Inspired by a lovely Radio 4 "Analysis" programme on the Scottish
independence debate I had a read of the pro-union Better Togther argument and
was shocked to discover how profoundly cack it is. The Radio 4 programme asked
the question what positive vision of the union is being presented to sustain
Scotland’s continued membership of the United Kingdom. The answer? No much.
Here is the “Better Together” vision:
- We’re stronger as part of the UK, you know, “stronger”
- The UK is better placed than a separate Scotland or
England to compete in the global economy
- As part of the UK we have real clout in the UN Security
Council, NATO, the EU, AND we have Embassies around the world
- Lots of Scottish people live in England and lots of
English people live in Scotland
(Then there’s the negative: “Times are really tough at home
and really turbulent internationally. In the future Scotland's prosperity will
be strengthened by keeping the British connection. We need more growth, more
jobs, and more prosperity in Scotland. We don't need uncertainty, instability,
and barriers for our businesses.”)
Now, I don’t know about you, but nothing in the above especially
motivates or inspires me. For starters I’ve no idea what “stronger” means in
this context. The economic (or prosperity) argument is interesting, except one
of the factors encouraging independence is the way the economic, infrastructure
and development policies pursued by successive UK governments have been disproportionately
skewed towards London be it spending billions more building train lines into,
out of, in and around the place or campaigning against EU restrictions on
financial sector bonuses.
Then there’s international “clout” and what that’s actually
meant in terms of the morally repugnant wars Scotland has been made a part of.
Or there’s the billions wasted on a disproportionately large military budget give
or take the rank hypocrisy currently on show with regards to Ukraine where –
surprise, surprise – the fact Russian “oligarchs” buy London flats and
financial products appears to have trumped any notion of a just foreign policy
let alone one with “real clout”. Would an independent Scotland be any better?
It couldn’t be any worse and there’s real scope to finally step away from the UK’s
post imperial hangover and special relationship self-pleasuring.
As for people living here there and everywhere, so what? No
pro-independence supporter is saying there would be any restrictions, just
think about the voter eligibility requirements. Rather, it’s the
anti-independence lot that’s continuing to threaten travel and labour market
restrictions if Scotland has the audacity to vote in favour of a government
that would actually take Scottish interests seriously.
Then there’s the basics “Better Together” just doesn’t seem
capable of getting its head around. Like, Scotland’s political culture is
different, OK? We barely vote Tory and voted the SNP into Holyrood when Labour
was in power in the UK. Devolution accommodates this to an extent I guess, but
when successive Westminster governments are so hell bent on unpicking the great
UK institutions like the NHS and the Post Office that once actively made the UK
united, then feck ‘em, Scottish independence is simply acknowledging this fact.
However, its not just that the “Better Together” arguments
are in themselves cack - which they are
- it’s the pro-union lot’s complete lack of a compelling vision – give or take
the chance for us all to wear Team GB swimming trunks - that really strikes me. Like the crux of their argument seems to be it might cost everyone c.£752.37 extra a year to live in an independent Scotland. Fine,
I’ll pay up because by contrast and by definition independence offers
Scotland both a transformative vision and an otherwise unobtainable opportunity
to make this a better place.
No comments:
Post a Comment