Why should Scotland be in the Union?

I wrote a previous blog discussing Cambodia’s relationship with Viet Nam and suggested that the best way for Cambodia to find peace and security was through ASEAN. When writing that, I realised that this argument could also be applied to Scotland remaining part of the UK, and indeed Claire's wise (cracking) father picked up on this.

Most of the independence discussion has focused on money. How much will it cost? How much extra will we get? The consideration is not irrelevant but the questions themselves will not help you. Firstly, economic prosperity will depend on what policies are taken by whatever government is ruling Scotland, whether independent or not. And those policies are as unknown in a UK setting as they are in a Scottish setting because of democracy and elections.

Secondly, whatever economic conditions may exist today may not exist in the future, even just in five or ten years time (2007 - boom, 2008 - global collapse). It has been over 300 years since Scotland became part of the UK and the economic conditions that existed then do not now. We are talking of a similar timescale for the decision about independence; this is a decision for centuries not for the equivalent of primary school.

Thirdly, the track record of economists in predicting the very near future is absolutely dismal and there is no reason to trust that their judgments over time spans of centuries will be any better. 

There are some people who are crying out for objective facts that will tell them whether Scotland will be better off or not. They criticize people for not making these available, but do not appear to realise that these objective facts do not exist. They do not exist because the decisions that will determine future economic prosperity, and other things, will occur after the referendum and are currently somewhat unknown. We don't even know who would make these decisions; an independent Scotland would have an election, and the UK will have an election in 2015. This makes it impossible to say whether we will be richer or poorer.

For me the question of independence is not about the economy or, at a more base level, whether I'll be a few quid better off. A great consideration should be war and peace. Scotland and England had many years of wars before joining in union and have enjoyed many years of peace since. Some may think it is inconceivable that Scotland and England could ever war with each other in the future so we should not worry about it if there is independence. I don't think that we can be so complacent, because the long-term future is so uncertain.

However, neighbouring countries need not go to war with one another. USA and Canada have certainly not been doing too much warring against each other recently as they enjoy a semi-union of culture, and of economy through NAFTA. Scotland and England are of course culturally similar and there is the possibility of economic or even monetary union.

Some warn that if Scotland uses Sterling, Scotland would suffer because monetary policy for Sterling would be decided by the government in London, predominantly considering the needs of England. This is exactly what happens now so it would appear to be an argument for Scottish independence having its own currency, rather than an argument for Scotland to be in the Union.

It is also unlikely that England could prevent people in Scotland using Sterling if they wanted to. The only way to stop it would be for the English, Welsh and Northern Irish Government to completely ban the movement of Sterling out of their country; a policy which would make you delighted to be independent from any government that thought it a good one.

One concern is that Scotland might not be able to join the EU and if it does it will have to use the Euro. On this second part, I don't know. However, regarding the first, people in England are more likely to want to leave the EU than those in Scotland. With growing enmity towards the EU, particularly in the rest of the UK, there might be a greater risk of Scotland being outside the EU if it remains within the UK.

As I read or hear arguments against independence, I find myself being less convinced of the need to stay in the Union so I have begun asking a different question. Scotland was an independent country before it joined the Union and joined it as a matter of convenience - because it suited us to do so. The questions I'm now considering are:

1. Do the conditions that brought Scotland benefits from being part of the Union still exist today? 
2. If they don't, then why should Scotland be a part of the Union?

Scotland has never become independent from the UK before, so there are many things that are unknown and it is understandable for people to fear such uncertainty. But uncertainty about Europe, about the economy, about the BBC, even about the weather, will exist if Scotland remains within the UK. The real question to be decided is who do you want to be responsible for dealing with that uncertainty.

Do you want a government voted only by people living in Scotland or a government voted by people living in England, Wales and Northern Ireland as well?

Gordon

Some other little thoughts

PS: The question about whether Scotland should still be a part of the Union if there is no benefit to us, is admittedly selfish. I think there are real issues about the impact on the rest of the world if the UK was to be dis-united. Would the UK successor still have a Permanent Seat on the UN Security Council? Would it be good or bad for the rest of the world if the UK didn't?

PPS: The charge of being anti-English if you vote yes is a bit inflammatory. Why are we not being anti-Welsh? Are the Brits being anti-French by not wanting join in Union with them? However, it does cut at something real in two ways.

Firstly, maybe it is a vote against "England". "Scotland" could want to be seen as being something different. In the 80s, the English were perceived as being football hooligans so the Scots decided to become the complete opposite at international football games. This could be translated into policy too.

Secondly, many Scots have close relationships with many English. What would separation do for these personal relationships? I have thought about this and do have a fear that my English friends may stop liking me. Then I think about the friends I have from Netherlands, Australia, Canada and Cambodia and realise that we are friends without having the same government. Nevertheless, if we were to separate, would there be a separation of the bonds between the two peoples? (if you accept that the Scots and English are indeed two peoples and not just one whole British people) If yes, will we have lost something there? Will independence enable closer bonds with other people? Will we gain something there?

A view of home from afar

Claire and I were back home for a few weeks, and when I got back to Cambodia (Claire's still home), there were a few people who said that they had seen our Facebook photos and were so surprised how beautiful Scotland was. And I felt like saying that those weren't even the best bits!

Best bit no. 1: Beautiful beaches - clear blue water; pure white sands; nobody in sight. 

When I was home, I noticed the huge media focus on the referendum on Scottish independence that will be held on 18th Sept 2014. Since we have an international audience (the Google analytics tells us so), I'll give a quick overview or watch the start of this you-tube video. The King of Scotland became the King of England & Wales in 1603 but Scotland and England & Wales kept their separate governments and parliaments until 1707, when the governments and parliaments joined (Scotland has since got a devolved parliament again), and now we have the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

The arguments for either side have been rehearsed for years: Scotland benefits economically from being part of the UK; Scotland could be richer if it had control of its oil and not tied to an economy built around London. Scotland has a greater voice and influence as part of the UK; Scotland has unique interests and opinions that are neglected as part of  the UK.

Best bit no.2: The Callanish stones (& other historical stuff) - we even have our own Stonehenge - again with nobody there!

Most of the time, the argument predictably focusses on economics. However, economists don't have a great record of predicting three years in advance never mind decades or centuries, which is what we're talking about here. The vote on independence isn't about the next five or ten years, it's about the next two or three hundred years.

This is why I find it strange that people are so concerned about the process of change if independence happens. It's like basing a decision on where to live for 30 years on whether you can be bothered spending one week packing and unpacking and trying to figure out where everything will go. Anyway, it is this uncertainty surrounding what changes might be needed and the numerous things that would have to be sorted out, that campaigners and the media (most of the media covered stories opposing independence) are focussing on.

Best bit no.3: The stillness of snow - not enough to stop you doing anything or freezing, but enough to go sledging, make things look pretty and create an amazing quiet as the snow muffles all sounds.

In Cambodia, the general election will happen on 28th July and the ruling party has also been using the uncertainty about what would happen if they lost as a campaigning tactic. The Prime Minister warned that the country could descend back into war if they lost (not a threat, just a prediction). Cambodians have said that this is very powerful given that change in 1970 led to civil war, change in '75 led to the Khmer Rouge, and change in '79 led to more civil war and refugee camps. Things are a lot better now so you could understand any reluctance to "gamble" on change.

Another tactic here is the politicisation of the civil service. This basically means that to get a job as a civil servant at any level - teacher, policeman, doctor - you have to join the ruling party and then pay party membership fees. Then at elections, you are expected to be out there campaigning with your t-shirt and cap giving out gifts (traditional scarves, money) to people in your community.

Best bit no.4: Men in kilts - even ugly Scots feel that they could give Brad Pitt a run for his money when they've got a kilt on

This hardly makes it a level playing field. The British tradition of a completely neutral civil service with separation of party and government has certainly not found favour here. Nor is it always found in the UK. I noticed many media reports quote a "Treasury spokesperson", which gives the impression of it being a civil servant from that department and thus neutral. In this one, a "Treasury spokesperson" presents as fact that Scotland would be better off in the Union. The truth is that the spokesperson is probably a politically appointed Special Adviser to the Treasury Minister who is a member of a party opposes Scottish independence.

Anyway, as a Scot in Cambodia I'm not allowed to vote in the election here and if we're still here at the time of the referendum in Scotland, I'm not sure that it would be right to vote given I've not lived there for what will be 6 years. Anyway, that was my answer when a mischievous German guy asked me how I would vote when I was standing next to the UK ambassador here.

Best bit no.5: The green - a wise man once told me that if it wasn't for the rain, you wouldn't get the green. 

I will leave you with one more pic. This was the view from our bed and breakfast when Claire went to Skye before Harris (beach pic above) and Lewis (Callanish Stones). Despite the negativity of those who say Scotland is too rubbish to go it alone or those who say we're rubbish because we're not alone, it's not a bad place really.

Gordon