Over the last bank holiday in August, my husband and I did a mini road trip of Scotland. We drove from our home in Chester, through the Lake District, across the border and into Edinburgh. After experiencing Edinburgh and the incredible Fringe Festival, we drove further north through the Cairngorms National Park to loop around Inverness. With a quick pit stop to visit Nessie at Loch Ness, our trip culminated in camping in the truly breathtaking Kinlochleven, a great location to allow a hike up Ben Nevis, the UK's tallest peak. On our way out, we meandered across the countryside on a hunt for castles and ruins to visit before crossing back into the UK. We literally drove all over the country and everywhere we went, there were signs, flags, banners, etc. all about the Scottish referendum.
The Scottish desire for independence is a funny thing for me as an American. On one hand, we wanted our independence from the crown 238 years ago. I'm also a Zionist who supports the self-determination of the Jewish people. Don't the Scottish people deserve the same respect for their wishes for their own country?
And yet...at the end of the day, I'm much more of a realist than an idealist. I look at Scotland and I do not see America circa the mid-1700's. This is not a situation of "No taxation without representation;" Scotland is not suffering from a modern day
Stamp Act. In fact, Scotland has a disproportional voice in Westminster. Although Scotland only has
59 seats in Parliament, the Scotland Act of 1998 created a Scottish Parliament, allowing for many powers to be devolved and transferred to a Scottish government. Meanwhile, Scottish MP's still vote in the UK Parliament on issues that only affect the rest of Great Britain, such as
voting to institute top-up university fees in 2004. Further, there are many powerful
Scottish politicians in Parliament - are we going to ignore Gordon Brown's reign as Chancellor of the Exchequer and then Prime Minister?
The vote is in two days. The whole of the UK has been living and breathing this referendum for weeks now. I am not Scottish nor will this affect me in any lasting way. And yet, I find myself incredibly passionate because I love Scotland and I love the UK. I have many Scottish friends whom have vastly different opinions. Friends who are voting Yes have said that it's heart over head, and that speaks to me in a romantic, idealistic way. I just can't help feeling like all this love for Scotland, this national pride, is being manipulated by First Minister Alex Salmond and the Scottish National Party. Any time someone challenges the
White Paper or SNP platform, accusations of "scare mongering" fly. Facts are discounted if they don't fit the narrative the Yes campaign is selling.
One thing I keep reading from those who support independence is that it is all about democracy. What exactly does that mean? To some, it's about getting the government that "Scotland deserves." It's the idea that Scotland is far more liberal than the current Tory government and that they don't have a voice in the UK government. However, that argument isn't quite accurate when you look at the 18 general elections since 1945: there have been
"8 elections when the electorates of Scotland and England voted the same (1945, 1950, 1955, 1959, 1966, Oct 1974, 1997, 2001) and got the governments each wished (6 Labour and 2 Tory)." It is also worth pointing out that Scotland can also act like a spoiler to the will of English voters as in the 2010 election. I think as an American, it's hard not to be wary of the "I'm of one ideology but my government is of another ideology, therefore, I want my independence from said government." We have people like that in the US - secessionists - and while the movements have gained steam, they are still viewed as fringe and extreme. Complaints about state and federal government by these secessionist movements echo statements from supporters of the "Yes" campaign: these governments don't represent
them, they feel they understand how better to spend their taxes, dictate policy, etc. Douglas Alexander, the shadow foreign secretary, reminds voters about how democracy works: "First of all I have got two governments that I didn't voted for and didn't support. I have got a Scottish National Party government in Edinburgh and I've got a Conservative-Liberal government in Westminster. The only way that you ever get the government that you always vote for is in a one party state and I don’t think anybody is recommending that. "
When discussing democracy and the Scottish referendum, it is hard to ignore the hypocrisy about wanting the Scottish voice to be truly represented while excluding the
750,000 Scottish-born who currently live in England and Wales. I have also heard a lot of frustration from non-Scots about the referendum. Scotland does not exist in a vacuum. Scottish voters are being asked to choose whether to stay or leave the United Kingdom - a union that contains England, Wales, and Northern Ireland as well Scotland. This vote affects the rest of the union and especially as the terms of independence have yet to be decided - why shouldn't the whole UK vote?
That is the crux of the matter to me - if Scotland votes yes, then between September 19, 2014 and March 24, 2016, the UK and Scotland will negotiate over the details of independence since there is no current agreement in place. The Yes movement has based their entire campaign on the belief that everything will work out the way they planned. Westminster will capitulate all Scottish demands, oil revenue and taxes will be enough to allow for all social welfare programs to remain fully funded, no businesses will leave Scotland, the EU and NATO will welcome them with open arms, and Scotland will be better than ever. But what is the likelihood that the reality will live up to the dream?
The biggest concern, by far, is what will happen to Scotland's economy? The biggest bone of contention with Westminster is over Scotland's desire to continue to use sterling in a currency union.
Multiple economists have said that a currency union would be the best option for Scotland (American Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman
disagrees), but all three major UK parties have
ruled that out. The governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney,
pointed out that to have a successful currency union, you need a centralised bank and shared banking regulations, along with common taxation and spending. He
stated, “You only have to look across the continent to look at what happens if you don’t have those components in place. A currency union is incompatible with sovereignty.” Other options are
sterlingisation (using the GBP without the backing of the Bank of England), creating a Scottish currency, or a switch to the Euro. Alex Salmond has threatened to default on the UK's debt if a currency union is not establish, but that threat could backfire as defaulting will
increase interest rates, scare away investors, and delay entrance into the European Union. The National Institute of Economic and Social Research believes sterlingisation combined with a debt default would be an absolutely
disaster: "If the Scottish government combines ‘Sterlingisation’ with reneging on its fair share of UK debt, which judging from the first minister’s comments may be Plan B, this would increase rather than reduce the fragility of the currency arrangement."
As it stands now, the uncertainty and growing support for independence is
adversely affecting investment in businesses with links to Scotland, the pound is weakening (side note: the timing couldn't be worse as we are moving to the US in two weeks, so I am a bit bitter), and the banking industry is getting extremely nervous. The Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds Banking Group (which owns the Bank of Scotland) have already expressed that they are likely to
register in England if Scotland votes for independence, as have multiple other banks. Retailers and supermarkets are warning of probable
price increases as well, including Asda, John Lewis, and Next. The Yes campaign constantly touts the support of many
local members of the business community, with latest figures at 3,000 members of the Business for Scotland group. However, an examination of Business for Scotland shows they
might not be as representative of business in Scotland as they claim: "Close examination of Business for Scotland’s declared member list shows that the group has only a tiny handful of members who employ significant numbers of Scots, and literally none with a substantial cross-border trade." Alex Salmond dismisses all business leaders who express concern about the effects of independence. He denies that individuals, businesses, and investors are removing money from the
Scotland and
the UK due to fears of independence, stating yesterday "There has been tens of billions of pounds removed from the UK in the last few weeks. Absolutely nothing to do with the constitutional referendum here in Scotland. It’s about an expectation of an interest rate rise and therefore a fall in gilt prices. That is what is moving markets."
Another area of concern is national defense, both for an independent Scotland as well as the United Kingdom. One of the platforms of the Scottish National Party is the removal of the Trident submarine nuclear deterrent, currently based on the Clyde river in Scotland, by 2020. Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope, First Sea Lord 2009-2013,
wrote in an open letter to Alex Salmond: “Your plans for the removal of all nuclear submarines from Faslane in the event of Scottish independence would add a dangerous period of destabilisation in our nuclear defence posture at a time when the international picture is clearly deteriorating.” He, along with all the First Sea Lords since 1995,
believe that the SNP has not been transparent with voters and do not support independence: "In summary, we advise that Scottish separation will entail many lost jobs and leave Scotland very poorly defended in an increasingly dangerous world, especially as the SNP’s policy on nuclear weapons could render it ineligible for Nato membership." The SNP
proposes an annual defense of £2.5 billion and as it is only 1.7% of Scotland's GDP, it would render them ineligible for a NATO membership that now
requires 2% of GDP on defense. George Grant, author of "
In Scotland’s Defence – An Assessment of the SNP’s Defence Strategy," takes Alex Salmond and the SNP
to task for not being honest with the Scottish people:
"For the truth was this: not one – not a single one – of the SNP’s proposals for how an independent Scotland would defend itself stood without contradicting some other part of the piece. The totality of the incoherence was really quite startling. And the reason for the incoherence, I concluded, was simply that the SNP had put together a defence policy based not so much on what might be in the strategic interests of an independent Scotland as on what they calculated Scottish voters wanted to hear...
The SNP’s defence plans are riddled with strategically implausible and downright incoherent commitments on everything from defence equipment to cyber security and secret intelligence, to the party’s implicit assurances that the Trident nuclear deterrent could be removed “speedily”, when in all likelihood the process would take years, if not decades."
One last thing I will touch on is the NHS. Full disclosure: I work for a private health care company that runs NHS services. I don't see this as destroying the NHS as so many others do and as an American who has grown up with only private healthcare, privatisation obviously means something extremely different to me. The NHS is Scotland is already completely devolved and has been since
1999. Threats about how NHS Scotland will become privatised if Scotland remains in the Union is incredibly disingenuous as the Scottish Government already controls the NHS. The impartial Institute for Fiscal Services released a
report examining whether the NHS is more financially secure outside the UK. Before speculating on the future, they remind that
historically, the Scottish Parliament has spent less on the NHS in Scotland than Westminster on the NHS in England. When comparing the 2009-2010 spend to the 2014-2015 budget, the UK government has increased NHS funding by 4.4% vs the Scottish government, which decreased funding by 1.2%. Further, a
leaked document put together by NHS finance directors warns that by April 2017, cuts of up to £450 million will need to be made. As it is, "issues such as smaller annual budget increases, the growing elderly population and the rising bill for drugs are already putting resources under massive pressure."
The above just scrapes the surface of the intricacies of the referendum and potential Scottish independence. Borders are an extremely contentious matter. Since Scotland will have a more liberal immigration policy to the UK Border Agency, Westminster has ruled out Scotland remaining in the Common Travel Area, despite the Scottish government
claiming otherwise. There are a lot of unanswered questions about how Scottish independence will work: will revenue from the North Sea oil and gas reserves be enough considering there is debate as to much oil is left, how will Scotland realistically fund a social welfare state, what is the effect of independence on the energy sector, how will Scotland pay for the increase in free childcare services, what happens to broadcasting in Scotland, where will Scotland fit in the global economy, etc?
A few people have been floating federalism as a potential solution. Personally, I think that's brilliant. The EU has always been extremely reticent about becoming the "United States of Europe," and it is reasonably valid considering concerns about sovereignty. However, federalism for the UK could grant more sovereignty to each individual country - Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and especially England (who has felt extremely left out by all the devolved powers being handed out to everyone else, if voices crying out for an
English Parliament are any indication) - while maintaining the benefits of the Union (an example is Quebec and Canada). How is creating a federal system any different from the SNP desire to become a sovereign country that continues to rely on the UK?
The independence referendum has awoken such inspiring passions amongst the Scottish population for where they want to see their country go and what it means to be Scottish, whether pro-independence or pro-Union. But Alex Salmond and the SNP have not yet made the realistic case for Scottish independence. They have promised the world while denying any and all risks associated with leaving the UK. Honestly, if I were Scottish, I would vote "No" as there is entirely too much uncertainty with no contingencies in place for inevitable setbacks. I will leave you with words from
The Herald Scotland, who came out today in support of staying with the union (I strongly recommend reading the whole thing):
The question is whether that vision is best pursued as part of the UK or outside it. We keenly understand the appeal of independence. Who would not want to believe that, by putting a cross on a ballot paper, Scotland could be set on a sure path to becoming a country where poverty, inequality and unpopular governments are vanquished?
But, amid all the excitement and hope generated by the prospect of wholesale change, it is important to recognise that aspiration, assertion and belief in the benefits of independence are not enough.
Such a huge, irrevocable, decision about Scotland's future must be accompanied by a realistic assessment of the risks and problems associated with it, so as not inadvertently to condemn Scotland, and particularly the poorest members of our society, to a less prosperous and more unstable future. That, surely, is the responsibility of every one of us. Some will choose to opt for independence regardless, and we respect their decision, but it is our view that the case has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
