Unionist and Leader of the Scottish Conservatives, Ruth Davidson, presented some ready-made arguments for independence in her recent Herald article 'Achieve success by working with Westminster'
Much of it revolves around highlighting the good that the Union is doing for Scotland; however, many of these arguments prove only that the status quo is decent, not that independence would fail to make our country better. If you were happy with your salary but your employer offered you a wage rise, you would take it. If a better means of governance is offered to our country, we should not hesitate to accept it simply because Scotland achieves a great deal inside the Union.
In the article, she starts by highlighting some of the recent successes in Scottish business. 7,000 new jobs created or safeguarded thanks to funding from Scottish Enterprise. Welcome news from a business attractiveness survey that finds Scotland the most likely area of the UK for foreign companies to invest in. Less of a decline in economic output north of the border than in the rest of the UK over the last six months.
Davidson then says: "Only last Friday Chancellor George Osborne announced major tax breaks for mature North Sea oil and gas fields, shielding around £500 million of income from charges to leave more cash to invest into current operations in the north-east."
Consider this point in the context of the independence debate. It is undoubtedly good news, but what if we were independent? What if our country had full governance over these matters in the first place? With independence, these policies could have been tailor-made for our economy and brought in by our own government. The Union doesn't provide this benefit where independence couldn't; the Union simply prevents us from taking control of the matter in the first place. Is being dependent on George Osborne's goodwill a good thing?
Davidson continues: "Earlier this year, after I raised the issue repeatedly with Mr Osborne, a consultation was launched with the aim of giving tax breaks to computer games firms in hubs such as Edinburgh and Dundee to enhance competitiveness in global markets."
Again, anyone on the fence should consider this with regards our independence. Miss Davidson thinks the fact that our computer games industry could be granted tax breaks - but only after her relentless badgering of Mr Osborne - is a good thing. Again, it's the sort of policy that the Scottish Government in an independent Scotland could implement with impunity.
In both these instances I am reminded of the classic Proclaimers lyric, "But I can't understand why we let someone else rule our land, cap in hand."
These may be good policies but they are initiatives that our elected representatives in an independent Scotland could do without the say-so of any London politician. These decisions could be better-made in Scotland, for the sake of the Scottish economy, by Scottish politicians chosen by Scottish people. Around 90% of politicians in Westminster are from other parts of the UK; what sense does it make for them to have a say in our business? Our country's people have no say whatsoever in the election of these political voices, many quite disparate in their ideals from the average Scottish voter.
Ruth Davidson finishes her article with the usual unionist assertions that the Union brings security and stability where independence brings only uncertainty, but nowhere in her article has she made any reasonable argument against independence. In my eyes, she has only strengthened the case, highlighting how little control we have over certain issues. We may have benefited from these Westminster decisions - in some cases after issues have been raised "repeatedly" - but nowhere does she explain why these could not have been made by an independent Scottish Government.
