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?

Key to Cambodian development? Google.

By the end of this blog, I bet 6 beers you that you will be able to read and write Khmer script.

This is the Khmer alphabet and the sounds of each letter.

VSO is all about sustainable development. Volunteers are meant to go to a developing country, share their skills and build the capacity of people living there, so that when the volunteer leaves, the volunteer is no longer needed anyway. Teach a man to fish rather than give him a fish type philosophy.

When I first arrived, one of the first things to hit me was that the NGO I work at (NEP) could not produce reports in English to a high enough standard for big, international organisations like UNICEF and the World Bank to respect them. Avid fans of this blog may remember a post about how important English is in Cambodia.

My winning 'sustainable' idea is to arrange for a pool of volunteers based anywhere in the world who could do some serious editing to reports. This could be ex-VSO volunteers, UN volunteers or even just folk who want to do a little good.

I shared this idea with somebody else who was a bit sceptical of it as it was not aimed directly at up-skilling Cambodians here and the ongoing need for volunteers was unsustainable. Her suggestion was intensive training for one or two key members of staff. The flaw is of course that when the staff leave, the NGO is back at square one.

After being pushed, I declared that the only truly sustainable way possible within the near future would be to get Google to have Khmer-English translation available on Google Translate.

Now Google Translate is obviously not perfect but I had already thought that if people could translate things into Khmer, then a whole world of knowledge could be opened up. One of the things that I have realised is that you cannot expect people to become knowledgeable when they cannot read the books or websites that hold the knowledge. As an English speaker, every book in the world is translated into my language. For Khmer speakers, there has probably been a handful. English is king on the internet too.

I began to think how I could get to Google, and then one of my friends began working for them. It was surely a sign. But a bigger one was an article a few months ago that said Google would include Khmer in it's Google Translate service  in 2013. Then on April 18th 2013, I sent this message to a colleague: ខ្ញុំស្រឡាញ់ Google.

You too can now understand what my message said. Simply copy and paste the message that I sent into Google Translate choosing Khmer into English.

Expect the next blog to be written in Khmer...

Gordon

PS, because Google Translate is not perfect, NEP will still need editors for maybe 2 reports a year so not much work at all. I want to trial this before I go in April 2014 as I think it could make a huge difference to shaping education policy in Cambodia. Email me: gordonconochie@yahoo.co.uk if you think you could help.

Shock: Scot admits the power of English

Just after we arrived in Phnom Penh, we were walking through The White Building - concrete blocks of claustrophobic flats crammed together with unlit walkways and ground levels furrows. The White Building is notorious rather than desirable.

Front doors to the flats were often lying open so you could easily see the main living area. Staring out from one flat, placed over the dinner table, was a blackboard. Written at the top was the "Past Perfect Tense" with various English phrases underneath. Scrawled in chalk on the outside of the house's concrete wall were a list of English words and grammatical rules.

A Cambodian home in The While Building complete with a white board full of grammatical rules. I kind of love this picture. Plus, we've got a white board now too!

I could not help but stare. I never saw any of the family but I began to think about what drove the parents to obviously put so much effort into helping their children learning English. What did they think learning English would do for their children? What life would learning English provide? The answers become clear pretty quickly.

Nothing to do with this blog - but you can guess what the next one may be about

The EU recently asked Cambodian charities to apply to a specific fund for Cambodia. All NGOs had to do was read the guidelines and submit an application. Except the guidelines were in rather technical English with no Khmer translation. And the applications all had to be done in English as well.

Just as most donors act similarly to the EU, most research in Cambodia is published in English too, even when done by Cambodians for Cambodian NGOs, meaning only a few Cambodians could even conceivably read it. This is a country where if you are aged over 30, your school years were spent surviving the Khmer Rouge and civil war so education levels are understandably low.

In meetings, native or very fluent English speakers (Dutch, French etc) rapidly go back and forth, whilst many Cambodians are still, in their heads, translating what they want to say from Khmer to English. Soon, the conversation moves on and they miss their chance.

Just another photographic interlude to lighten my oh so serious topic. We used one of these ferries to go to Vietnam. Could stand right at the edge with no barrier.

All of this means that if you don't speak English, then you're not in the game. You don't even get to warm up.
Cambodia is losing people who may have the skills and intelligence to be brilliant in certain jobs/professions but never get the chance to because they don't speak English. If speaking a second language was a prerequisite for your job, would you have got it? Plus, those professionals who do speak English devote all of their time improving their English rather than learning other skills.

If you speak English, you're in demand. It's hitting home how being born in a wee city in Scotland has already given me a step up on the rest of the world.

Ciao / Au revoir / Lea hai
Gordon