Wednesday 11 January 2012

Here's the Cart. Where's the Horse?

This week I’m going to take a break from the Americas and look at something a little closer to home.
Independence for Scotland has always been a central aim of the Scottish National Party – hence the name – and no one has been a stronger crusader for this than current SNP leader Alex Salmond. Now the waving of the saltire has been taken to the extreme with Salmond – the Scottish First Minister – setting out a time table for a referendum on Scottish independence. Despite attempted meddling from Westminster with David Cameron trying to limit Salmond options, a date has now been set, the autumn of 2014.
The question the coming referendum raises is ‘how feasible is Scottish independence?’ For all the SNP’s rhetoric about a “Better Scotland,” a “Wealthier Scotland” and a “Fairer Scotland,” Scotland has been run from London for over 300 years, ever since Elizabeth the First died without an heir, putting her Scots cousin James on the throne of England . Despite the powers devolved to Holyrood and the Scottish Parliament, Westminster still controls a lot what goes on north of the border.
If, theoretically, Scotland gained independence tomorrow, it would suddenly have to oversee border control and a police force, construct a credible military – most likely regiments pillaged from the British Army – and create new political and trade relationships with countries that it previously related to as part of the United Kingdom. This is, of course, on top of constructing a stable, manageable economy.
Figures from the Government Expenditure in Scotland report show that public spending in Scotland from 2004 – 5 was £47.7bn while revenue was £36.4bn. That leaves a deficit of £11bn. While Scotland does have the devolved powers to raise its own taxes it also receives a large amount of money from Westminster. If you removed that subsidy then the Scots would have to come up with a new source of revenue quite quickly or watch themselves collapse into an Ireland like period of economic downturn.
Now I’m sure that Alex Salmond, who is, as Nick Robinson says, possible the canniest political operator in the UK at the moment, has thought these problems through. He may even have ideas how they could be overcome. However, as of yet, I have seen no evidence of this. At the moment it looks like Mr Salmond is putting the cart a long way in front of the horse. About twenty miles in front I would say.
I’m all for the Scots voting on their independence. They have the right. I’d just like to see some evidence that they are ready for it first.

3 comments:

  1. I have no opinion about whether or not the Scots should have independence. Well perhaps I a have a slight opinion, but I don't think it's a very qualified one.

    There is something I would like to comment on; something that I may be slightly more qualified in. I'm slightly worried about what they are billing as the official question on the referendum: 'Do you agree Scotland should be an independent country?'

    I don't think one needs to be an expert in law or linguistics to see that that is a leading question. By using the phrase "do you agree" they are implying that everyone who votes "no" will be behaving in some way subversively. It's subtle, but in general, people want to be seen as conformists, especially when it relates to something generally considered good (like national pride). By phrasing the question like this, they are encouraging the undecided (and perhaps even some who have decided) to vote "yes". Add to this the fact that they want 16 and 17 year-olds to vote (something I'm not opposed to in general, but I reckon this age group is more likely to be influenced by such biased wording) I wonder if this is merely an oversight or an intentional ploy.

    ReplyDelete
  2. That was what I was thinking.

    Because of couse "Do you agree" suggest that (as you have said) those who vote no are in some way traitors to Scotland.

    But there's also the chance that people may "agree" but in a sort of Yes + Way. "Yes I agree, but I don't think we have the capacity to be," "Yes I agree but not till we've sured up the economy" "Yes I agree but not while Alex Salmond is still First Minister."

    Then Salmond just has to ignore the provisos and he can claim a majority. It suggests he's not as confindent that he will get the Yes vote as he seems if he's resorting to linguistic trickary.

    ReplyDelete
  3. That's what I was thinking. By using the phrase "do you agree" it makes it look like those who vote no are traitors who don't love Scotland.

    But it's also a very open ended question. Someone could vote what I call Yes +. "Yes I agree but I don't think we are capable of being one right now" "Yes I agree but not till we've sured up the economy." "Yes I agree but not while Alex Salmond is still First Minister."

    Then all Salmond has to do is count the yes', ignore the provisos and he's got his majority. It makes it look like he's not a sure the referendum will pass as he claims to be if he's having to resort to this sort of linguistic trickary.

    ReplyDelete