Scottish independence: why I’m on the fence
This post is going to concentrate on three issues in turn: national identity, constitutional affairs and party politics.
As some of you may know, my dear departed mother was from Blantyre, South Lanarkshire. When the SNP won its majority in 2011, I thought I would seek some advice from beyond the grave. I asked my three older brothers, Elliott, Miguel and Barry, what they thought mum’s views would be on Scottish independence. One thought she would support it, another thought she would oppose it and the other thought she would want to know more. No clear-cut answer there, then.
Primarily, I am a Londoner – a London autonomist / nationalist / separatist. I believe London has a shared culture and history that predates and is stronger than the UK’s or any of its four constituent parts’. This is because of (and not despite) London’s longstanding position as a ‘melting pot’.
Secondarily, I am Scottish and Dutch, because this is where my late parents were from and they imbued some of the culture of these places in me.
Finally, I am Queer, European and British. I feel a sense of nationalist-esque solidarity with LGBTQ people across the world, not least as we have a shared experience of oppression (although I am grateful, of course, that this is nowhere near as brutal in Western Europe as it is in some other places). I am European because the Enlightenment largely originated in Europe and my support for liberal democracy and my opposition to cultural relativism are strong enough to make me proud of this. I am British not only as a statement of legal fact and because I recognise the same TV shows and popstars as other Britons; because the UK is made up of four constituent parts, Britishness lends itself especially well to multiple identities.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, people of colour living in England are more likely to identify as British rather than as English. It is worth bearing in mind that the same is true of BAME people living in Scotland: they are more likely to consider themselves British than Scottish. As a ‘mixed race’ person (my paternal grandfather was Arab-Algerian) who does not consider himself English, I suppose I fit this trend.
A unified Scotland and/or a unified England haven’t been around that much longer than a unified Britain. Moreover, the number of towns and regions that have swapped which side of the border they are on over the last millennium demonstrate the point Rory Stewart makes about parts of the south of Scotland and the north of England having more in common with each other than they do with the Highlands or the South Downs respectively. It is odd this decision will crystallise the 2014 border, but I suppose that is how these things work.
I also think the question being posed is a bit behind the times. The nation state is dying, in favour of a revival of cities. These are better, more organic ways of grouping together humans. City regions are how trade is really conducted. People are less resentful to pay taxes to improve infrastructure and help poorer neighbours who are closer to home. I’m sure the complaints people make about London elites will just be replaced by complaints about Edinburgh elites. I think people in Glasgow and Manchester have more in common with each other than they do with someone from a rural Scottish or English backwater.
So, on the one hand, if people living in Scotland feel they have more in common with each other than they do with people living across the UK – go for it: I know I’d be pounding the pavements for a Yes vote in an Independence for London referendum. On the other hand, I am uneasy and saddened at the prospect of an rUK even more dominated by an England to which I feel little if any national affinity.
After the referendum will be a constitutionally exciting time.
For Scotland: a Yes vote would mean sovereignty and it could mostly figure out its own constitutional set-up as it went along (would the Scottish Parliament remain unicameral, what concessions could it win during its EU reapplication, would it become a republic in our lifetime and so on). A No vote would result in yet more devolution (which, contrary to recent articles, has been offered all along and is not a last-ditch panic by the unionists). What about rUK?
There has been a proliferation of possible solutions to the West Lothian question in the media recently (how to solve non-England MPs voting on issues only affecting England).
An English Grand Committee or an additional reading stage within the UK Parliament would be relatively cost-effective, but is hideously inelegant. A separate English Parliament in a more federal system I would also oppose – partially because its size in terms of population, money and power would rival the UK Parliament in a way unseen in other federal systems and would ostensibly be unworkable, and partially because it would stand in the way of my ultimate aim: regional assemblies in a federal system – a Greater London Authority with devo-max.
I am a little anxious that rUK mightn’t be able to retain things like its permanent position on the UN Security Council, but there are larger developed nations with bigger economies that haven’t muscled out the UK thus far, so I am not convinced rUK would lose this seat.
Without Scotland, rUK would be more likely to leave the EU in a referendum. I will be one of the first in the queue to claim my Scottish/EU passport, not least in case this happens.
Although these things will be debated in the coming months whatever the outcome, I think they will be debated with greater intensity in the result of a Yes vote. Having said as much, most of the powers the Yes campaign says it wants it either already has or could have with devo-max within the UK.
Rumours of a permanent Tory majority in rUK in the event of Scottish independence are greatly exaggerated. Two elections (four at an absolute push) would have resulted in a different result since 1945. Nevertheless, it will make a Tory majority easier in rUK, which is a good thing.
In Scotland, the Tories are too associated with posh southerners and with Margaret Thatcher. This and FPTP helps to explain why 16.7% of Scottish people voted Conservative in 2010, but managed to win only 1.7% of Scotland’s seats.
With the Barnett formula removed, it will be interesting to see how long Scotland’s welfarist policies last. Will the residents and businesses of Scotland really be happy to put up with punitively high taxes to support such a system, even if it makes the country less economically competitive? That is what most of the left-wing Yes campaigners will have us believe. I am of the view that the debate about these trade-offs, combined with severed links with England, will see a resurrection of the centre-right within Scotland, which is also a good thing.
There are reputable think tanks that believe Scotland’s economy will improve a bit and others who believe it will decline a bit. Trade isn’t really an issue, as once any resentment has cooled down we will have free trade either through the EU or bilaterally. I have read and listened to experts on currency, sports, various arts, science and research and all sorts of things in both the Yes and No camps over the last year or so. If people who are much cleverer and more knowledgeable than I am about these issues can’t seem to agree, then I shan’t try to reach any conclusions. This illustrates that those who want to vote with their heart in this referendum have it easier; those who want to vote with their head have a harder time.
