In the late 1690s, in a bid to emulate its neighbour England, an independent Scotland attempted to become a world trading
nation by establishing a colony in Panama. The Darien Scheme as it came to be known was poorly planned and poorly led, and eventually succumbed to a combination of disease and a shortage of food. The colony was abandoned following an attack by Spanish forces in 1700. The whole enterprise was funded by around a quarter of all the money circulating Scotland at that time and its failure left Scotland effectively bankrupt. This was a major factor in the decline of resistance to the 1707
Union with England. However, within a generation of the Act of Union Scotland
was transformed into a modern nation - a commercial and intellectual powerhouse, at the very forefront of the European Enlightenment.
Now, in the 21st Century we have The Salmond Scheme...
The difference between those 17th century Scots colonists and Salmond is that they had a vision of what they wanted their independent nation to achieve...Salmond doesn't. What would Salmond's Scotland even look like? Hitherto, Salmond has been largely silent on this extremely pertinent question. Would Scotland have and army, navy and air force? Would it have border controls? Scottish passports? What currency would it have? What would be its share of the national debt? Would it have a AAA credit rating as the UK currently has? Could it still afford free prescriptions? Could it still afford free university education? How much oil revenues would it receive? Would it join NATO? Would it have to apply for EU membership? There just far too many unanswered questions; and to go around expressing support for this madness is precisely that - madness. It is a giant leap in to the unknown, or in other words - irre-fucking-sponsible.
I really do honestly think
this power hungry snake oil salesman will ruin Scotland if he and his
SNP stooges manage to fool the majority of Scots in to voting for
independence. Salmond is, to put it simply, a chancer, and his brand of
political twattery panders to those Scots who feel they are oppressed
underdogs in the UK. I'm sure you know the sort, those who: derive their
knowledge of Scottish history from Braveheart; call those Scots who are
against independence 'unpatriotic'; and detest 'the English'.
And what about the people of Wales, England and Northern Ireland? Shouldn't they be given an opportunity to have their say? After all an independent Scotland will have far reaching consequences for the UK as a whole. Think of what would happen to politics in England for example There are currently 41 Scottish Labour MPs who sit in Westminster. An independent Scotland would eradicate them, almost certainly guaranteeing a Conservative England for... well forever. Do people really want to condemn the south of this island to permanent Tory rule?
From what I can gather, Scotland actually has it pretty good at the moment, (free prescriptions, free university education, an open border with England, Wales and North/South Ireland etc) and I for one have no desire to sacrifice all that for the whims and fancies of a bloated scoundrel. Sure, the UK ain't perfect, but I can't think of an alternative country I'd rather have grown up in. I certainly don't feel oppressed by any 'English Bogeyman', and I don't see how my life will be improved in any way with the return of an independent Scotland.
One of the most popular pro-independence arguments at the moment seems to be the issue of oil revenues. No one has yet clarified how this would be divided between an Independent Scotland and England. However, for me, it is not solely a question of economics. My identity has always been Scottish and British and I don't feel any more or any less inclined towards one or the other. To me, they are one and the same. I can be both a patriotic Scot and a patriotic Brit. This is no contradiction. One is an integral part of the other.
One of the fundamental questions that I ask pro-independence peddlers is 'from what are you seeking independence?' It's a simple question really and one which everyone should ask themselves. The more vacuous answers go something along the lines of - 'to get away from the English and stop them meddling in our affairs.' Others say 'because we're different, we're Gaels and they're sassenachs (Saxons)'.
I don't see how anyone with any level of cultural or historical awareness can use this as a basis for breaking up the most successful union of countries in history. Are we really that different from one another? I don't think so. Based on the reasoning of some Nationalists, people living in the Western Highlands might reasonably demand that the Gaelic speaking parts of Scotland are granted independence from the 'foreign' English speaking parts. How ridiculous would that be? And where would such petty tribalism end? And how far down the line will the idea of 'independence' go? An
independent Cornwall? An independent Shetland and Orkney? An independent
Northern Ireland? Independent Welsh Valleys? Independence for selected
in villages within a 10-mile radius of Huntly? Independence for numbers
1-29 of Queens Road, Aberdeen? Independent, Individual People Republics?
(this actually happened, see -
http://www.spunout.ie/mag/Politics/Who-art-thou-Jim-Tallon%253f-).
I for one strongly believe that there are more commonalities than differences between ourselves and our English, Irish and Welsh neighbours and for that reason I will be voting a resounding 'Nah'.
How about you?
A lot of good points well made, not to mention numerous questions that remain unanswered asked.
ReplyDeleteLike any major political decision this will come down to economics for most sensible people. At the polls, when it comes to the crunch, people ask are they going to be better off under one lot or another. Same will happen here.
Salmond and his mob have 2 years to sway you and the rest of the Scottish public. But I'd agree they have a lot of negotiation to get through to cut Scotland a deal that will leave us better off. Let's be honest if we are to be independent that upper class twat Cameron will try to royally shaft us.
But for those who are out there saying we're a drain on England and they'd be glad to see the back of us, I'd ask one question. If that was really true would the unloved Tories (have ever a party been quite so hated in one country?) really be putting up such a fight to keep us?
We have different requirements to a lot of the rest of the UK. We don't need to be part of the USA's World Police. Our public purse could be better spent without huge defence costs. I've no idea of the numbers but do similar sized countries to Scotland, say Ireland & Norway for example, have much in the way of armed forces?!?
Lots of questions to answer but I think the Nats are entitled to be given time to produce them. Let's not write it off until we've heard the actual proposals.
In any case it could all be a bit moot for me if I'm still living south of the border!
Thought provoking piece though cuz - well done!
I'm sorry, but this is actually a load of rather ill informed rubbish.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the details about what an independent Scotland would be like, in part this will depend upon the negotiations about the detail which will happen after the vote.
There is going to be a white paper produced by the Scottish Government next October, and no doubt the UK Government will be doing the same.
The claim that there will be eternal Tory Government in England if there are no Scots is actually not true. There have been occasions - like the early Blair years when English Labour MPs were enough to have a majority.
As someone who has the privilege of working in England for part of the year I have noticed how different we are becoming as societies. Independence is merely the result of Thatcherism. After Thatcher Blair had, against the better judgement of many of the Scottish Labour to protect Scotland from what a government could do to them from England. Devolution was a good idea, but as time went on it was clear that it is not enough. Both Tam Dalyell and Michael Forsythe were right, Devolution is a one way road to independence, but that is where the Scottish people may be going. Now they may chicken as they did in 1979, but then twenty years later after seeing that noting will happen they will take the hint and vote for it.
Of course it's ill informed. No one knows what an independent Scotland would actually be like. I thought that were obvious to even the most simple.
ReplyDeleteThe eternal Tory government claim was tongue in cheek... honestly (shakes head). Don't be such a pedant.
I don't pretend to be a clairvoyant, though you seem pretty damn sure of yourself that Scots will vote for independence in 20 years time. I raise more questions than answers because no one has the answers - they can't have them until we vote for it.
An occasional jaunt down to England makes you an expert on societal change, eh? I'm an expert too then I guess. Why don't you post something on your graveyard of a blog in response?