing on the terraces of Springfield Park while we were losing to Torquay in Division 3). In internationals, while the rest of the village was furious over England's dour 0-0 draw with FYR Macedonia, we were cheering Gary Caldwell's goal against France. So as far as the local community is concerned, I'm Scottish.

When I was a student at Edinburgh, what people heard was my accent. They knew I was from Lancashire, they heard me say t' instead of the and int rather than isn't. When I went home for the holidays, I took a train south. I had to fill in forms about upfront tuition fees. As far as Edinburgh is concerned, I'm English.

So, you can see where I come from in this debate. Gordon Brown talks with glee about the number of families with connections on both sides of the border, and claims that that brings us all together. For me, it's made the differences clearer. There is a difference in attitude, a difference in approach, and I'm more aware of it than many, clearly not fitting in in my 'hometown' and sticking out slightly (though, oddly, not as much, despite the clear difference in voice) in Scotland.

Unionists love to tell us that independence would create a border, a physical and psychological barrier that would make the two countries foreign lands. For many, on both sides, they already are. For most of my neighbours, Scotland is a faraway country, whose people of whom they know nothing. For many in Scotland, England is a grey, formless void, with only London clearly on the map. (By the way, if you've ever been to Chorley, you'll realise that that's fairly close to the truth!) The psychological barrier is already there.

I should be a product of the Union. Without it, I wouldn't exist! And yet, somehow, it hasn't taken on me. I see Britishness as a myth. It's a term I use on forms as a matter of bureaucratic convenience. I see myself as Scottish (and interestingly, Scottish first, though I tried to play that down in Scotland for fear of looking like the family in Goodness Gracious Me, who have convinced themselves that they're white, even pronouncing their surname - Kapoor - as 'Cooper') AND English. But never British.

So that feeling that there is no real sentiment that binds the English and the Scots together makes me sympathetic to independence (there's common ground, of course, but then we have common ground with many countries and peoples). Coupled with the political issues with the Union, and the fact that independence would allow Scotland to respond to the challenges that face it, that's my case. It's a personal case, it's not definitive and it's nto authoritative. But it's why I support it.

azzuri

...good postings macnumpty.

macnumpty

Well, I have to kill a dull Saturday afternoon somehow... Very Happy

A case for Independence

Part 2

Part 3