Friday, 27 January 2012

Why Independence?

The Scottish Government has published its long-awaited consultation plans, and finally we know the question that will be put to the Scottish people in autumn 2014.

‘Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?’

Well let me start off this article by saying that my name is Fraser Dick, and yes, I do agree that Scotland should be an independent country. I believe that independence is a method by which means we can move forward and make this country more democratic, more prosperous, more tolerant, and more confident in itself. Westminster rule might have served Scotland well in the past, but those days are long gone, and in an interconnected, globalised 21st century, its structures are becoming obsolete, as the optimum model appears to move towards nimble, social-democratic north-european nations. Scotland, and indeed the UK as a whole, is not an overly bad place to live at the moment. But it has potential to be so much more.

First, imagine the economy of an independent Scotland. Freed from the constraints of a United Kingdom economy which is lopsided in favour of the City of London, and with proper, full economic levers that other independent nations enjoy, it will be possible to mould an economy which is truly tailored to the people it serves. A simple example of this is corporation tax. Given this power, the Scottish Government could lower the tax in order to attract inward investment of the kind seen recently from Amazon et al, and in doing so actually increase tax revenues thanks to the new companies which would invest in Scotland, thus providing both jobs for the people of Scotland and tax revenue to pay for social services, which would be valued in the progressive independent Scottish state, rather than dismantled as appears to be the current British consensus. Having economic decisions made closer to the people they affect is integral in allowing Scotland to become a mobile, more economically competitive country in the modern age, able to make decisions at a more local level that are thus more specifically and sophisticatedly tailored to communities. Independence allows Scotland to concentrate development efforts on industries in which we excel, such as renewable energy, engineering, video games and the high-tech microelectronics business. All highly-skilled sectors requiring an educated workforce and a nimble economy, two things which a post-independence Scotland would have.

Also, it is not the case, as is often said, that Scotland is somehow intrinsically ‘too poor’ to be independent. Independent figures from GERS (Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland) have consistently shown that Scotland pays its way within the UK, and indeed runs at a slightly lower deficit than the current British state. They show that between 2005/6-2009/10, which are the last figures available, Scotland ran at a deficit of 10.6% of GDP, while the UK as a whole ran at a deficit of 11.1%. Comparable figures, showing that Scotland is very much an equal partner in the United Kingdom. And when these figures are combined with Scotland’s population to give a measure of how rich a country is per head of population (known as GDP per capita) it can be seen that Scotland could expect to have the 6th highest GDP per capita in the world post-independence. For comparison, the UK currently sits at number 15 on the same scale.

Secondly, we must consider Scotland’s vast energy riches. We are lucky to have these, in fact it could be said that we have got extremely lucky twice in 50 years. North sea oil will run out eventually, but there is a good 50 years of it left, which is forecasted to generate £500 billion. The UK government has squandered these riches since the 1970s, despite Norway’s excellent example of the creation of a sovereign wealth fund, and the fact that it is now worth over $500 billion. This level of money could be being held in trust for the people of Scotland, if we had had control of our own oil revenues. Luckily there is still time to create such a fund, as half of all oil and gas reserves remain untapped. Oil revenues could have such a transformative effect on the Scottish economy, that when they were first discovered, the UK government’s own advisor said that an independent Scottish currency would be the hardest in Europe. The UK government feared this fact becoming public knowledge, and so marked the report ‘Top Secret’ and kept it hidden for 30 years.

It is however, true to say that to base Scotland’s economy on a resource which is by definition finite would be foolish. Which is why Scotland has such good fortune to be in possession of 25% of Europe’s renewable energy capacity. Our wind and wave power capability is unrivalled almost anywhere on the planet, and our expertise in developing such technologies is second to none. The Scottish Government has already set the most ambitious climate change targets on Earth, and with independence it is not inconceivable that Scotland could eventually generate 100% of the energy it required through renewable sources. In this way, oil revenue meets renewable potential to create a perfect synergy. Oil revenue, invested wisely, can pave the way for the renewable age and a low-carbon economy, slowing the march of climate change and protecting the natural environment.

Thirdly, an independent Scotland can be a beacon of progressive values in many social fields. Just one of these fields is in immigration policy. Scotland’s population is falling. Which is why an independent Scotland would welcome immigrants with open arms in order to provide workers to drive our economy, unlike the morally untenable anti-immigration consensus which appears to exist at Westminster. Another of these fields in our democracy itself. Currently, British democracy is far from democratic. The First-Past-The-Post voting system entrenches a two-party system which does not accurately reflect the will of the electorate, and ensures that smaller voices are simply not heard. It also encourages adversarial politics, where policy debate is replaced by mud-slinging and constant searching for the next soundbite. By contrast, the Scottish Parliament has an excellent voting system, which provides people MSPs with a link to their constituency while at the same time ensuring that all voices are heard via the list system. In addition to this, its propensity to throw up coalitions means that politicians must work together in order to find solutions that are in the best interests of the people of Scotland.

Moreover, in an independent Scotland democracy can truly rule, without the influence of unelected Lords, as is currently the case in the United Kingdom. It is an affront to democracy in this day and age that someone can have an input on our laws purely because of the family they were born into or because of party patronage. An issue related to this is the monarchy. Initially, an independent Scotland would retain the Queen as head of state, but independence is a major step on the road to becoming a republic, as Ireland did several years after independence. In the 21st century, it is unacceptable that power, nominal or not, can lie with an 85 year old woman purely because it lied with her father before her, and in an independent Scotland we can work towards replacing this outdated anachronism with true democracy and a head of state who is accountable to the people.

However possibly the greatest progressive value of independence would be the removal of nuclear weapons from Scottish waters. Trident, based at Coulport on the Clyde, has never had approval from the people of Scotland. Time and again they have stated their opposition to Trident’s position in Scottish waters, and time and again Westminster has ignored them. Nuclear weapons are the deadliest objects ever devised by mankind. They make no distinction between enemy soldier and innocent civilian, lay waste to cities and leave whole regions drowned in radiation for years. They are immoral weapons whose continued existence 50 miles from Glasgow puts 1 million people in the firing line. But as long as they guarantee the UK a permanent seat on the UN Security Council then disarmament will never occur. Billions of taxpayer pounds are spent as a vanity project so Prime Ministers can pretend the Empire never went away. And with independence we could ensure that Scotland no longer has anything to do with these bombs.

Finally, on a more abstract level, I want Scotland to find its place in the world. With full sovereignty, the people of Scotland can have their voice heard on the world stage in a way that currently is not possible as part of the United Kingdom. They can take responsibility for their own destiny as a nation and shape it into what they want it to be. We can build a better relationship with the other people of these islands, and hopefully post-independence remove the old grudges, claim and counter-claim on Scotland’s position in the United Kingdom. In breaking apart, Scottish independence can bring the people of the United Kingdom together.

1 comment:

  1. A very interesting article.
    I have to argue with you on several points that you have made.

    The first point is on the politics. The Scottish Government's voting system was designed to create collations so that no one party could gain power and propose a referendum. Collations aren't the best way to achieve change in a country as you have two parties with differing targets both having to sacrifice some of their policies so that the other party can share theirs. What is happening in the Euro is a perfect example of this, because you have 17 different countries all fighting for their own interests. Germany wants austerity because they are enjoying growth and can afford to tighten their belts by a notch. Greece, Italy etc on the other hand obviously needs growth, but can't achieve it through cutting budgets so will argue. My point is in order to come to a quicker conclusion, you need control. I think you missed the point that a democracy requires a strong/decisive government to push through laws, and an opposition to force the government to answer for their actions.

    A second point is leadership. I don't understand how you can so openly trust the SNP (or any politician for that matter...) so openly, I watched an SNP member claim that Scotland could afford to bail out the RBS in 2008 based on the fact that the bail out was worth £80bn and Scotland's GDP was higher than that. These people are politicians, not Economists. They are fighting for their party's interests, which may not necessarily be the best outcome for the country. Could the Edinburgh trams fiasco be an example of poor Scottish leadership?

    The most important aspect of Scottish independence, I think, is the Economics behind it. You argue that Scotland should become independent and "have their voice heard on the global stage", but In a world of shifting global power where I don't quite understand where this voice will come from? Britain, never mind Scotland, has a relatively large voice for it's size. The influence we are able to gain as a result of the City of London (arguably the current global financial centre), the rest of our Economy as well as the Nuclear deterrent at least gives us some leverage. West Minister acts in our interests as a British Citizen, and as a British Citizen I think I have a much louder voice on the global stage than as a solitary Scot. (How could the Scottish Government ever influence Europe never mind the world), Oil revenues fluctuate incredibly depending on global prices. In the last 10 years oil revenues have varied from just under £2bn to £12bn. Revenues count for 3/4% of UK GDP, a smaller contribution than corporation tax - over half. Oil will only count for around 5-10% GDP.

    And why on earth would Alex Salmond want to join the EURO now, is he mad? The single currency was engineered with a huge flaw, and will either collapse, or draw all 17 EU nations into an even closer fiscal union - effectively denouncing the Scottish "voice".

    I conclude with one agreement with Alex Salmond, the UK IS a relic. If we could re-establish ourselves as Norwegians or Danish, then I would be all for independence. However I don't trust the Scottish Parliament, and I don't believe we have the ability to develop into Scandinavians.

    ReplyDelete