Why I will vote “NO”
In a recent edition of “The Voice for Arran”, it was noted that while “The Voice” was attempting to maintain a relatively neutral stance on the forthcoming referendum, it was admitted that the bulk of articles on the referendum were favouring the “YES” campaign. It then invited comment from the “NO” side. I wish to take up this invitation to explain why I will vote “NO”.
I will start by stating I am born in Scotland, of Scottish parents and grandparents. I was educated in and have lived and worked in Scotland all my life, so my being a “Scot” is not in question.
Let me first briefly look at Scotland’s history.
Until the arrival of Kenneth MacAlpin in the mid 9th Century, Scotland as such did not exist, but was rather an area occupied by various different tribal, and linguistic groups, some of whose territories extended across what would pater be the Anglo-Scottish border. Roughly from the late 9th Century, Scotland existed as a more or less distinct political entity until 1603, when the Union of the Crowns took place, followed a century later by the Union of the Parliaments.
Why bother with this piece of ancient history? My point is that for the 10,000 or so years since men recolonized Britain after the last Ice Age, Scotland as such only existed for under 800 years, a very small part of our history. It is that very limited period of history that we are being asked to revert to by the YES Campaign. Would the YES Campaign allow the Northern and Western Isles to opt back into the Norse period of their history? (The Scotsman recently carried a letter from a Shetlander proposing exactly this, if we vote “Yes”). Or the Borders to choose its Anglo-Saxon past as Northumbria? Why are we so desperate to separate from the other members of the British family, when, for example, Germany, which has been a “united kingdom” for less than two hundred years yet its component “nations” seem to function very happily together.
Also, Scotland’s own history seems rather more distinguished by failure than success, with occasional notable exceptions like Robert Bruce, much of whose background was Anglo-Norman, and who might be considered, depending on one’s view of history as an opportunistic “Robber Baron”, or a forsworn traitor, or a patriot. No, pre-Union Scotland was not a particularly prosperous or successful place.
On the other hand, Scotland’s history as part of the United Kingdom seems rather more of a success story. Not all the time, and with many problems also – but few countries can boast continuous uninterrupted prosperity and success. The Scottish Enlightenment, the growth of Scottish commerce and industry all occurred once Scotland was part of the bigger unit that is Britain. Much of Scotland’s prosperity came from access to the “English” colonies, which became available to Scottish business interests. Perhaps one of the YES/SNP themes which grates with me is the cry “It’s Scotland’s Oil” conveniently forgetting the benefits Scots have had from England’s colonies and Empire. Sharing resources goes both ways.
Lest you think I have a rosy-eyed view of British history, I have not. Britain has made many mistakes, as have all nation states, but on balance, I think we British have more to be proud of in our history than many other nations. I am quite comfortable to be British and look back on my country’s achievements with some reasonable pride, without ignoring its faults and failures. I cannot say that I am particularly proud of Scotland’s history or, with a few notable exceptions, what it achieved as an “independent” nation.
Let us now look at the current “Independence” debate.
The Economy
No good or convincing economic case has been made by the “YES” campaign that an independent Scotland will be economically more successful than it would be as part of UK. Indeed, there are very strong grounds to suspect that exactly the opposite will be the case. Scotland already has an unhealthily high proportion of employment in the public sector. That will be a drain on the economy in a small, independent country, which will also have to set up from scratch many new public sector facilities – DVLA, embassies etc. – which will further drain our resources
Many businesses have already expressed doubts about the economic prospects for their operating in an independent Scotland. Do we really want to lose our private employers?
Geographically, Scotland is on the periphery of Europe. By becoming separate from rUK, we will become even more peripheral, and that brings great economic risks. If business wants more immediate access to its major markets, it will leave small, peripheral Scotland. And jobs will go too. The tax base will be reduced too. The banking crisis of a few years ago would have been much more catastrophic for a small independent country like Scotland.
Political changes within a new Scotland may also have a harmful effect on our economy. We may not automatically become part of the EU. This will immediately adversely affect our trading links with EU countries, even if only on the short term. If we do become members of the EU, the conditions of entry will be different from those enjoyed by UK, and will be less favourable to an independent Scotland.
If our immigration policy is different from rUK, there may be restriction on cross border movement, with damaging implications for our businesses.
Society
We are assured by many in the “YES” campaign, that independence will bring a much fairer, more just society. There is precious little evidence to justify such a claim. Indeed, much of the evidence from SNP rule in Scotland over the past few years would suggest the opposite. Free prescriptions for all may sound fair, but many people can afford to pay for prescriptions, while costly cancer drugs are denied to those who could benefit from them. Is that fair? Local democracy is frequently overruled by the centralist SNP administration. How fair was the provison of university tuition fees for all students, except for those from other parts of UK? Among the bedfellows of the SNP “YES” campaign are some far left political groups. The far left has a very poor track record on fairness or justice – unless Gulags and mass execution of dissenters count as fairness and justice.
The Campaign
From the start, the “YES” campaign is such to make me ashamed to be Scottish.
Alex Salmond’s offering the vote to 16 and 17 year olds is disgraceful and irresponsible. What maturity of thought can such youngsters have? And, with the SNP’s new “Named Guardian” Bill awaiting consideration, these 16 and 17 year olds are still deemed to be “children”. The “Yes” response is that “it was a democratic decision”. But since the SNP had an outright majority, and the opposition could not vote against it without immediately alienating the youngsters, the decision was shameful and opportunistic.
The claims made by the “YES” Campaign are little better than lies.
Alex Salmond, as principal spokesperson has assured us that, on a variety of issues, everything will be plain sailing. Contrast that with Churchill’s offering the British people “blood, sweat and tears”. Churchill may have been a “wicked Tory”, but at least he was honest about what lay ahead.
A Currency Union with rUK. Mr Salmond presents this as “automatic” and “common sense”, but the British politicians of all parties state that this is unlikely.
Immediate membership of the EU. The Yes campaign states that this will be smooth, immediate and automatic, yet a number of senior Europeans have cast doubts on this.
Sharing of institutions with rUK. While the Yes campaign assures us that many UK-wide institutions will be shared after Independence, that is most unlikely. UK Government departments will relocate in rUK. If Scotland wants a DVLA, for example, it will have to create its own, at our expense.
We will be England’s “new best friend”. That depends more on England’s attitude after Independence. It is also hypocrisy, since there is a strong element of “anti-English” within the Yes Campaigners, and the fact that they deny it exists is a further lie. (anyone reading the letters section of our national newspapers will recognise that there is a strong anti-English element among many Yes supporters).
The abuse of any individual or group questioning the “YES” views. The Yes Campaign’s response to anyone questioning any of its assumptions and predictions is to attack the person, not offer a reasoned counter argument. So when George Osborne (and Ed Balls, Danny Alexander etc) stated that a currency union was not acceptable to rUK, the Yes response was “Bullies”. SNP ministers have even threatened academics with dismissal for expressing views opposed to the Yes line.
The fact that “Yes” campaigners question the “patriotism” of those who disagree is a very worrying feature. The last group who applied the “not true patriots” were the Nazis in Germany.
The hypocrisy of “Independence within Europe” is laughable, were it not so serious. The Yes side complain about a “remote” Westminster government, but Brussels is even more remote. And a small member state like Scotland would have far less “independence” than the larger UK. The problem of the dominance of a large capital city is not unique to UK. Many countries have the same problem.
Much of the Yes Campaign is aimed at emphasising the differences between us Scots and our neighbours, specifically, the English. This again is a false claim. Scotland is a diverse place, as are England, Wales and Northern Ireland. An urban Scot from Glasgow has more in common with his counterpart in Newcastle, Birmingham or Belfast than he has with a crofter in Lewis. As a classical music lover, I have more in common with an Engllsh concertgoer than I have with a Gaelic Mod or T in the Park attender. And they in turn have more in common with an Eisstedfod or Glastonbury fan. Indeed, in a recent conversation with a Borderer, I was told the Borders folk, on both sides of the Border, regarded themselves firstly as Borderers, sharing a common heritage across the BorderThe UK has a rich, diverse , and largely successful history and heritage, and we Scots are part of that.
The Future
From its inception, the Yes Campaign has been nasty and divisive. Whatever the result, it will have caused serious damage to our relationship with the other parts of UK. It will also cause festering resentments within those in Scotland who lose the vote. It has been based on highlighting perceived grievances, differences between Us and Them, how We are better, kinder, more caring than Them. As such, the whole secession campaign is inherently an evil one.
I have serious concerns about the future of an independent Scotland’s economy. Scotland is a small, peripheral country, with a limited home market, an oversized public sector employment. As mentioned earlier, a number of important companies have already expressed doubts about remaining in a new separate Scotland.
A recent survey suggested a sizeable outmigration of people from Scotland in the event of a Yes vote. These emigrants are most likely to be from the higher bands of earners – and tax-payers, which again does not augur well for Scotland’s tax base.
There remains the possibility of Scotland being, for a time, excluded from the EU, which would damage our trading links with EU members.
Similarly, with our near-lunatic reliance on windfarms, our energy prices will rocket, rUK will not be obliged to purchase our “green electricity”, operating costs for industry will rise, and we become even less attractive for inward investment.
What will happen as regards previously shared institutions like BBC? If Scotland is no longer part pf UK, the BBC may well physically relocate out of Scotland. There is already evidence that the BBC Scottish Symphony Orchestra would be disbanded, as Scotland would not be part of rUK.
If rUK’s interests are different from Scotland’s, then rUK will pursue policies in its own interests.
There have been no straight answers to what happens to our pensions, and our investments if Scotland has a different currency, and different fiscal policies from rUK.
I strongly suspect that the many “bribes” offered by the SNP administration in recent years – free prescriptions, bus passes, RET etc.- may well be withdrawn once we find we can no longer afford them. But as long as they secure a Yes vote, they will have served their purpose.
There are faults and flaws in the way UK is governed, no-one can deny that. I see no evidence to suggest we, as a separate little country, would do things any better. Together, the different groups in UK have remained together, and UK is greater than the sum of its parts.
Judging by the way the current SNP administration has abused power, I have serious doubts about the future of democracy in an independent Scotland. Local democracy has been ignored, the impartiality of the committee system has been compromised, the Civil Service has been politicised. Even the presiding Officer is a “Yes-woman”. All this suggests that there is a strong element of “totalitarian” mentality in the current SNP government, and that will not change with independence. Indeed, the plans to appoint of a State-appointed guardian for each child in Scotland suggests we are already on the way to an intolerant, totalitarian state.
One point remains. If we vote “Yes” and it brings poverty and misery to Scotland, the only people we can blame are ourselves – not the English, not the Tories, not Thatcher. I will vote “No” because I do not want to set in motion a movement for economic and social disaster for Scotland, nor do I wish to become “a foreigner” to my English friends and relatives, because, despite what Alex Salmond says, if we become independent, they will be foreigners to us, and even more so, we will become foreigners to them. If we vote “Yes”, this will be a divorce, and divorces can be painful, messy and bitter. If we choose no longer to be part of the UK family, we can expect no favours from rUK.
Douglas Hamilton
