On the eve of the UK Labour party conference, Pete Wishart MP writes exclusively for Better Nation, calling all parties – and Labour in particular – to the independence cause. Pete is SNP MP for Perth and North Perthshire and is currently the SNP’s Westminster spokesperson for the constitution, home affairs, culture, media and sport and international development.Â
What’s the chances of an all party campaign for “Yes to Independence� Well practically zilch, if we were to listen to the various spokespeople from the Scottish branches of the UK parties. It would seem that they have collectively set themselves up in a bizarre contest to be the keenest defenders of the Union, and in that defence they will be steadfast. But why have they allowed themselves to be so entrenched on the Union side of the debate, and is there any prospect whatsoever of them even entertaining the notion of an Independent Scotland?
Let’s forget about the Tories just now, even with the contradictory prospect of an independent Scottish “Tory†party in a dependent Scotland, they will be the principle Union cheer leaders. And what about the Liberals? Well, they seem to be almost schizophrenic in their approach to the coming referendum with full home rule one minute then this curious Moore/Alexander “muscular unionism†the next.
No, I think it is to Labour that we must primarily look for some sort of encouragement in a meaningful cross party constitutional debate.
There is absolutely no doubt that many in Labour care passionately about the Union, but as Kenny Farquhason recently correctly pointed out, people don’t sign up to the Labour party to defend the Union! They tend to join for much loftier motives like achieving social justice or progressing equality issues. Surely, from the most unreconstructed old socialist to the most convinced right wing Blairite, it would have to be agreed that these fine intentions could be achieved in an independent Scotland?
There are signs, though, that perhaps a more relaxed perspective on progressive constitutional change is starting to emerge. Former Labour First Minister, Henry McLeish, now advocates a devo max model of full fiscal autonomy – even George Foulkes made an interesting intervention on the same side a few months ago. Furthermore, if you rake through the new Labour think-blog, Labour Hame, you can find any number of interesting contributions by some of their more progressive and forward thinkers. There is a debate emerging in the Labour party and that must be welcomed.
And Labour has a proud tradition on constitutional change. In the 80s, Scottish Labour Action was an excellent example of free thinking on Scotland’s constitutional future. Compare the dynamism of SLA with the poverty of thinking on the Calman Commission and we see what Labour is missing in its internal constitutional debate.
Who knows, there may even be a group within Labour’s constituency that might be prepared to join a cross party campaign for independence? I know that might sound almost deluded given what their politicians say, but remember in last year’s constitutional referendum (for AV) Labour had for and against campaigns, so why not in this referendum? Certainly a pro-devo max group must now be likely given the contributions from some of Labour’s senior figures.
The alternative is to be lumped in with the Tories, under the leadership of Billy Connolly, or some other Unionist celebrity, in a destructive “no†campaign. Investing so heavily in a doomed “no†campaign would see them increasingly irrelevant in a new, Independent Scotland. Having a foot in more than one camp would allow the Labour Party to walk away from the referendum result in a much better place.
And what are they arguing against? What is clear is that the Labour position against Independence has moved on but is still in need of further revision. The “too wee too poor†arguments seem to have been nuanced recently, having been replaced by a sort of “better together†generality. But other than their intense dislike of us in the SNP, and an almost endearing attachment to the unitary UK state, I genuinely don’t know why Labour are so determined to oppose Independence.
We are in the process of shaping our nation for the century ahead and it deserves a better response than we have had thus far from the Labour Party. Labour should at least have some sort of meaningful debate about their constitutional options before throwing themselves into a “no†campaign so readily and so enthusiastically.
#1 by Richard on September 23, 2011 - 12:22 pm
“Labour should at least have some sort of meaningful debate about their constitutional options before throwing themselves into a “no†campaign so readily and so enthusiastically.”
You would think so, wouldn’t you? Some might even hope so.
Unfortunately, Labour have allowed a pathological hatred of the SNP to cloud their judgement of late; not just on this issue but across the board. This has been further compounded by their absolute denial of their ouster as the dominant force in Scottish Politics.
Until they can clear their collective head and move away from playground politics, I can see no plausible reason for anyone to give them the time of day.
#2 by DougtheDug on September 23, 2011 - 12:48 pm
I genuinely don’t know why Labour are so determined to oppose Independence
Starter for ten.
1. The SNP have been around for 77 years and there has been a filtering effect for decades. The SNP has become the choice for the Scottish nationalist, Labour has become the choice of the British nationalist.
2. Labour are not a Scottish Unionist party they are a British party based mainly in England. Their policies and mindset are driven by a British outlook not a Scottish one.
3. Labour are not loyal to the British Establishment they are part of the British Establishment
4. The career path of Labour activist, councillor, MSP, MP, Lord with pension for life and flunkeys serving tea would disappear.
#3 by Rolf on September 23, 2011 - 12:57 pm
This is something that I was pondering on yesterday, why Labour members are so against Scottish independence. Is an attachment to Westminster rule a keystone to Labourite beliefs? Does every other Labour principle crumble to dust if Scotland steps out of the UK? Do they all melt like the wicked witch of the west in water?
And what would happen to these Union-fanatical Labour supporters should Scotland gain independence? Would they all up sticks and move south? Would they need a new party? Could not their current party survive (and thrive) within the political framework of an independent Scotland?
#4 by Bobby Fabulous on September 23, 2011 - 1:19 pm
I’d love one day for a Labour member, activist or supporter to explain to me how the cause of socialism – or whatever watered-down version of it Labour stands for these days – is helped by regularly condemning Scotland to Tory governments in Westminster that the Scots have overwhelmingly rejected at the ballot box. It’s the question they can never answer.
Surely a solidly left-wing independent Scotland could stand as a shining example to the rest of the UK that social democratic politics CAN work, and would thereby also increase the prospect of left-of-centre governments being elected in England (as well as ensuring that at least Scottish people were protected from the Tories, which is better than nobody at all)? Isn’t that going to do far more good for left-wing values than Labour constantly triangulating itself further and further into Tory territory?
Is hating the SNP really more important than that? Anyone?
#5 by Jeff on September 23, 2011 - 1:22 pm
Many thanks for the article Pete, very much agree with your sentiments.
For me, there is nothing wrong with the argument that Scotland is better off inside the UK but Labour’s problem is that it hasn’t really come out and made a full-blown coherent argument as to why that is what the party believes north of the border, if it even believes it.
A splintering of the party into different factions of Yes, No or Maybe would be a great way to show that democracy is still very much alive inside what is perceived to be a tightly-controlled, centralised party.
As someone who felt perfectly comfortable and welcomed being a bog-standard member of the SNP while not really believing independence was a great idea, let alone a priority, I can certainly vouch for parties being able to accommodate all views if faithfully held.
Time will tell as to whether Labour will adopt that same flexibility to its members and whether the SNP will have an unlikely ally in the next few years.
Sadly, as has been noted already, I doubt you’ll get much of a constructive response from any Labour members/MSPs/MPs as the visceral hatred of the Nats trumps all. Bizarrely.
#6 by DougtheDug on September 23, 2011 - 1:42 pm
Not really that bizarre Jeff.
It’s all about power and the fact that the SNP is the first real threat to Labour hegemony in Scotland for a long time.
For the past few decades becoming a Labour MP in Scotland, especially in central Scotland, has been a sinecure for life. For councillors the same rule applied and it was also assumed that the rule applied to MSP’s.
Now the confidence of the councillors in their job for life has gone, lots of Labour constituency ex-MSP’s are out of a job and the MP’s are starting to think their own prospects are shaky
That’s a big reason Labour hate the SNP.
As has been pointed out above it’s also about the fact that the Labour party is dedicated to preserving the British Establishment and the British state to the point where they believe Tory rule from Westminster and a Tory defined block grant is better than Scottish independence.
In their eyes the SNP are the hated barbarians at the city gates of good old blighty even if it’s a Tory blighty. Their British nationalism trumps any residual socialism or Scottish identity every time.
#7 by Jeff on September 23, 2011 - 1:55 pm
I’d regrettably agree with that Doug. Having a long line of relatively secure jobs up to the House of Lords would be difficult to throw away, one of the reasons why I hope the SNP snubs having any Lords/Dames as some of their big hitters approach retirement. (Not naming any First Ministers…)
#8 by Doug Daniel on September 23, 2011 - 4:41 pm
As we all know Jeff, there are no such things as SNP lords.
But I see what you’re saying, and I’ll be pretty damned proud when the moment comes for Big Eck to be made a Lord in the same way McConnell was, and seeing him turn it down. On the other hand, I’ll be pretty gutted if that doesn’t happen…
#9 by dubbieside on September 23, 2011 - 1:56 pm
Jeff
While I agree with most of what you say, I do think that there is a vast difference between the average Labour MSP/MP/lord or Lady and some of the Labour members, and some of the average Labour voters on the question of independence.
Just as you were happy to be an SNP member but were not convinced about independence, I would guess there are Labour members and voters who support independence.
Since the Labour default position is that they would rather have a Tory government dictate Scotlands fiscal position than Scots elected by fellow Scots controlling our own finances, one wonders how long the average Labour voter will see this as a policy they can support.
Was May the start of this process? No one knows for sure, but can Labour in Scotland continue to gamble on that being a blip.
There would appear to be two juggernauts heading Labours way. The first is the realignment of the political boundaries. Most commentators think this will correct an unfair inbuilt Labour advantage. I do not know enough to comment if this is correct or not, but if it does correct an imbalance then Labour must be worried. The second is the possibility, no matter how remote, of Boris Johnston becoming the Tory leader.
A possible near permanent Tory rule at Westminster, lead by someone like Johnston would be a nightmare scenario for most Scots. Could Labour afford to attempt to defend the status quo then? Will they once again leave it too late to creditably change course?
#10 by Bobby Fabulous on September 23, 2011 - 1:35 pm
“Furthermore, if you rake through the new Labour think-blog, Labour Hame, you can find any number of interesting contributions by some of their more progressive and forward thinkers.”
Incidentally, has anyone else noticed how quiet LH has gone lately? Just two new posts in the last week, averaging less than two comments a day between them. Could it be that they’ve finally run out of slightly different ways to say “We must make the positive case for the Union” and “We must find an exciting newleader”, and are now having to actually try to produce those things? If so, I suspect we’re in for a long period of radio silence…
#11 by DougtheDug on September 23, 2011 - 1:49 pm
It’s gone very quiet. I’ve been over to look a couple of times to see if they’ve got anything new up, especially on the budget, but it’s a bit of a norwegian blue at the moment.
I wonder if the “admin” aka Tom Harris is off preparing to be the next regional manager for Labour in Scotland?
#12 by dubbieside on September 23, 2011 - 2:01 pm
Bobby Doug
I was thinking that myself, I like to have the occasional look and was wondering what was happening.
Have the brothers and sisters given up? or are there only so many time they can say the same thing?
#13 by Dan on September 23, 2011 - 4:21 pm
The Labour party have never made convincing Unionists mainly because they are not convinced of being Unionists. Their main motivation is purely pragmatic: it would be almost impossible for a Labour Westminster government to be delivered without Scottish seats.
Given their pro-nationalism on the Northern Ireland question (Kate Hoey notwithstanding) that makes their ardent unionism in Scotland even more, well, peculiar.
#14 by Bobby Fabulous on September 23, 2011 - 6:21 pm
“Their main motivation is purely pragmatic: it would be almost impossible for a Labour Westminster government to be delivered without Scottish seats.”
This is a myth. Tony Blair would have won majorities in all three of his elections with or without Scottish seats.
#15 by An Duine Gruamach on September 23, 2011 - 10:37 pm
Indeed. But he wouldn’t have had Brown or Cook in his team.
#16 by Craig Gallagher on September 24, 2011 - 1:00 am
Yeah, but would have been a Scottish Parliament majority of not that many seats. Westminster currency is the crushing 30-40 seat margin that Scotland has in the past delivered to Labour. As we saw with John Major, when your majority is tenuous, your position can be untenable.
#17 by Indy on September 23, 2011 - 6:01 pm
I rhink there may be some tectonic plates shifting. Tom Harris – of all people! – has been making the point that Labour’s aims are wider than saving the Union and Jim Murphy’s refusal to campaign with David Cameron in a pro-Union campaign is also indicative that some of them, at least, have an eye to the possibility that it’s not as simple as just saying independence bad, union good.
#18 by dubbieside on September 23, 2011 - 6:16 pm
Indy
Looks like Murphy is trying to further distance himself from the Torys.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/8784204/Jim-Murphy-David-Cameron-treats-Scotland-like-Slovenia.html
This may excite the Daily Record readers, however the problem for Murphy is that this is all talk and newspaper headlines, he would still rather see Scotland ruled by Torys at Wesminster than Scots in Scotland.
P.S. Brown probably treated Scotland worse than Slovenia, except when he was needing votes in Kirkcaldy of course.
#19 by Indy on September 24, 2011 - 8:10 am
Yes I am not saying Labour will ever become campaigners for independence, I don’t think that will happen. But I think they are beginning to recognise the dangers of a very polarised referendum campaign which sees them lining up with the Tories and the rest of the British Establishment to defend The Union. That could finish them off in Scotland and they know it.
#20 by Observer on September 23, 2011 - 7:02 pm
It’s a myth that Labour need Scotland to form a government. The last three Labour terms saw it elected as the majority party in England.
So losing Scotland won’t make England a Tory hegemoony.
I think that Labour at the moment are genuinely all over the place, reeling around like punch drunk boxers.
When they get off the ropes I think we’ll see some movement from them – Murphy refusing to share a platform with Cameron & attacking Cameron’s attitude to Scotland indicates to me that they are going to plot a new course.
#21 by Observer on September 23, 2011 - 7:03 pm
Sorry Bobby Fabulous didn’t see your post.
#22 by Hugh on September 23, 2011 - 8:53 pm
Another intellectually empty and purely weasel worded article from a (seemingly, but no disrespect) cradle to grave expounder of independence. These articles seem to appear all the time in the world of the web. SNP supporters (and now politicians) expunge the view that independence is somehow just a formality and that anyone opposed to the idea is crazily out of touch.
Mr Wishart first talks of how there is a contest for political parties at westminster to become the ‘keenest defenders of the union.’ This appears to be an attempted deflection away from the fact that the sole raison d’etre for the SNP is scottish independence, by instead pushing that label onto the westminster parties, but with the opposite sovereign ideology. This further exonerates the newly founded arrogance of the SNP, that their recent popularity (although we should bear in mind the miserable turnout in the recent elections) is due to the scottish electorate warming to the idea of scotland seceding from the rest of the UK. They simply don’t understand that a vote for the SNP is not a vote for independence. These things have to be carefully separated out. Many people have voted for the SNP as a protest vote because they are dissatisfied parties. What better way to show to the political mainstream that you are fed up with their direction than voting for a more extreme party such as the SNP (extreme not in its position in the political spectrum but in its main campaigning issue). We only need to look at the rise of extreme parties on the continent, such as in the Netherlands and Austria to understand this trend, although thankfully the SNP does not share their right-wing views on a variety of subjects.
So it is with that arrogance that I am mostly critical of Mr Wishart’s article. He talks about independence as if it is an inevitability rather than a distant political goal of his, which is not shared by a consistent 70% of the electorate. And why does he not try to put forward the arguments for independence? Because they are so thin on the ground. It is always difficult to defend something common-sensical like the union without campaigning overly negatively, so I will try to say this sensitively. There are no economic, politic or social arguments where independence stacks up, and it under (at least) one of those three guises where 99% of countries have been independent through peaceful means in the past. This doesn’t mean it won’t or musn’t happen, it just means that it would be a great shame if it did, as I believe Scotland and the rest of the UK as a whole would be far worse for it.
#23 by cynicalHighlander on September 23, 2011 - 9:47 pm
There are no economic, politic or social arguments where independence stacks up,
Your early! the satellite isn’t due for reentry quite yet.
#24 by dubbieside on September 23, 2011 - 10:18 pm
Its funny how low turnout at elections was never an issue with the unionists when they were getting elected.
If the unionists cannot get their vote out they need to look at what they are offering the electorate.
The usual myth about 70% of the electorate not wanting independence is aired once again. The last independence poll for The Herald showed,
For independence 38%
Against independence 37%
Undecided 24%
Have the undecided suddenly changed? You will be counting dead people next! Wait hold on that has already been tried.
Can you supply a list of any of the 99% of countries who have been independent by these means who have now decided that it is a great shame that they became independent and now want to rejoin the country they left.
#25 by An Duine Gruamach on September 23, 2011 - 10:39 pm
Hugh, people don’t give protest votes to the governing party.
#26 by Doug Daniel on September 24, 2011 - 4:22 pm
“It is always difficult to defend something common-sensical like the union without campaigning overly negatively”
Ah,so the reason we’ve never heard a single politician successfully argue the positive case for the union is because it’s just so blatantly obvious?
Riiiiiiiight. Good one, mate. Here’s a suggestion: perhaps it’s because unionists have never actually bothered to examine what it is the union actually does for Scotland, thus have no idea how to put a positive case forward? I think that’s perhaps more accurate.
But you go ahead and continue to think that independence is an extreme ideology, shared by fellow lunatic fringe parties like the Scottish Greens, unlike unionism, which is supported by those in the mainstream like the BNP.
(See what I did there? It was almost as clever as the end of your second paragraph.)
#27 by Nick on September 23, 2011 - 8:57 pm
Well, Jim Murphy has even admitted there is no reason to vote Labour.
#28 by farrochie on September 23, 2011 - 9:29 pm
“no economic, politic or social arguments where independence stacks up”
Hugh
economic – Does it stack up to have all Scotland’s tax revenues being filtered through the UK Treasury?
politic – Does it stack up to have Scotland ruled by right and centre right parties, when politically Scotland is left of centre?
social – Does it stack up that that high levels of poverty and deprivation continued under successive Westminster governments?
#29 by James on September 23, 2011 - 10:35 pm
Pretty bizarre, Pete, to look forward to a cross-party independence campaign and not to mention the only other party at Holyrood wholeheartedly in favour of a radically democratic independent Scotland. Not a good sign – and it makes me think this is code for “we’ll run a single-party campaign like an SNP election campaign and ignore everyone else – because Labour wouldn’t sign up”. Depressing.
#30 by DougtheDug on September 23, 2011 - 11:28 pm
We’ll argue for a multi-option referendum with choices including the status quo, a stronger Scottish Parliament with powers defined through a participative process, and full independence based on a written constitution, and we will back this third option.
Scottish Green Party 2011 Manifesto.
Fair enough James. Pete should have remembered the Greens.
#31 by Indy on September 24, 2011 - 8:22 am
Oh come on – he specifically said that he was talking about the Scottish branches of UK parties. Plus, as I have pointed out to James. the Greens are already members of the Independence Convention. Mission statement:
“We are an umbrella group whose aim is to further the cause of restoring Scotlan.d’s independence. Our platform draws together all the political parties, organisations, politicians and individuals, in Scotland and beyond, who share this one basic, democratic objective.”
When it comes to a cross-party yes campaign why should we re-invent the wheel? The Independence Convention already exists, we can use that.
And since the Greens are already members of that where is the issue?
#32 by dubbieside on September 23, 2011 - 11:50 pm
James
I am sure this is not a slight on The Greens, Pete is as aware as the rest of independence supporters that we will need and appreciate all the help we can get in the run up to the referendum.
As the last poll in The Herald shows at present it is too close to call which is why the unionists are beginning to look like headless chickens.
#33 by Doug Daniel on September 24, 2011 - 4:30 am
Have to agree, I found this to be a bit of a glaring omission when I read it. Although I wonder if it’s perhaps purely down to the fact that Pete is an MP and therefore isn’t working alongside Patrick and Alison, and doesn’t have to campaign against them either – he’s operating in that little Westminster bubble.
Of course, there are other pro-independence parties besides the SNP and Greens too, even if they won’t be electable until they stop their “People’s Front of Judea/Judean People’s Front” style squabbling…
#34 by Indy on September 24, 2011 - 8:17 am
Hallo? There already is a cross-party body for independence – the Independence Convention. You are part of it you know. And Pete specifically says that he is talking about Scottish branches of the UK parties.
#35 by JPJ2 on September 24, 2011 - 1:21 am
A good point by James-the Green Party could be very important in achieving Scottish independence.
#36 by Barbarian on September 24, 2011 - 1:23 am
Lots of comments to go with the article, so I’ll bullet point my tuppence worth:
1. A vote for Labour is not necessarily a vote fo the union, but then neither is a vote for the SNP a vote for independence.
2. Turnout for a referendum to go independent IS critical. If only, say 10% of the total electorate vote “Yes”, that is hardly a ringing endorsement, and I would suggest it will be challenged legally.
3. The Labour/Tory etc approach of absolute sticking with the union is flawed. They have to show (a) reasonable arguments for the union and (b) support for an alternative, ie Devmax, since the SNP must also do the same.
4. The SNP must keep clear of the following comments: “too wee, too poor”, “freedom”, “300 years” and most especially “Scottish Cringe” – a term invented surely by nationalists.
5. Has Billy Connolly actually come out and agreed to fronting an anti-independence movement? And be careful about slagging him off, he has as much support as Salmond, and has the advantage of NOT being a politician!
6. The Tories are an irrelevance – ignore them.
7. Don’t assume that because Labour is leaderless they will sink without a trace. Despite exceptionally poor leadership and campaigning, their vote still held up suprisingly well.
8. Never, ever slagg off those who vote against the SNP. How the hell will you convince them to change if you insult them?
9. The unionist parties must start being realistic and work with the SNP. At present their attitude is one of arrogance. That needs to change.
Sorry for the shopping list!!
#37 by Doug Daniel on September 24, 2011 - 3:05 pm
“2. Turnout for a referendum to go independent IS critical. If only, say 10% of the total electorate vote “Yesâ€, that is hardly a ringing endorsement, and I would suggest it will be challenged legally.”
Nope. If you don’t vote, you’re implicitly saying “I don’t care either way, I’ll just go along with what everyone else thinks.” Making turnout a deciding factor unfairly places the burden on the “yes” group, leaving the “no” group with the option of simply creating apathy, rather than having to actively argue their case and get people to believe in it.
Suppose the question was “should Scotland remain in the UK?” and the “yes” vote was 51% of 35% of the population – does that mean we should automatically assume that just 17.85% of the population wants to remain in the union, and that therefore the other 82.15% (49% of 35% plus the remaining 65% who didn’t vote) were all “no” votes?
Devolution was delayed by 18 years because of such undemocratic shenanigans. I’m amazed anyone would suggest this sort of nonsense has any place in a (supposedly) democratic country!
Pingback: EXCLUSIVE: Tom Harris, calling all parties to the unionist cause « Better Nation
#38 by Hugh on September 26, 2011 - 12:09 am
#24 “Its funny how low turnout at elections was never an issue with the unionists when they were getting elected.”
I suppose you’re right when you consider that the turnout at the 2011 Scottish Parliament elections (50%) was lower than for the 2010 UK General Election (63.8% in Scotland).
Here are the turnouts for all the Scottish Parliament elections, measured with the European Parliament elections (and UK elections), for comparison.
UK 1997: 71.3%
SC 1999: 59.1%
UK 2001: 58.2%
SC 2003: 49.4%
UK 2005: 60.6%
SC 2007: 52%
As we can see, turnout in the UK general elections is generally higher than it is in the Scottish Parliamentary elections. So whilst you may be right in that the SNP are better at getting their vote out, the Scottish Electorate seems to think that elections to their own parliament are less important than those to Westminster, even with increased devolution.
“The usual myth about 70% of the electorate not wanting independence is aired once again.”
Well anyone with an informed opinion will know that polls fluctuate massively and that this is often to do with contemporary current affairs from when they are taken (for example after the scottish banks bailout support for independence fell sharply to 21%), and sometimes who conducts them. However, the average figure for independence support is between 20-40% (look here: http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/scottish-independence) so I think 30% is a fair average.
“Can you supply a list of any of the 99% of countries who have been independent by these means who have now decided that it is a great shame that they became independent and now want to rejoin the country they left.”
By definition the fact that they became independent by those means would infer that they did not want to rejoin the country they seceded from. My point was that none of those three criterion apply in Scotland’s case. This doesn’t mean that Scotland wouldn’t or shouldn’t become independent, it just means that if it did it would be almost unprecedented.
Just for the sake of argument I will name a few:
Ireland (mostly political reasons, although many other factors too)
Portugal (from Spain in 1640, Economic and Political)
Bangladesh (from Pakistan, 1971, Cultural/Linguistic)
South Sudan (from Sudan, 2011, possibly all three)
#25 “Hugh, people don’t give protest votes to the governing party.”
You probably have a point here. I would say that maybe at first during the 2007 election when the SNP won they got a lot of support because people were fed up with the main three parties. But by 2011 that may well have changed and now people who originally voted for them in protest voted for them because they were won over by them in the previous 4 years. What is certain is that a vote for the SNP is not a vote for independence.
#26 “Ah,so the reason we’ve never heard a single politician successfully argue the positive case for the union is because it’s just so blatantly obvious?”
We have had people successfully argue a case for the union. Look at Gordon Brown during the financial crisis. He managed to successfully to convey the sincerity of the situation and how an independent Scotland would not have been able to bail out the banks on her own. (http://www.economist.com/node/16485590)
As to what the union does for Scotland, just because the politicians haven’t conveyed the arguments well doesn’t mean they’re not there. There’s obviously the economic argument. Public spending in England is £7,535 per person, while in Scotland it is £9,179 and since the Scottish Parliament was created in 1999, public spending has outstripped tax generated there by 45 per cent. These figures are often disputed because of the role of oil. North Sea oil and gas is not only decline in the north sea (with production falling from 2559 million barrels in 1999 to 1452 million in 2007) but it also is in terms of its usage, with Sweden for example trying to phase out oil altogether by 2020. Its simply economic madness to try and base the future of a nation’s economy on oil and gas, and financial services, especially in this climate. All the talk of more renewables and a ‘reindustrialisation’ of scotland is empty with budget cuts and declining private investment. A cheap point, but the FN of France have the same argument, its merely a pipe dream.
The SNP and their supporters like to have it both ways. For example if the economy is doing well, they say it proves that Scotland can go it alone. If the economy is doing badly, they say it proves that Scotland is being constrained because it is in the union and it should go it alone to realise its economic capability.
#28 “economic – Does it stack up to have all Scotland’s tax revenues being filtered through the UK Treasury?”
Scotland is part of the UK so yes. And besides, not all of it will be after the new round of devolution.
“politic – Does it stack up to have Scotland ruled by right and centre right parties, when politically Scotland is left of centre?”
Scotland is ruled by two parties, indeed, has three parliaments including the EU one. It must been one of the most enfranchised states on earth. Perhaps that’s why turnout is so low in the Scottish Parliament and EU Parliament elections.
“social – Does it stack up that that high levels of poverty and deprivation continued under successive Westminster governments?”
All countries of the UK have areas of affluence and poverty. London, one of the richest regions, has some of the most deprived areas such as Tower Hamlets and Newham. On the other hand the Edinburgh districts of Blackhall and Morningside boast more millionaires than anywhere in Britain apart from Hampstead in London, and Glasgow has some of the UK’s worst inequality. One could argue that these things have continued even with the creation of holyrood. Sadly inequality and deprivation will always exist in our country, but there has been floods of investment from labour in Scotland over the past ten years, all you need to do is look around Glasgow and see how much things have improved since major left office.