A rather lengthy response to some questions that have surfaced during the referendum - questions that fundamentally feel wrong but are difficult to refute. This comment attemts to briefly outline a response to them. There are several statements and positions that are being used effectively by the Yes campaign but are ultimately based on a deceit. One of those is the If it were the other way round would you be voting for the union? Why is it a deceit? Because it isnt the other way round and because it is predicated on 300 years of the union having had no effect in bringing Scotland to the position it is in now. Roll back 300 years and post Darien, Scotland was begging for a union. Roll back 200 years and Scotland is starting to flourish through trade. Trade across the North Sea, trade through the British empire. Dundee was made rich bythe import and processing of Jute. Those trade routes were secured by the Royal Navy in a hostile environment. Given the option of being a small nation having to battle Spain, France, and England to get your trade and ships through, you would be begging for a union. It has been better for Scotland, better for England. Roll back 100 years and we are on the verge of war. The economic driving forces have led to their being two superpowers - Germany and Britain with Dreadnaughts built on the Clyde and Britain united. What chance a small nation without the financial muscle to match England or Germany not being part of the battleground as its coasts could not be defended against the might of the German fleet. Again an Union that is of mutual benefit. Scottish resources, English weight and power. A beneficial union. Roll forwards another 50 years and we see the emergence of the new Europe. The financial superpowers are those with the size in their economy to make a difference. 5 million into 500million doesnt make as much of an impact as 50 million into 500 million. Negotiation and bargaining are far easier when you have something to bargain with. The tail does not wag the dog. Stand alone in the turmoil of the 60s, the post war investment needed, or stand in a union where the resources can be brought to bear. Roll forwards to the present day. The cities of scotland, the way of life have been forged by the union. A common bond, a shared heritage. The ties that bind us run deep - very deep. It is far from the same as countries with two distinct ethnic groups that have divided. To take the union out of it and turn the question around requires a Scotland that is far less developed and vibrant as today, possibly one where we all speak German. That is why the first question is a nonsense. The second question is about who rules Scotland. Should Scots be in charge of their own decision making? The deceit here is more subtle. It is predicated on the decisions that can be made being broadly identical. But they are not. It could be likened to some of the crew of a larger vessel taking to a small boat as they want to be in charge of their own destiny. But the questions that can be answered now become very different. UK in union can weather significant storms c.f. the banking crisis. Bailing out RBS or BOS (or indeed having them fail) would each have been catastrophic for the Scottish economy. We can argue the root causes of the crisis, but Id bet that an independent Scotland would have fared just as badly if not wise if it had been trying to keep up with the financial services sectors around the rest of the world. Back to the analogy - without an independent currency an independent country has no financial motive power. It is back to an 1800s banking model. It is being dragged along financially at the whim of the country with whose currency it has aligned and acting as a drag on the larger, for no net benefit to the smaller. Weve seen the view of the professional economists - the equivalent of 8 months oil bonus wiped off the value of Scottish companies overnight. That is a significant change. It makes a difference to whether folk have jobs and can put food on the table. Remember that for every job that is lost, that adds an extra mouth to feed to the welfare budget. Given the social attitude surveys have shown Scotland to be essentially conservative (small C) in terms of shift towards a more egalitarian society, it is unlikely a govenrment will be able to afford the benefits utopia promised. How much influence woudl an independent Scotland have in Europe compared to being part of the Union? As the consequences of being outside EU are dire for a country that has 80% of business across borders (counting rUK as foreign), it provides Scotland with little leverage at the table. Ultimately national economies are important. They set the climate in which we can do business and create the wealth that feeds our families. It is not a zero sum game. It is not a closed system, There is some potential but the risks are huge, which is why (ethnic divisions aside) poitical unions are the way the world is going. Again, this second question asks for the comparison between apples and pears. No man is an island is no more true than tryign to manage national economies in a globally interconnected world. That is why this second question is also a nonsense. Scotland is ruled by the pressures and policies of the global economies outwith her borders. self-governance in isolation allows the choice between a rock and a hard place.
Posted on: Tue, 09 Sep 2014 20:51:45 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015