Free Scotland

Why the Scots want independence.

BY GERRY HASSAN | FEBRUARY 16, 2012

Scotland's nationalist ambitions don't generally get international attention, but the past few weeks have been a uniquely exciting time in the long-running campaign for Scottish independence. On Jan. 25, Alex Salmond, Scotland's first minister, and his Scottish National Party (SNP) government announced plans for a historic referendum on independence to be held in the fall of 2014, attracting coverage, comment, and curiosity from around the world.

The SNP government's proposed question is "Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?" The SNP is considering whether a second, as yet undefined question should be asked, suggesting an intermediate step of devolving powers to the Scottish government without full independence. This notion, known as "devo max," has the support of a significant portion of public opinion -- though this support remains unmeasurable given that no serious detailed proposals have yet emerged.

London has not responded well to this development. In a speech on Feb. 16, British Prime Minister David Cameron vowed to "fight with everything I have to keep our United Kingdom together." He continued: "To me, this is not some issue of policy or strategy or calculation -- it matters head, heart, and soul. Our shared home is under threat and everyone who cares about it needs to speak out." In the end, Cameron may find that this type of rhetoric will only hasten the demise of the union he has vowed to protect.

Many are wondering why, exactly, this disquiet has emerged in Scotland. After all, the union has been a pretty peaceful one since at least the 17th century. But there is indeed a strong case to be made for an independent Scotland, a case that has only grown more compelling in light of Europe's and Britain's latest economic woes.

Scotland is a different place from the rest of the United Kingdom, and increasingly there is no such thing as a unitary UK politics, but Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish, and English politics with devolved parliaments and assemblies in the first three.

The union of Scotland and England created Great Britain in 1707*, but Scotland has grown gradually more independent over the last century. First there was the Scottish Office, a department of the UK government set up in 1885 to oversee the slowly expanding state, followed by the "secretary of state for Scotland" becoming a full cabinet post in 1926 with more junior ministers added over the postwar era. Then, in 1999, the Scottish Parliament was established, with control of most of Scotland's public services.

The SNP was formed in 1934 and in its early days stood for full self-government. It then began to become a serious political force from the mid-1960s onward. In the 1980s, the SNP -- which defines itself as a party of the center-left -- was a vital part of the anti-Tory coalition against Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. But the SNP is also a big tent reflecting the spectrum of Scottish society, with a majority in the Scottish Parliament and six seats in the House of Commons.

The last 30 years have seen a long, slow decline in Scottish voters' identification with and trust in the British state. In 2009, the Scottish Social Attitudes Survey found that 61 percent of Scots trusted the Scottish government to act in Scotland's interests versus 25 percent who trusted the British government. Increasingly, Westminster's interventions and policies -- including macroeconomic policy, welfare, defense, and foreign affairs -- are seen as problematic to many Scottish voters and inviting challenge. And the majority public opinion increasingly points toward wishing to have a more autonomous, distinctive Scottish political space in which the Scottish Parliament runs most domestic issues, leaving defense and foreign policy to the folks in London.

Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Image
*Correction: The union of Scotland and England created Great Britain, not the United Kingdom, as originally stated.

 

Gerry Hassan is a Scottish commentator and author of several books, including co-authoring The Modern SNP: From Protest to Power and the forthcoming The Strange Death of Labour Scotland.

PETER DOW

1:11 PM ET

February 16, 2012

My politics website & on-line discussion forum

Hi. I am newbie here from Scotland. I saw a link to Gerry's "Free Scotland" article and here I am.

I am the author of the Scottish National Standard Bearer website
http://scot.cyberhost.me

and I administer the associated politics on-line discussion forum the For Freedom Forums
http://scot.cyberhost.me/DEBATE

The forums are not only for Scottish politics but also, for example, there's a Republican Intelligence forum for discussing matters such as AfPak strategy.

We also have a Condoleezza Rice forum of whom I am a big fan and indeed I run Rice for President Yahoo Group.

So Americans, Canadians, Australians and indeed anyone who wants to discuss politics in English is welcome to join the For Freedom Forums in the first instance although I do draw the line against racists & fascists, banning such types if they dare to show up.

OK well check the links out and I look forward to anyone from here registering a username with the forums.

- Peter Dow

 

PEARPANDAS

2:43 PM ET

February 16, 2012

Scotland

It will be very interesting to see how this kind of election will play out. I bet that it is will be a very close decision like Canada's referendum in 1994.

 

PARACLYTE

2:26 AM ET

February 18, 2012

1995

1995

 

AARONJA

2:59 PM ET

February 16, 2012

Scottish versus New Zealand independence

If New Zealand, a country of 4 million people made up mostly of English and Scottish settlers can become independent from the UK, I can't see why Scotland with 5 million should be any different.

 

PI_NEUTRINO

12:16 AM ET

February 17, 2012

Scottish versus New Zealand independence

New Zealand citizen here - I don't believe NZ was ever part of the United Kingdom; it was part of the British Empire. Otherwise, though, I completely agree with what you're saying. Scottish independence? If that's what Scots want, then sure, why not?

 

PASSER-BY

4:20 AM ET

February 17, 2012

Skotish vs Kosovo independence

If Kosovo, a country of 1,8 million Albanian people settled on Serbian land, 3 centuries ago, can become independent from Serbia, why Scotland should be any different, on their own land.

 

MJKT

3:57 PM ET

February 16, 2012

Independence?

It seems very odd that in the age of the EU when tribalism in Europe is becoming less important that some people still want to splinter into even smaller tribes. Yet, I bet those same, newly "independent" people would turn around and very quickly apply for EU membership.

 

PARACLYTE

2:32 AM ET

February 18, 2012

Provided

There will still be an EU!

 

KBC

5:06 PM ET

February 16, 2012

Independence

If the question is of freedom, one can give it a thought. But why Scots want independence. They have their national teams in football, rugby etc.

An independent country will only add in the list on UN members and perhaps NATO members. Oh Scotland might have its own Olympics tally.

 

DRFINLAY

6:12 PM ET

February 16, 2012

I think that you may have

I think that you may have missed the point .....

 

VALICORE

2:53 AM ET

February 18, 2012

Ask yourself the same about your own country...

Why does any country want sovereignty? Why wouldn't Canada want to be part of the United States if the US were to let them have their own national teams? Because they have their own cultural and linguistic traditions, and it's what their citizens want.

 

PI_NEUTRINO

12:18 AM ET

February 17, 2012

If I was feeling malicious,

If I was feeling malicious, I'd be tempted to kick off a Scottish Ultra-Nationalist club, claiming that England should become part of Scotland.

 

FORLORNEHOPE

8:18 AM ET

February 17, 2012

Fact Check

The union of Scotland with England and Wales in 1707 was "Great Britain". It was only with the inclusion of Ireland in 1800 that it became the "United Kingdom".

Scotland's public expenditure runs a deficit of about 10%, around the same as the whole of the United Kingdom. The "Barnett formula" has ensured that Scotland gets a higher proportion of government expenditure than England and over the years this nets out pretty well against oil. So, no, it won't be a "rich petro-state" and never would have been. Neither England nor Scotland has been subsidising the other.

In addition to direct government expenditure on services and benefits, there is a lot of UK government activity in Scotland. Most of the Royal Navy's warships are built there and a lot of UK government "back-office" functions are in Scotland. This would be unlikely to stay after independence.

The SNP's proposal that Scotland should keep sterling also seems a bit thin. It either assumes the willingness of England to act as a lender of last resort or it means Scotland operating a "currency board" which is another name for a default waiting to happen. Scotland has a very large financial services industry. It is questionable whether this could operate within an economy of only 5 million and certainly not under a currency board. In any case, it would be in England's interest to encourage these businesses south to commercial centres in the north of England, Leeds, Manchester, Newcastle and Birmingham (though that's midlands).

Looking at a map, Scotland is a large part of the UK. In population and economy it is well under 10%. If Scotland were to separate, it would pose major questions for Wales and Northern Ireland but would have only a minor impact on England.

BTW - Born in Scotland, and proud of it, with a Scots mother and English father and brought up on both sides of the border! However, we must face facts.

 

THOMASBERRY

8:49 AM ET

February 17, 2012

Very interesting post.

Very interesting post. Sitting here in Wales, I've pondered how exactly and independent Scotland would world economically. Barnett has been a major bone of contention here in Wales where it is largley felt we're getting the short end. I don't think there is much called for independence here in Wales, we were given great powers last year and a think a "devo-max" solution is best all round.

It does seem from the stand point of the SNP that it is independence for the sake of itself, Cameron's cackhanded handling of the whole thing isn't really adding to the discourse.

 

P.J. AROON

12:48 PM ET

February 17, 2012

Corrected

I've corrected it to "Great Britain." Thanks for bringing the matter to our attention.

--FP copy chief

 

TURKMENBASHI

4:10 PM ET

February 17, 2012

Fact Check

That 10% deficit does not include oil

 

FORLORNEHOPE

8:59 AM ET

February 18, 2012

The sheep, the stag and the black, black oil!

Actually, yes the 10% deficit does include oil but excludes the Barnett premium. That's from the Institute of Fiscal Studies analysis and they have a pretty good reputation for being objective about these things. Scotland won't be either richer or poorer with a split if all things remain equal. The problem is that they probably won't. Scotland will lose its naval shipbuilding, probably going to Barrow, UK government back-office work and may well find that financial services prefer to move to a regime with a "lender of last resort". In exchange Salmond is promising a reduced corporate tax rate to attract inward investment. The Tories in England would just love the excuse to slash corporate tax rates south of the border, so that might not be much of a runner.

 

LLOYDDCOLBERT

11:03 AM ET

February 17, 2012

Scotland Independence!

Who doesn't want independence anyway? I support the change as this is what all people would have probably wanted. It's going to be great to live with total Genomma Lab independence! Living in a country where dictatorship rules is like making its people robots. I personally don't like that.

 

MAINBRAIN

11:23 AM ET

February 17, 2012

The Independence of Scotland

Could be interesting to see how this election will turnout. I can imagine that it will be a very close decision like the 1994 Canada referendum.

 

ROLFTHEGANGER

6:13 AM ET

February 18, 2012

Re Fact Check by ForLorneHope

Usual Unionist mythmaking.

The realities are:
The international Treaty of Union of 1707 was signed by Scotland and England (Wales was and is a part of England) that is the Union that is ending. The 1603 monarchical union is not affected.

Barnett Consequentials

About 60% of the taxes raised in Scotland, exclusive of corporation tax and North Sea revenues, are returned to the Scottish government in what they term a block grant.

The Barnett formula is an additional consequential payment to the block grant. The way it works is this: If, over and above the annual budget set aside to run England, Westminster decides to spend an extra £100 million upgrading motorways, then the following year they have to give Scotland 10% of that sum, though Scotland is only 8.5% of the UK population. This is where the spurious claim of the overspend on Scotland comes in - 8.5% population get 10% cash in Barnett consequentials. The unionist politicians have manipulated this for their own ends. They claim the 1.5% is an overspend on Scotland.

However, as the Barnett consequential cash is not inflation linked, by the time it is paid to Scotland over a year later it is devalued by the current rate of inflation. So if inflation is running at 3% then 8.5% population get 7% cash consequentials. Something the unionist politicians prefer to keep quiet about.

The line about neither country subsidising the other is a white lie. It is true - if you ignore the amount of Scottish taxation siphoned out of Scotland and spent , supposedly "on Scotland's behalf" - outside of Scotland.

Think of it as your neighbour taking all the tax money off you, handing back 40% and telling you the rest was 'spent on your behalf' with about half that money showing up in your house in welfare service payments. The rest being spent in their house - 'on your behalf' According to unionists this 'proves' that neither country is subsidising the other, because both you and your neighbour cough up the same amounts of tax.!

Sharing sterling - initially, is a good idea to minimise the disengagement processes. By 2015, either quantitative easing will have pretty well destroyed sterling's credibility (Rating agency warning about AA rating last week) or the euro may have been replaced, etc. Too early to say.The point is that 120 countries have gone independent since WWII and the overwhelming number had no dramas. more Unionist scaremongering rubbish.

 

FORLORNEHOPE

9:15 AM ET

February 18, 2012

120 countries gone independent and no dramas

This is presumably from the same history book that Alex Salmond was reading when he recalled that the Union of Crown lasted just over a century and was quite satisfactory. The seventeenth century, of course, experienced a level of war, murder and mayhem across "the Three Kingdoms" that has not been equalled in these islands since the middle ages. Anyway, I'm not suggesting that there will be any drama, just that the economics are far from as clear cut as the Nats seem to think and that there are quite a few potential downsides that they like to ignore.

Now for the positive and very emotional side. As I pointed out above, I usually describe myself as British, born in Scotland with a Scots mother and English father (thanks to Hitler and Hirohito). When I watch the Calcutta cup (England/Scotland rugby) I know what side I'm supporting and they're not wearing white shirts but when England play France I also know what side I'm on and they're not Les Bleus. I have represented Scotland internationally in hang-gliding, against England, Wales and Ireland. I have family on both sides of the border and fully understand that Scotland is not a region but a proud country with its own laws, history and customs. For me Scottish independence would be as if my parents were getting divorced. The Union is not an abstract idea it is, literally, in my DNA.

 

JBROCKLE

2:40 PM ET

February 18, 2012

Banks not Scottish enough?!

I recommend the author google's Alex Salmond (and his deputy's) letter to Fred Goodwin expressing his delight and unconditional support for RBS' ABN Amro deal.

If Scotland had been outside the UK they would've been another Iceland. If they break away now they will take a proportionate quantity of the national debt, destroying their credit rating and making it difficult to maintain those expensive social services they are so keen on.

 

REGALZONE

10:08 AM ET

February 21, 2012

Scotland will take its share

Scotland will take its share of debt.even though it was london bankers that caused the mess.The oil will help pay for that! As for the pound .it was a scot who enaugurated the Bank of England so we would keep the pound until we decide what to do just as eire did!The south east of England and midland are in drought.we can always sell water i suppose and whisky which brings in 3 billion to london every year.The scare stories are hilarious.IF SCOTLAND WAS SUCH A DRAIN ON ENGLAND THE LONDON GVT WOULDNT BE GOING ALL OUT TO STOP INDEPENDENCE!The old way is dying out in Scotland the union and all that goes with it.just listen to people on the streets.

 

FORLORNEHOPE

1:46 PM ET

February 21, 2012

The Republic of Ireland and the Pound Sterling

As I'm writing in English, I'll follow the Irish constitution and refer to that country as Ireland. It is true that Ireland operated a quasi currency board with the Irish pound tied to Sterling until it joined the European monetary union. The result was that the Irish economy performed miserably for more than fifty years despite the fact that its farmers were still receiving subsidies from the UK ministry of agriculture. Scotland could choose to use Sterling the US Dollar, the Euro, the Yen or any other currency. Without a central bank it means that it would have no control over its monetary policy. Countries that follow that route either end up like Ireland, or more commonly like Argentina as serial defaulters.

I'll repeat, all non-partisan, analysis seems to show that, when oil revenues are allocated to Scotland, neither England nor Scotland is subsidising the other. Arguments for, or against, the Union have to be held on a rather more fundamental level.

 

LECHEB

10:15 PM ET

March 7, 2012

State Rights Maybe?

This just sounds like a case of state rights vs the federal government (if you live in the US). It does not seem that being part of England prevents Scotland from doing things it wants to, it just seems more that Scotland does not see the benefits of being in the Union anymore. It is obvious that the topic has heated up recently due to the current mortgage crisis - money probelms always causes tention. After reading a few more articles on this subject on my i phone 5, it also seems that the politicians are using this as a way to get people to rally around them. More of a political thing than anything. It will be interesting to see how it shakes out.

 

DRAGONSEOMAN

12:36 AM ET

March 15, 2012

Is this a smart move from Scotland?

With the economic crisis and the economy is in shamble now, is it a good time to talk about independence. Sure they can do it and personally, i think they should do it but not at the moment as the whole United Kingdom is still struggle to get by. And to many Scottish people, independence from UK is not what they truly want.