Google Search Results
Prospect magazine’s cover story this month is whether Scotland should go it alone. The author, Michael Fry, is a former Scottish Tory, and argues for Scottish Independence from the UK.
It’s an issue that is likely to gain increased coverage in the media over the next few months, in the build up to the elections for the Scottish parliament, and the 300th anniversary of the act of union in 1707. The SNP are on the resurgence, as support for Labour and Liberal Democrats wanes - as they rule in a coalition, and memories of Conservative rule do not dwindle. Scotland, the article points out, boasts the only left-wing nationalist party in Europe. However, I find the SNP’s politics exceedingly naive that they can actually justify the expenditure they boast about bringing with the economy in the state it’s in. It’s completely un-costed populism. Doubly painful as they position themselves on a wave of ‘inevitability’ - “It’s time for the SNP” - which has little to do with their actual “lets make everything free” policies, and more a desperate search for alternatives. if they win (and it won’t be a majority win), I’d be surprised if they manage more than one term as their naive plans crumble when they sit down with an accountant and have basic fiscal economics explained to them. Very slowly I suspect.
But enough of the SNP - my view on an independent Scotland is mixed. On the one hand I’m very much for the United Kingdom. I think it derives a lot of strength in its diverse cultures and history. However, an independent Scotland could embrace the closer unity with Europe I’d like to see, adopt the Euro, and through it rediscover much of the ‘can do’ attitude that the country built a reputation for historically.
Yet I really think that Britain and Scotland would be much the poorer as a result of severing the ties. For all Scotland’s bru-ha-ha about oil revenue, the economy is painfully reliant on public sector funding, much of which comes from England. Up to 50% of the economy according to the article, which is a lot higher than the rest of the UK. There is too little encouragement of entrepreneurship, and whilst call-centre work is booming here in Glasgow, it’s not enough. It would present real problems for many of these companies, especially if currencies changed. I would personally be faced with a difficult problem, given many of the companies I work with are based in London.
The anniversary of the act of Union will be interesting to behold. I really don’t know how to expect it to be celebrated. How it’s done and received will say a lot about the relationship between Scotland and the rest of the UK. The elections a few days later will be interesting, and not just on whether Scotland should be independent. Expect more on the subjects over the next few months 
Entries (RSS)
November 17th, 2006 at 6:04 pm
If I may work backwards: “The anniversary of the act of Union will be interesting to behold. I really don’t know how to expect it to be celebrated.”
Personally, I don’t expect it to be celebrated very much. I certainly won’t be celebrating it and I don’t know anyone who will.
“There is too little encouragement of entrepreneurship, and whilst call-centre work is booming here in Glasgow, it’s not enough. It would present real problems for many of these companies, especially if currencies changed. I would personally be faced with a difficult problem, given many of the companies I work with are based in London”
No one said it was going to be easy. And companies have to deal with currency exchange all the time, so I really don’t expect that to be a major problem. Of the two companies I’ve been involved with running both had to deal with the bigger problem of multiple exhanges between many European countries - That got a lot easier with the introduction of the Euro.
You are, however, right on the money that entrepreneurship has to be encouraged more in Scotland.
“rediscover much of the ‘can do’ attitude that the country built a reputation for historically.”
Absolutely - however, I think that is more to do with the domination of Labour and socialism in Scotland. That has to go before the ‘can do’ attitude will return. I’ve heard lots of praise for Polish immigrants in to Scotland about their work ethic. The Poles in return are totally confused about why there are people that think it is mad to actually get up and do an honest day’s work. To get those layabouts to accept that they need to get off their backside and do something productive will be a good first step towards reviving that ‘can do’ attitude.
I am pleased to see the rise of political parties where independence is at there fore, but otherwise mirror some of the more mainstream unionist parties. That can only help towards independence and might trigger changes for the mainstream parties to drop the unionist agendas. Recent reports suggest 40% of Labour party members support independence.
I think Scotland can make it as an independent country. It is going to be a rocky road initially, but I think we can become one of the leading countries in the world. Just look at Ireland since its independence. It is now one of the leading economies in Europe.
November 18th, 2006 at 12:50 am
Penultimate paragraph “Britain and Scotland“, do I take this to mean, England, Wales and Northern Ireland would be the poorer for the severing of the ties?
You then go on to state the “50% of the ecomony of the UK” but the UK includes the Scottish contribution. So I am a bit confused.
I am sure the the English would benefit if Scotland severed ties. But one thing is assured, if Scotland does sever its ties, it will be many a long year before the English vote in a Labour Government and that I would not like to see.
If not and you really meant England, I am not so sure that the English would be poorer with the severance of the tie.
November 20th, 2006 at 10:15 am
My views about all of this are somewhat ambivalent as well. When I spent my adult life south of the border and acquired an inevitable english culture about a Scottish soul, independence seemed to me to be no less than the obvious outcome for a proud nation. I saw the emergence of the Scottish Parliament as a renaissance of Scottish self-governance and the parliament and executive have certainly grasped the degree of freedom they have achieved and used it to good social ends - land reform and smoking prohibition are bold, key policies that will only better the Scotland of the future. However, I have quipped before now that the mark of the Scottish Parliament appears to be the desire to licence everything that moves. That’s not to say that there aren’t many social problems (houses in multiple occupation, for instance) that aren’t the better for active licensing, but it is an example of the pressure to increase the scope of the public sector. I work in the public sector myself and, like all my colleagues in whatever service they may work, am convinced that what I do is valuable and worthwhile and provides a social/public good that cannot be delivered by free enterprise alone. There is one part of the public sector that would be much better delivered along the same lines as its counterpart in England and Wales, and that is the water industry. Here, it is constrained by political decisions about the affordability of spending, the same constraint which fetters the setting of high environmental (and leakage) standards to drive forward infrastructure improvements and efficiency. It’s a shame to say as someone who regarded the privatisation of the water industry south of the border with horror, but the strong regulation of a private sector water industry has clearly delivered far more to the English and Welsh than ever did the public sector in Scotland.
This example perhaps illustrates the problem. Because we have sought already to maintain Scottish solutions to Scottish problems, the Scots have actually lost out on the advantages of the models which have been applied south of the border. There is a general failure to drive efficiency in local government and the wider public sector and council tax bills are bloated by waste. The current political leadership in Scotland aren’t tackling these problems and there is no prospect that independence would reverse that course, worsening the economic consequences and failing to deliver the enterprise culture that has enabled Ireland to seize the economic opportunities of the last twenty years. And herein lies another problem; Ireland took maximum advantage of deprived area status within the EU and invested in its infrastructure - the first country to have a fully digital telecoms network for example - as well as making a bold pact between government and workforce to restrain growth both in taxes and incomes. Scotland has missed the EU boat - we are far wealthier than the new entrants who need EU investment much more than we do to raise their economies and improve life for their own inhabitants. To gain such an advantage now would be nigh upon impossible without both severely constraining our public sector, investing the last trickle of oil revenues where they should have gone in the first place and shutting England out of the oil equation, for which they’d never stand.
I believe that Scotland has every reasonable opportunity now to determine her own future, but it will require a change in the political class which is now, unfortunately, intellectually crippled by proportional representation; there’s nothing like wanting to climb the party list to brown your nose and conform your politics. The situation would not improve with independence, although there’s no reason that Scotland could not succeed with mighty pains.
The problem is not that Scotland has its own parliament and executive, but that England has not. The confusion with the Westminster parliament is that it is properly the parliament of the Union and improperly (in this age of assemblies and devolved administrations) the parliament of the English. And therein lies the truth of the matter; Westminster is happy enough to give sops to the 10 million Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish, but draws the line at handing out the majority of its power and influence to an English or even regional assemblies, although we can see a parallel in the case of the London Assembly, which is already the largest devolved administration in the Union.
In conclusion, the problem with Scotland is not that it has insufficient independence, but that it has a political class which is constrained by the socialism of a century ago and which refuses to provide proper challenge to its own partial interests.
January 8th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
[...] I’m generally opposed to an independent Scotland (see my previous thoughts on the subject here), although I can see that it could present Scotland with a unique opportunity to go it’s own way, and for that I do hold out some thoughts that it might be a good idea. I suppose most of all I regret that the two Scottish parliaments we’ve had so far have been so very lack lustre in their goals. Lower business rates (to attract more inward investment and new business), as well as more progressive taxation and taxation spending (what’s wrong with ring-fencing?), would be interesting and allow Scotland a proper advantage when competing against the South East, which benefits from proximity to London and it’s inevitable draw. [...]
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:29 pm
[...] the issues nicely, demonstrating it’s not as clear cut as either side might portray. I certainly agree that Independence could be just the kick up the backside that the lack-lustre and st…: there really needs to be some big changes to grow business, create more jobs and reduce the [...]