I thought it might help to lay out some of my main reasons. I have felt that Scotland should be its own country with its own government for as long as I can remember, since childhood when I first became aware of politics. Over the years, the facts I have read on the subject have simply augmented that position; but simply, it's an innate belief that I cannot help but hold. That is a hard position to explain to someone, but I have given it my best shot, whilst quoting from some excellent nationalists who are far more eloquent and better-educated on the subject than I would ever claim to be.
Firstly, I think it's vitally important that in our devolved government (which I think has been an excellent success, and I'll discuss more later), we don't currently have control of the following (according to the font of all knowledge that is Wikipedia):
abortion, broadcasting policy, civil service, common markets for UK goods and services, constitution, electricity, coal, oil, gas, nuclear energy, defence and national security, drug policy, employment, foreign policy and relations with Europe, most aspects of transport safety and regulation, National Lottery, protection of borders, social security and stability of UK's fiscal, economic and monetary system
Some massive issues in there.
Defence. Scottish soldiers sent to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan when the majority of Scottish people were dead against it. In 2003, when millions around the world took to the streets to protest Iraq, it's estimated that between 50,000 and 100,000 people aired their views in Glasgow; the biggest protest that I've witnessed in Scotland in my 25 years.
There's no way to know if we would have been involved in the War in Iraq if we were independent. However, the vote was helped in large part by the 139 Conversative MPs, of whom 90% voted 'For'. Scottish people have shown again and again at the polls that this is a party we do not want in power, whose policies we don't support.
I don't see why English politicians should have a say in whether Scottish soldiers should fight wars, when the vast, vast majority of Westminster MPs were not elected by the Scottish people, and are of different political mind.
(Incidentally of the 5 SNP MPs in Westminster at the time, all 5 voted against the war in Iraq)
Trident. Again massively controversial and against the will of many of the country's people. We should be in control of these decisions.
Coal. We have an abundance of the stuff but we are still sitting on it thanks to Thatcher closing loads of perfectly viable mines. Someone on another site I read had an excellent summary of the relevance of this: "To see the future, look at the past. Imagine we had got independence 30 years ago, what would have changed. Would we still have steel and coal industries? Would we still have manufacturing industry? Would we have suffered the levels of totally unnecessary unemployment that resulted from nothing more than political dogma?
"Look around and think about what has happened over the last 20/50/100 years and ask what happened because we were not in control of our own destiny and what would have happened anyway."
The past is totally relevant in all of this debate because a 'No' vote condemns us and future generations to decades and decades of Tory rule and more of the same decisions that hurt Scotland. Steel and textile industries laid to waste; the crushing of the unions; the financial deregulation that is at the root of the problems we now face. How many more damaging decisions will we face from Westminster and the Tories?
Look at matters at the table of the UN and the EU. The UK voting against the interests of, say, Scotland's fishing or agricultural industries. Scotland and England are two very different countries with different priorities; it's madness to be jointly making decisions.
Richard Lochhead, Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment, on Twitter: "I can't recall the UK casting a vote in the EU to defend a Scottish interest when that interest didn't co-incide with the rest of the UK?!"
Time and time again decisions are taken in London, for London. This is an argument I'd put against the union; Scottish politicians having a vote in English affairs, and vice versa.
Ian Hamilton QC, the man who nicked the Stone of Destiny, in his excellent article on his 86 years in the union, put it so; "We have different values, we and London. No clearer example can be found than in our belief that education is everyone's right. 'Til the rocks melt wi the sun' said our first minister on the right to a free university education."
How much of our tax goes to things like the Olympics, the £32 billion (completely unnecessary) high speed train that they're building between Birmingham and London, and all the other London spending that Scottish voters never benefit from?
The taxes raised from Scottish people should go solely to things that benefit our country. Our economy should be based on what is best for Scotland, not for London, the south of England or anywhere else.
The success of devolution for me is a sign of hope, that independence can and will work. Since 1997 I think we've seen great improvements taken in the areas of policy that we do now manage, as they were decisions made by Scottish politicians for Scottish people. We've had the odd misstep along the way (trams!) but that's politicians for you.
The public smoking ban (which we implemented before the rest of the UK), free prescriptions and the abolishment of the graduate endowment fee (which directly affected me, saving us £2,000 as my wife had just finished uni) are the sort of positives that affect your day to day life that I just don't remember coming from Westminster.
This country has been better, stronger, fairer since devolution. Why would we not want to be in control of the other areas affecting our lives?
Alex Robertson, in his great piece outlining 'What independence means to me' - "Now we have a chain and ball attached to our ankle, and as we look at the future, and dream of things that might be, we are reminded that the choice is not ours, but is made for us, by a Parliament 500 miles away in another country, in which we represent barely 10% of the membership."
Incidentally, when I praise devolution, I absolutely include Scottish Labour in that (despite being an SNP member). Scottish Labour did a far better job in Holyrood than any government in Westminster, in my lifetime, has done. Look at the health service. The Scottish government have done a far better job of managing the NHS than they have down south; an opinion backed by this major study where the Scottish NHS is described as a "leading-edge example", and by General Practitioners Committee chairman Dr Laurence Buckman.
I maintain that the subject of independence is not party political for me, again despite my SNP roots. I would happily see Labour in power here in an independent country. I don't think we'd see the massive SNP majorities we currently see in a pro-independent Scotland. They'd probably disband, and we'd see votes go to the parties that form in their wake, to Labour, and I think we'd see some Green, some Socialist parties, independents, too - parties far more in line with the views of the Scottish people, and not some joke of a Con-Dem coalition that noone voted for. Why continue to subject ourselves to Tory governments when Scotland is about as anti-Tory as it's possible to be?
In an independent Scotland we'd see a lot more socialist policies the likes of prescriptions charges - this kind of thing is where Scotland and Westminster are just radically different politically.
Another argument for independence is that Scotland has typically paid more in to Westminster than it has taken. Only the pro-union media continue this subsidy myth.
Quote from SNP MSP Paul Wheelhouse: “Taking all Scottish revenues and all spending in Scotland into account – including the financial sector interventions – the official Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland (GERS) figures show that Scotland has run a current budget surplus in four of the five years to 2009/10, while the UK was in current budget deficit in each of these years, and hasn’t run a current budget surplus since 2001/02.
“The latest GERS figures show that Scotland generated 9.4 per cent of UK tax with 8.4 per cent of the population - the equivalent of 1,000 pounds extra for every man, woman and child in Scotland.”
Historically that is the case, too. Between 1979 and 1997, when the UK had a Tory government that people in Scotland did not vote for, Scotland contributed (net) £27 billion to the UK exchequer.
So in my lifetime, and long before, Scotland would have been better off as an independent country.
This was accidentally backed by Michael Moore recently when he tried to suggest we would have been worse off, but hadn't studied the figures closely enough. From Newsnet Scotland...
"Scotland would have been almost £20 billion better off had it been independent for the last thirty years, figures released by the Scotland Office have revealed.
"A press release from Secretary of State Michael Moore claimed that an independent Scotland would have been £41 billion in the red. However official figures from the Scotland Office have left the gaffe prone MP red faced after it emerged that Scotland’s debt from being part of the Union is greater, running at £60 billion."
Citigroup: "ONS data suggest that an independent Scotland would have a slightly better fiscal position than the rest of the UK [assuming Scotland gets its geographic share of oil and gas receipts]"
Consider our oil. We should have been building up a rainy day fund the same way Norway have; you only have to contrast the two countries since the discovery of oil in the North Sea to see who is better off. Oil is a massive resource for us and we should be benefiting from it far more than we are.
A concern we hear again and again from the 'No' camp - because what do we nationalists hear from them but rebuttals of our positive points? - is that oil won't last forever and not to put all our eggs in one basket.
Two points on that.
From a Telegraph article: "The north sea will continue to provide oil for another 100 years, twice as long as previous estimates, according to industry analysts."
Since the discovery of Scottish oil, scaremongerers have tried to tell us it had x, y or z years left, and it's proven wrong again and again. The truth is that it's hard to predict exactly how much remains, but if it's even close to 100 years, we have a fantastic basis to kick-start the independent Scottish economy; and that's exactly what it is, a kick-start.
Noone is suggesting we rely on oil. For the short to mid term future, it gives us a platform on which to build our own economy. An economy based on growth industries like green energy, whisky, fishing, agriculture, video games development, film.
We are already a leader in inward investment. In control of our own tax, we could lower corporation tax to be equal with - or even better than - that of the Republic of Ireland, which has attracted some of the top businesses in the world and convinced them to base their European operations there.
As a proud Scotsman, what I like about the nationalist argument is that it is positive. That's not to suggest that there aren't some proud, passionate Scottish unionists out there; just that in my experience, those for independence feel the way they do because they see Scotland in a positive light. Invariably, the unionists I've spoken to see the country in a negative light, one who can't cope standing on its own.
It seems clear that all nationalists want what is best for Scotland; a pro-independence stance simply has to be borne from the belief that that is what is best for our country. The same is not necessarily true of unionists. It stands to reason that there will be some unionists, both north and south of the border, who want us to remain in the UK for their own self-serving reasons. Not because it is best for Scotland, but because it is best for them.
Why are we seeing the Conservatives, Labour and Liberal Democrats all sing from the exact same hymn sheet on this issue? When have they ever been in agreement on, well, anything? We are constantly told by them how Scotland is not strong enough to survive independently; is it in fact the case that the UK would be weaker without us, and Westminster knows as much?
We have already seen that Scotland contributes more to the coffers than it takes. We know about the vast oil resources we bring to the table. Westminster do not truly care about what is best for Scotland. Their position does not stem from a desire that Scotland flourishes; simply that the UK does not lose a valuable asset, i.e. us!
If we accept, for a moment, the hypothesis that independence IS best for Scotland; then there will still be unionists who do not want it, for whom independence does not serve their best interests.
As I alluded to at the beginning, I also don't see what's wrong with arguing for independence for independence sake. I think it's something that can be reasoned and argued, but (for me) there's also part of it that you just feel. Pride, maybe. Why would we not want to join the other 200+ nations in the world who have their independence? Why would we continue to be the diddy nation attached to a country whose rule has hurt us again and again? Why remain dependent?
How many independent countries are begging for a bigger neighbour to govern their nation? Zero.
I would like to hear from unionists on what makes Scotland unique in supposedly not being able to do a better job of governing our own affairs? We hear from unionists again and again that Scotland is stronger since devolution, but would somehow be weaker with more control over our own lives; how does that work exactly?!
Alex Salmond summed it up well when he said: “The fundamental reason for being independent is that Scotland is a nation and nations are better when they govern themselves.”
There's another fantastic quote, I think originally from Peter Bell:
"I am a nationalist, not because I regard Scotland as superior to other nations, but because I refuse to accept that we are inferior."
One thing that does sadden me in all of this is looking into the various independent countries around the world and how they won their freedom. There isn't really another in the world where so many have tried to fight against it or make it an argument about money. The vast majority of countries would have bit your hand off to win their freedom. Sad that we are hearing that if the average Scot was £500 a year better off they would vote 'Yes'. I can argue why a Scotland in control of its own destiny would be better off until the cows home home, but the truth is that I would happily be £500 a year worse off to live in an independent Scotland.
Before I finish, I wonder if any unionists will read this and if so would like to ask; what it is that unionists, or those on the fence, see in the union? What do you think we currently gain from it that we wouldn't have, or be able to improve upon, in an independent Scotland?
I don't consider myself British, but I do enjoy life in Scotland/the UK. If I didn't, I'd move elsewhere. I don't think the union is awful, or a complete failure. I think we enjoy a great many benefits from living in this country; I just believe that things would be better still in an independent Scotland.
No comments:
Post a Comment