HOW INDEPENDENT WOULD AN INDEPENDENT SCOTLAND BE?
The official history of Britain is one of glory, achievement and noble endeavour. This tiny island nation, we are taught, at one time controlled an empire that covered a quarter of the globe, spreading civilisation, free trade, democracy and freedom, British values that have shaped the world for the past four or five hundred years.
This is a nation that has excelled in science, engineering, industry and war. The names of Britain’s war heroes and statesmen – Drake, Marlborough, Nelson, Wellington, Churchill et al – are internationally renowned. British industrial might led the way for over a century in productivity, innovation and invention, and Britain’s system of parliamentary democracy has spawned imitation the world over, as have British universities with their proud tradition of excellence.
Such is the greatness of this tiny island nation its mother tongue remains the international language of choice, spoken and understood by diplomats and government ministers of all the nations without exception.
It would be hard to find a published history that doesn’t concur with the aforementioned in either detail or sentiment. And yet it is a lie, a fabricated, obscurantist version of a history that in truth should be a source of shame to every right thinking British citizen.
The British state came into existence with the passing of the 1707 Act of Union joining the English and Scottish parliaments. The monarchy had already been joined in 1603, but politically, economically and militarily the two nations remained distinct, each following their own course. Wales had already been legally annexed by England in the mid 16th century via the Laws in Wales Acts, and Ireland would not be brought into the orbit of what would then be known as the United Kingdom until 1801.
The impulse behind the formation of the British state was the desire of a rising merchant class, whose power and influence had grown with their wealth, to reap the rewards inherent in larger and more powerful military’s ability to forge a larger empire by which to fund a nascent industrial revolution. The increased supply of natural and human resources required at home to fuel economic growth was also a key factor in the formation of this new political and economic entity. The resulting history since the formation of Britain has been one of war, exploitation, plunder and pillage. From the triangular trade – in which African slaves were bought and then transported to work on plantations in the Caribbean and the Americas, with the goods produced subsequently transported back to and sold in Europe – to the opium trade in China, famines in India, concentration camps in Africa, Britain has engineered and perpetrated some of the most heinous and barbaric crimes against humanity ever recorded.
Yet those directly responsible, undoubtedly worthy of being labelled genocidal maniacs and mass murderers, are venerated.
Take Sir Charles Napier, whose statue sits in Trafalgar Square. This is a man whose legacy is written in the blood of the poor and wretched of India, where he spread British values at the point of a sword. It is written in the suffering of the poor and working people of this island, where prior to his posting to India he played a key role in suppressing the Chartist movement. Or what about Lord Curzon? This is another venerated British hero who made his reputation in India, brutally quelling revolt and unrest, before returning home to lend his efforts to the suppression of the movement for women’s suffrage at the beginning of the 20th century.
Then of course there is Winston Spencer Churchill, the exemplar of that British bulldog spirit responsible for withstanding the might of Hitler’s war machine, the inspiration behind Britain’s survival during the dark days after the fall of France in 1940 and up to America’s entry into the war in 1942. We are all familiar with the stirring speeches, the defiant V For Victory salutes. What is less well known is his role in the gassing of the Kurdish town of Sulaimaniya in 1925.
Back then, faced with a growing insurgency in the newly and artificially constituted nation of Iraq, Churchill, who was then Britain’s Colonial Secretary, ordered the town bombed from the air with poison gas.
If regardless of this heinous event Churchill’s racism and imperialist heart still remained in any doubt, it was reaffirmed by the statement he made to the Peel Commission of Inquiry of 1936-37, set up by the British government in response to a popular Arab uprising in Palestine over the influx of Jewish immigrants, this under a Zionist project that was already well underway.
Churchill said: “I do not agree that the dog in the manger has the final right to the manger, even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit, for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America, or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher grade race, a more wordly-wise race, to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.”
In truth there are so many episodes of cruelty and barbarity committed in the name of the British Empire, it is difficult to know where to begin and where to end. From Ireland to India, from Africa to America, a trail of blood and suffering has been the true legacy of an organised system of what can only be described as state-sponsored murder and theft. Every statue and monument in the centre of every British town and city, every grand building, palace, and mansion, all of them were financed by wealth pillaged from Britain’s former colonies and colonised peoples.
Inevitably, Britain’s history of war and imperialism, and its current role as junior partner in service to US hegemony, has had a deleterious impact on British society at home.
That a British government was able to take the country into an illegal if not immoral war in Iraq at the beginning of the 21st century, and was able to continue in power after being exposed as having lied and dissembled in order to do so, speaks to the culture of war and might-is-right that still exists in British society, one passed down from generation to generation and so lauded in the nation’s culture.
The anachronisms of empire abound in British institutions that remain sacrosanct yet entirely unaccountable. These include the nonsense which is the monarchy, the House of Lords, and the judiciary. On the surface they appear as quaint, even benign aspects of a heritage that makes Britain unique and distinct. However, unique and distinct are not necessarily positive virtues, and in the context of a society which values progress over regress, justice over injustice, they are in fact positively negative.
Despite currently being the seventh largest economy in the world, Britain has some of the worst social indicators of any nation in Western Europe. It is home to the poorest pensioners; has one of the highest rates of child poverty; the most under-funded public health service; the most under-funded public education system; the lowest paid workers who work the longest hours; the highest paid corporate and management executives; and the highest prison population.
Following the brutal example of her US senior partner across the Atlantic, social and economic injustice is now wedded into the fabric of society in Britain. Indeed, the very notion of British society today, after three decades of the free market, is that of a conglomeration of individual self interest unhindered by any shared obligation or responsibility to the collective. The need to reverse this state of affairs has been exacerbated by a global recession that with a right wing Tory-led coalition currently in power threatens to make reality Thatcher’s infamous statement that there is no such thing as society.
Up until recently many placed hope in the election of Ed Miliband as leader of the Labour Party in 2010, believing his leadership would effect a shift to the left by Labour and offer an alternative to the politics of austerity being proferred by the Tories and their Lib Dem cohorts. But after just over a year in the role, Miliband and his shadow chancellor Ed Balls have capitulated to the Thatcherite consensus that exists within the mainstream media and within Labour’s own shadow cabinet. By announcing his intention not to roll back any of the Tory cuts and to likewise cut spending if elected prime minister at the next general election, Ed Miliband and Ed Balls revealed the extent to which Blairism, the bastard child of Thatcherism, has retained a philosophical and ideological stranglehold over Labour, in the process killing off any hope of a viable UK-wide electoral alternative to the status quo of austerity for the poor and continued abundance for the rich.
In Scotland an SNP devolved government is committed to a referendum on independence in the year 2014. Since first coming to power, first in 2007 as a minority government within the devolved Scottish Parliament, and latterly winning a huge mandate to form a majority government after the 2010 Scottish elections, the SNP have proved head and shoulders above their political opponents in Scotland in terms of cohesion, purpose, and political nous. Led by Alex Salmond, it is felt by many that the SNP have filled the left of centre space in Scottish politics vacated by Labour in the course of its shift to the right under the influence of Blairism.
In contradistinction to its Westminster counterpart, the SNP have refused to introduce tuition fees for Scottish students entering higher education, cancelled all PFI and PPP contracts within the NHS in Scotland (though PPP has been reintroduced through the back door via the Scottish Futures Trust), maintained free personal care for the elderly, free bus passes for the elderly (both introduced by Labour), introduced free prescriptions, committed to a five year council tax freeze across all 32 Scottish local councils (though this particular policy isn’t as progressive as it seems at first glance given it has deprived local councils of the ability to invest in local services and jobs, especially at a time of deep spending cuts by central government), and remains committed to ending Trident when and if Scotland wins independence.
In addition, the SNP proved consistent in their rhetorical opposition to the war in Iraq and have maintained their support for Tony Blair to be tried for war crimes at The Hague. They also deserve credit for effecting the early release from prison on compassionate grounds of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing in 1988, but whose conviction has always been the subject of controversy. The SNP’s refusal to bow to pressure from the US over the Libyan’s release was impressive. However their later support for NATO’s military intervention in Libya was less so.
Also less than impressive is the manner in which SNP-majority local councils have cooperated with the Coalition’s spending cuts, laying off workers and cutting investment in local services. Moreover, it wasn’t too long ago that Alex Salmond said that the Scottish people didn’t mind Thatcher’s economic policies. He also championed Fred Goodwin’s disastrous takeover of Dutch bank ABN Ambro at the height of the banking crisis, leading RBS to the brink of collapse, and was a keen supporter of bank deregulation.
Child poverty in Scotland has gone up under his administration (it is now 1 in 4), and one of the first things the SNP did upon taking office was cut back Labour’s scheme of free central heating for the elderly. Internationally, Salmond’s original vision of an independent Scotland joining an arc of prosperity with Ireland, Iceland and Norway was left in tatters when the first two of the aforementioned economies were among the hardest hit due to their over exposure to financial markets.
Wisely, the leader of the SNP has since focused solely on Norway as the economic template of a future independent Scotland, which significantly is not a member of the EU and has created a hugely successful oil fund for future generations. The high price of oil has seen Norway’s economy not only protected from being overly impacted by the global economic crisis, but register increased growth. It is an economy in which the state enjoys a large footprint, in which a strong welfare state and large public sector combines with a commitment to progressive taxation to provide its citizens with among the highest living standards of any advanced economy.
But here’s the rub. If the SNP intends to try and emulate Norway’s social and economic model, it will have to commit to nationalising the oil and other key sectors of the economy, while raising taxes for the rich, business, and high earners at the same time. This path is contradicted by the SNP’s intention of reducing corporation tax to 15 percent.
The question of what an independent Scotland’s currency would be has yet to be convincingly addressed. With the eurozone in a state of crisis, and with the EU likely to be redrawn in favour of its most powerful member states as a result, the viability of the euro as the new Scottish currency is questionable. And even if possible, how does an independent Scotland’s entry into the EU square with the SNP’s flagship economic policy of reducing corporation tax? Ireland got away with this reform at a time when the global economy was enjoying a boom. Now the situation is much different, with the EU unlikely to rubber stamp any new member state setting a rate of corporation tax as low as 15 percent.
The validity of such a policy must also be examined more closely, given what it would mean in terms of wealth redistribution. If the objective is a low tax paradise for big business and he likes of Donald Trump, this surely contradicts Alex Salmond’s recent pledge to have Scotland set a progressive example for other nations to follow.
On the other hand, if an independent Scotland were to retain sterling as its national currency, it would be in the invidious position of having its interest rates set by the Bank of England. Where would this leave the question of sovereignty? Scotland in this scenario would be entering into a position of economic vulnerability to decisions made by the central bank of a foreign country, much the same as Panama vis-à-vis the United States.
These are vital questions that have yet to be addressed by the SNP.
Constitutionally, the notion that progressives and those interested in a society based on the principles of social and economic justice should support a campaign for Scottish independence that does not include a republic among its objectives is misplaced. With an unelected monarchy still in place as head of state, Scotland’s newly won independent status would undoubtedly be compromised.
When it comes to the tactics employed by the SNP in fighting its independence campaign, reductionist analogies with historical events, such as the Battle of Bannockburn, which bear no relevance to the 21st century, do the Scottish people a great disservice. On the contrary, they open the door to anti-English sentiment, which if carried too far could have dangerous consequences both north and south of the border.
The Scots are not an oppressed minority. Indeed, the notion that the likes of the Duke of Buccleuch, Sir David Murray, Sir Tom Farmer, and Brian Soutar are oppressed because they are Scottish is risible. Nor is it possible to escape the fact that someone living on benefits in Glasgow or Edinburgh has more in common with his English equivalent than he does with any of the aforementioned names. Overall, the British establishment is made up of Scottish, English, Welsh, and Irish members, which places even more importance on the need for progressive supporters of independence to call for an end not only the 1707 Act of Union, but also the British Monarchy and its various institutions and privileges, such as the Privy Council (of which Alex Salmond is a member) and the Crown Powers.
Anything less is to invite the danger of supporting the status quo under a different flag, rather than breaking the Thatcherite consensus that has dominated the political, economic and cultural life of these islands for far too long.
This Thatcherite consensus, by the way, was delivered with the help of the SNP, which back in 1979 tabled the vote of no-confidence in the then Labour government at Westminster, thus paving the way for the snap general election that followed and Thatcher’s entry into Downing Street.
Of course this is one historical event of which Alex Salmond and the SNP won’t be eager to remind the Scottish people.
“On the other hand, if an independent Scotland were to retain sterling as its national currency, it would be in the invidious position of having its interest rates set by the Bank of England. Where would this leave the question of sovereignty? Scotland in this scenario would be entering into a position of economic vulnerability to decisions made by the central bank of a foreign country, much the same as Panama vis-à-vis the United States.”
If it were to join the Euro it would find itself in much the same position.
Sleeping with an Elephant was how Trudeau described the Canadian US experience. It will be much the same for Scotland in relation to England
“Living next to you,” Trudeau told an American audience in a speech to the National Press Club in 1969, “is like sleeping with an elephant; no matter how friendly and even-tempered is the beast, one is affected by every twitch and grunt.”
http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/history-histoire/world-monde/1968-1984.aspx?lang=eng&view=d
Then of course there is Winston Spencer Churchill, the exemplar of that British bulldog spirit responsible for withstanding the might of Hitler’s war machine, the inspiration behind Britain’s survival during the dark days after the fall of France in 1940 and up to America’s entry into the war in 1942. We are all familiar with the stirring speeches, the defiant V For Victory salutes. What is less well known is his role in the gassing of the Kurdish town of Sulaimaniya in 1925.
Tonypandy!
“The Scots are not an oppressed minority”. Couldn’t agree more. There was a financial reason for the Act of Union 1707. This from Wikipedia (of course not always accurate but as a historian this is basic stuff):
“The Darien scheme was an unsuccessful attempt by the Kingdom of Scotland to become a world trading nation by establishing a colony called ‘New Caledonia’ on the Isthmus of Panama in the late 1690s. From the outset, the undertaking was beset by poor planning and provision, weak leadership, lack of demand for trade goods, devastating epidemics of disease and increasing shortage of food; it was finally abandoned after a siege by Spanish forces in April, 1700. As the Darien company was backed by about a quarter of the money circulating in Scotland, its failure left the nobles and landowners – who had suffered a run of bad harvests – almost completely ruined and was an important factor in weakening their resistance to the Act of Union (finally consummated in 1707). Although the scheme failed, it has been seen as marking the beginning of the country’s transformation into a modern nation oriented toward business. Within a generation, Scotland had one of the most advanced commercial cultures in the world.”
Umm.
“When it comes to the tactics employed by the SNP in fighting its independence campaign, reductionist analogies with historical events, such as the Battle of Bannockburn, which bear no relevance to the 21st century, do the Scottish people a great disservice. On the contrary, they open the door to anti-English sentiment, which if carried too far could have dangerous consequences both north and south of the border.”
I could have read a less nuanced version of that paragraph in the Guardian. Its part of the Unionist narrative no one speaking for the SNP has made those connections.
“That Thatcherite consensus, by the way, was delivered with the help of the SNP, which back in 1979 tabled the vote of no-confidence in the then Labour government at Westminster, thus paving the way for the snap general election that followed and Thatcher’s entry into Downing Street.”
Yes, and Francis Maguire abstained; why did both of those things happen? Could it have anything to do with a rigged referendum and the Roy Mason experience.
I think Scotland will disolve the Union not least because “it is felt by many that the SNP have filled the left of centre space in Scottish politics vacated by Labour in the course of its shift to the right under the influence of Blairism.” but not only because of that.
Its also worth considering the rotten, and I do mean rotten, state of the Labour Party in Scotland there is barely a week without a scandal. The BBC are currently not reporting the latest scandal in Glasgow Council to no avail as everyone knows about it. Once again, its Purcell Mark 2.
The Scottish people are fortunate to have a choice in the direction their country takes. The arguments against them choosing independence have yet to be articulated beyond “What about the seat on the Security Council” and “its a big scary world and the UK is great”. It is and its not respectively.
Beyond this discussion is what will be the impact on England of an independent Scotland. In my view it can only be positive.
#5
‘Its part of the Unionist narrative no one speaking for the SNP has made those connections.’
Not true. The SNP propose holding the referendum in 2014 to coincide with the 700th anniversary of Bannockburn.
6. The SNP will hold the referendum in 2014 you show me me where they said it was to coincide with the Bannockburn anniversary and I will stand corrected.
#7
Of course they’re not going to announce it, for that would rebound politically.
The point is they don’t have to. The media have already done the job for them.
Are you seriously suggesting that holding the referendum in 2014 is a coincidence?
“The Scottish people are fortunate to have a choice in the direction their country takes. The arguments against them choosing independence have yet to be articulated beyond “What about the seat on the Security Council” and “its a big scary world and the UK is great”. It is and its not respectively. ”
There is certainly no reason why Scotland could not enjoy independence from her southern neighbours in most matters; I would imagine that the relationship between Scotland and the UK might be not dissimilar to that of Germany and Austria. Economic relations between the two are heavily balanced to the larger, but the smaller enjoys policy independence in non-economic matters and ostensible independence in economic.
We will have the thistle on our eviction notices instead of the Crown,the way
the system is going .
Sorry John that is poor reasoning you cannot point to a single part of the newsprint or broadcast media that is pro SNP or pro independence, the media do not do jobs for the SNP.
If the SNP thought the anniversary connection was a ‘Yes’ vote winner they would trumpet it. They don’t so you can assume it is of marginal significance to their campaign.
Two and a half years is however about the right amount of time to allow the domestic oppossition to collapse and to let the Westminister Unionists shoot themselves in the arse. From the SNP’s perspective its surely so far so good.
You are seriously saying the anniversary determined the date. I’m saying you have no evidence, beyound Unionist commentators in Unionist media, to stand that up. If I’m wrong show me.
#11
I’m sorry, but you’re being obtuse here. Salmond is well aware of the symbolism of 2014. To suggest otherwise is ludicrous. Again, he and the SNP are fully aware that any overt promotion of the connection between the proposed date of the referendum and the 700th anniversary of Bannockburn would rebound politically.
Actually I’m not.
Of course the significance is known to Salmond and loads of others but you cannot show why it should have determined the date of the referendum. To focus on the anniverary would be to undermine the SNP’s vote winning inclusive civic nationalism which is presumably why they are not doing so.
I don’t think the anniverary a significant vote winner, I don’t think the SNP think its a significant vote winner.
If you are saying its a significant vote winner tell us why it is.
Otherwise it looks like you sublimally fell for a bit of propoganda, no shame in that, its why its produced, and feel you cannot row back.
There are good reasons for the timing of the referendum and I have already given you two of them.
Such a coincidence! Rather as though a referendum in Northern Ireland “just happened” to be held on the anniversary of the Battle of the Boyne.
You will have to do better than that. Were I to get the books out I could likely find any number of happy or otherwise historical dates to support one side or another in pretty much any plebisite held at pretty much any date.
Those claiming the SNP chose 2014 primarily because of the anniverary cannot stand their claim up. Sin E.
#13
‘I don’t think the anniverary a significant vote winner, I don’t think the SNP think its a significant vote winner.
If you are saying its a significant vote winner tell us why it is.’
You may not think it is, but the question of whether the SNP do is significant in the date they’ve set out. Again, you’re being obtuse, and I’d say it is you who after setting out an unsustainable position feels unable to ‘row back’.
Symbolism is all in this campaign, and Salmond being the astute political thinker he is has calculated that by tapping into the emotional and atavistic sentiment that exists in Scotland when it comes to Bannockburn he can draw a connection between that event and Scottish independence in the here and now.
I’d say this was self evident.
Evidence not opinion will do the trick. If you have it lets see it. If not I will stop asking for it.
In my view symbolism or emotionalism have counted for very little in this campaign so far. Its all economics, procedure and hard edge legalities apart from Cameron’s idiocy this week.
As far as I can see the Unionists would like a blood and soil campaign and the SNP, wisely, wont play that game.
That’s my last comment on this aspect of your blog.
The SNP have stated that (despite the farce of the first one) they are holding a second homecoming in 2014. Bannockburn – Homecoming – Referendum.
Anybody read Lewis Crassic Gibbons curse on small countries, have it somewhere, not on par with his Glasgow essay,but basically an independent Scotland may not be a nice place and his predictions about the European small countries did come true as they lined up to side with the Nazi’s. The only line I can remember is something like “here is to Communist Murdering Finland”
Plus I have never supported the dismantling of Empires, the trick is to seize control.
Scotland has just one land border, with a nation ten times its size, with which it shares a single economic space. What happens in Scotland will be shaped by what is decided in London. The main question is whether Scottish people will have any say over what is decided in London. If they go for “independence”, presumably they won’t.
One of the reason the SNP voted against the Labour Government was because Labour stabbed them in the back over the 1979 referendum, which Scotland has been feeling effects of ever since, with more than 30 years of Westminster neoliberal policies.
Labour later had the cheek to claim the credit for re-establishing a parliament in Edinburgh and claiming Donald Dewar as “the father of the nation”. Pass the sick bucket.
On Radio Four earlier they were discussing that if england and Scotland were two independent nations with the same currency they would need a name for that currency block.
As all the countries with the Euro are ofttimes called euroland, England and Scotland could be called Poundland.
In terms of economic policy, true. In other matters — which can be quite important — I disagree.
I’ve never been impressed by the argument that unless there is some kind of oppression an electorate cannot vote for their own socialist government.
Just to say,Ireland’s GDP per capita is ahead of the UK’s. So is Iceland’s. And Norway is doing quite nicely I believe.
Iceland credit rating upgraded today -
Iceland debt ‘safe to invest’ after ratings upgrade
BBC
17 Feb 2012
“I’ve never been impressed by the argument that unless there is some kind of oppression an electorate cannot vote for their own socialist government.
Just to say,Ireland’s GDP per capita is ahead of the UK’s. So is Iceland’s. And Norway is doing quite nicely I believe.”
Those are socialist countries in your view? Since Ireland sold itself as a low tax haven and Iceland turned itself into a hedgefund I find your approval for thsoe two states curious.
Those are socialist countries in your view?
- No. Where have I said they are?
Post independence, the Scots will have an 8.4% stake in the Bank of England, and thus have more influence on their policy making than they do now. And in any case, it is not the ‘foreign country’ of England that decides interest rates as the BoE is independent. Only a reckless petulant English government would institute policies deliberately designed to sabotage the economy of scotland, surely? And that is not within the bounds of imagination, is it? Scoptland could always adopt the Kroner.
Your jibe about the monarchy is quite misplaced. The SNP policy is very sensible – one thing at a time, and if there is a demand for a vote on whether to retain the monarchy, the people of Scotland will decide. An obvious spur to do this will be when Queen Camilla and King Charles ascend the English throne.
While the UK is the seventh largest economy in the world, on a per capita basis it lounges between 20th (World Bank) and 27th(CIA Factbook). Scotland would currently lie 6th. The UK is also one of the most unequal of countries, both on and individual basis and on a regional basis.
Andy Newman,
Naughty! ! ! – but accurate!
SA,
The only people I have heard quoting the Bannokburn anniversary are the Unionists. Salmond and Co are far more concerned with the Ryder Cup and the Commonwealth games!
#21
‘One of the reason the SNP voted against the Labour Government was because Labour stabbed them in the back over the 1979 referendum, which Scotland has been feeling effects of ever since, with more than 30 years of Westminster neoliberal policies.’
Well, that act of revenge against Labour was felt by millions of working class people throughout the British Isles during the subsequent 18 years of Tory policies that followed.
#27
‘Your jibe about the monarchy is quite misplaced. The SNP policy is very sensible – one thing at a time, and if there is a demand for a vote on whether to retain the monarchy, the people of Scotland will decide. An obvious spur to do this will be when Queen Camilla and King Charles ascend the English throne.’
Perhaps. But the point remains. How independent would an independent Scotland be while the monarchy remains in place as head of state?
On currency, I can’t see how Scotland can be “independent” in any sense of the word if it were to keep sterling. And I can’t see Westminster allowing this in any case.
Scotland must either have its own currency or join the euro.
If the euro survives and recovers from this current crisis, then I think this is a more likely option for Scotland.
On the queston of the monarchy, While of course socialists are opposed to this institution, its abolition is not a pre-requisite for Scottish independence.
We became a “united kingdom” when a Scottish king took over the English throne, so it’s a Scottish monarchy more than – and certainly no less than – an English one.
If one was being pedantic, it could more justifiably be argued that Scottish independence should result in England, Wales and Northern Ireland becoming republics when the Scots take their monarch home with them.
In all seriousness, if they remain members of the Commonwealth, the Scots will keep the monarch in the same role that other independent Commonwealth nations do.
As a useless piece of trivia as the possibility ok a King Charles has been mentioned. I understand Charles Mountbatton-Windsor intends to take the title HM King George VII
#5 SA
‘The BBC are currently not reporting the latest scandal in Glasgow Council to no avail as everyone knows about it. Once again, its Purcell Mark 2.’
You’ll probably be aware of the rumour doing the rounds about Salmond which, if stood up, will sink him and the SNP. One of the problems of being a one man band I suppose.
Salmond has clearly stated that it is the decision of the party leadership to reject the conference decision calling for a Scottish Republic and support the Monarchy.
QUOTES
The First Minister said: “It is SNP policy to have the Queen as our head of state.
“That union, that United Kingdom if you like, would be maintained after Scottish political independence.
“I think that’s a real stumbling block about putting forward a question of the United Kingdom.”
Asked if that meant Scotland could still be regarded as being in the UK after independence, Mr Salmond said: “I don’t think it’s a very good idea to confuse the issue by talking about united kingdoms when what we’re talking about is political independence.”
34# There have been rumours about Eck since the 79 Group started, they wont surface as it is not in the interest of other politicians or the press who are really quite close.
———————————————–
What did Labour do during those 18 years to defend the working class? Donald ‘pay your poll-tax’ Dewar and Neil ‘let’s all condemn the miners’ Kinnock pretty much sum up the response from that quarter. People blame the Tories for creating a national question in Scotland, or at least making it more acute. But if Labour had offered a lead at any point, and shown some ability to lead resistance, support for nationalism and the SNP would never have grown to the levels it has.
….Scotland joining an arc of prosperity with Ireland, Iceland and Norway was left in tatters when the first two of the aforementioned economies were among the hardest hit due to their over exposure to financial markets.
2012 to 2016 GDP per capita predictions -
Step 5. Report for Selected Countries and Subjects
Iceland Ireland Norway United Kingdom
International Monetary Fund
As if it needs saying, but what happens in an independent Scotland is up to the voters and electorate of an independent Scotland, and has nothing to do with what Alex Salmond or anyone else thinks will happen or wants to happen.
I quite agree Charlie Maguire.
The SNP would be in the political wilderness if it wasn’t for the upper echelons of the Labour Party and their abandoning left-wing policies and left-wing voters.
It’s a real crying shame because there are so many good honest decent people who are Labour members doing their best to turn the leadership around. It’s a thankless task.
I wasn’t hoping for much when Ed Miliband was elected leader but my jaw dropped when I heard him blaming the chronically sick and disabled for the economic crisis, and turning himself into an Atos doctor declaring a disabled person whom he’d never met before in his life, who had been unable to work for 10 years because of their disability, as fit for work. It really doesn’t get any more appalling than that.
John, in your article above, you say England conquered Wales in 1536.
I thought the “union” of England and Wales went back a lot further than that.
Wasn’t it one of the early Plantagenet kings – Edward I in the late 13th century I think – who introduced the “Prince of Wales” tradition?
And wasn’t Wales militarily conquered by Harold Godwinson in the 11th century before he became King? (At a time when “England” hadn’t yet been truly established as a unitary nation state itself.)
I admit my knowledge of Welsh history is a bit sketchy – maybe there were periods of independence between those dates and 1536?
Some interesting comments from Unionist commentators here.
Jim Mc fears a fascist state of which there is no evidence although I do like Lewis Grassic Gibbon.
Jim also also articulates an important if seldom expressed current in British Left thinking “19.Plus I have never supported the dismantling of Empires, the trick is to seize control.” There are two problems with this firstly those subject to Empire are unlikely to be impressed by the change of cap badge and two the Left in the UK has barely learned the trick of seizing control of anything.
John thinks the SNP, and by implication god love him Frank Maguire, should shoulder the blame for 18 years of Thatcherism for not subjecting their own agenda to that of another political party. It puts me in mind of the ‘stab in the back’ that was 1916. An ‘act of revenge’ indeed.
Anon no more decides a bit of implied slander is in order and then, and this is so far from the truth its laughable, says the SNP is a one man band.
Janos struggles with the idea that people might think an independent Ireland is in, and of itself, a good thing.
The business of the two thrones one monarch seems to have confused some people.
Francis thinks Scots will have less control over their own lives post independence having lost their devastatingly effective Westminister representatives. The case supporting that sumise with historical precedent will be something to see.
If there is an arguement that the people of Scotland will be worse off under a post independence Government it has not surfaced here yet.
#40
You’re right, Karl, it was Edward I who conquered Wales. However, it was legally integrated with England by Henry VIII in 1536. I’ll amend the piece to make that clearer.
40. Karl Harold’s campaign although a short term sucess in that he killed his opponent and burned his summer house did not result in English control of Wales.
#41
‘If there is an arguement that the people of Scotland will be worse off under a post independence Government it has not surfaced here yet.’
Likewise, there is no concrete argument being put forward that guarantees Scotland will be better off under the SNP’s vision of independence.
What there is, and what the article points out, are legitimate questions regarding this vision.
#18 Jim McLean I agree, LGG/JLM’s essays (and other references to the issue of independence elsewhere in his novels) should be read and appreciated by all seriously interested in this matter.
However, I say again, the SNP (and all the other organisations supporting) are NOT for independence, they are for “independence in the EU” – an anachronism if ever there was one. Now that is a completely different prospect and therefore, in my opinion, is the basis on which any discussion should/must proceed.
An independent Scotland opens up the opportunity for Scotland to choose a path other than neo-liberalism. Right now government in Scotland, local or national, can do very little other than implement neo-liberal policies from above.
The argument is about democracy. Scottish independence brings democracy closer to the people. That is why it is why progressives should support independence. Furthermore independence is the issue that links all other progressive/social democratic issues together.
‘Perhaps. But the point remains. How independent would an independent Scotland be while the monarchy remains in place as head of state?’
About as independent as Canada?
#41 SA
‘Anon no more decides a bit of implied slander is in order and then, and this is so far from the truth its laughable, says the SNP is a one man band.’
In response to you post #5
‘‘The BBC are currently not reporting the latest scandal in Glasgow Council to no avail as everyone knows about it. Once again, its Purcell Mark 2.’
BTW The rumour, which you’ve no doubt heard, is of recent behaviour and relates to using influence in favour of a ‘friend’.
Others can judge whether or not the SNP is a one man band.
########
#46
‘Scottish independence brings democracy closer to the people.’
Yes we’ll be in control of our lives, won’t we, if a government sits in Edinburgh rather than London?
Apart from interest rates, obviously. They’ll be decided in London, or maybe by the ECB.
Here’s Weegiewarbler with a good analysis of the significance of the McCrone Report and why its publication was suppressed by Wastemonster -
Dissecting the McCrone Report, the official secret of Westminster
Witterings of a Weegiewarbler
13 Jan 2012
It is clear this report was classified as an “official secret”, for to release it would have ended London rule. The pretext was it endangered the state as controlled by the UK parliament, and it had to be crushed prior to any distribution. The reason being, if it became public knowledge then attempts at suppression could easily be argued to violate UN charters on the rights of indigenous populations.
At a minimum, it could/should have lead to an entirely different Scotland today.
In reading the report it is obvious the Westminster government of the day put London before Scotland and chose, in time of peace, to enact legislation designed to protect the state against antagonistic foreign interests.
#46
Not sure what the purpose of that sarcastic comment was. Read my post again. An independent Scotland has the ‘opportunity’ to do many things: scrap trident, power over taxation, increased funding to local government etc.
Part of the process of democratisisng global capitalism involves giving more power to nation states. 21st century nationalism can be progressive.
Just a question, if Scotland votes for independence will the new state take over the shares in RBS and will they have to pay back the cash the UK Govt pumped in? That would bankrupt the new administration from day one.
#44 …there is no concrete argument being put forward that guarantees Scotland will be better off under the SNP’s vision of independence.
- It’s amazing the amount of times it needs to be repeated that the people of an independent Scotland will decide what policies and what government an independent Scotland will have, not the SNP of today.
As for a concrete argument that Scotland will be no better off without Warmonster then read no further than Warmonster’s own findings in the McCrone Report. You can’t get any more concrete or neutral than that.
Thanks for the clarification John, good piece by the way – very thorough. I think the House of Tudor actually originated from Wales, so perhaps the 1536 Act might have been similar to what happened in 1603 perhaps.
And SA, I thought Harold had made the Welsh kings his “vassals” – but I’m not entirely sure and clearly if Edward I also conquered Wales then presumably Harold’s “conquest” must have been undone at some point.
Back to the main point about Scotland, G is absolutely right – Scottish independence opens up progressive possibilities not only for Scots, but, on the “good example” priciple, for us here in England too.
We on the left should firmly support our Scottish neighbours’ push for independence and wish them well.
Perhaps not entirely trivial Andy. Maybe he’s looked at what happened to previous “Charlies” and sees “George” as a safer bet!
“We on the left should firmly support our Scottish neighbours’ push for independence and wish them well.’
Cannot. I support a united Ireland for instance, why would I support a divided Britain ? I’ve yet to read anything to convince me otherwise. To my mind supporting Scottish independence is pandering to sectarianism.
No in the case of Scottish independence the Union in the form of the UK ceases to exist and assets and liabilities are the subject of negotiation, resolution and allocation to the respective successor states.
#39 good point. There is a consensus in favour of these welfare “reforms” and they’re here to stay. It is at least possible that an independent Scotland might have a more humane policy towards the unemployed at least as regards the disabled and might get rid of Atos. If I lived in Scotland I would certainly vote for independence, if only to punish the Westminster political establishment.
#57
Thanks Robert.
Who knows, a consequence of Scottish independence might be that it sets an example in welfare policies which would be difficult for Westminster not to follow.
Of course, the London-centric corporate media have managed to spin Scottish Government policies on the likes of prescriptions and student fees as subsidy junky Scots getting subsidised by hard-working English taxpayers. The usual politics of resentment so beloved of the Westmidden neoliberal elite.
At the moment, and just like the unemployed, the chronically sick and disabled of the UK are facing being forced to work for their welfare or else they’ll have it taken off them. It really is beyond a joke. What next – forcing the sick and disabled to work off the costs of their prescriptions and medical treatments else they’ll have them removed too?
#39, and #57.
The SNp are a centre-right and centre-left coalition which will never challenge the assumptions behind things like welfare reform. In fact a small Scottish state is likely, as Salmond has indicated in the past, its own ‘business friendly’ policies.
Meanwhile one aspect of these reforms is meeting serious opposition, the Work Programme. Protests about unpaid placements, and what will be full-time unpaid workfare for anyone unemployed for over 2 years (Community Action Programme)are gathering pace.
The Boycott Workfare campaign is doing a great job.
They have had an effect, on a range of companies and charities.
The interest in this issue can be followed in the growth of Blogs that take it up.
Ipswich Unemployed Action alone now gets up to 1,000 visitors a day.
#59
The SNp are a centre-right and centre-left coalition which will never challenge the assumptions behind things like welfare reform.
- Too late Andrew, they already have challanged the current planned welfare reforms and, indeed, have rejected them wholesale setting Holyrood on a constitutional collision course with Westminster. That was almost a few months ago now -
MSPs withhold consent from UK Welfare Reform Bill
BBC News Scotland Politics
22 dec 2011
In fact a small Scottish state is likely, as Salmond has indicated in the past, its own ‘business friendly’ policies.
- As has been repreated on this thread and elsewhere, it will be up to the people of Scotland to decide what parties, policies and governments exist and are followed in an independent Scotland .
#50
‘An independent Scotland has the ‘opportunity’ to do many things: scrap trident, power over taxation, increased funding to local government etc.’
Trident wouldn’t be scrapped though, would it?
It would be moved a few miles down the coast.
And we’d have no say at all over it then.
Typical gesture politics from the nats.
‘We on the left should firmly support our Scottish neighbours’ push for independence and wish them well.’
Your Scottish neighbours aren’t pushing for independence.
A minority are pushing.
The turnout for the last Holyrood elections was 50%.
Does that sound to you like we’re pushing for independence?
“Edward I conquered Wales”
To be more precise, Edward I completed the Norman/Anglo-Norman conquest of Wales. His settlemnet of 1284 deals only with the lands of the princes of Gwynedd, not with what we would regard as Wales today.
“think the House of Tudor actually originated from Wales, so perhaps the 1536 Act might have been similar to what happened in 1603 perhaps.”
Henry Tudor’s claim to the English throne was via his mother, Margaret Beaufort. He was first and foremost a Lancastrian (in the dynastic sense). He and his uncle used their Welsh connections to further the Lancastrian cause, not the other way around.
Since the 1536-43 Tudor legislation has been repealed (by the 1993 Welsh Language Act) it’s probably unwise to refer to it as creating ‘a union’!
And has been repeated here and elsewhere, many fear that social democratic policies will be unsustainable within a small independent state in a sea of neoliberalism. In fact, the pressure could equally be towards being *more* business-friendly than their competitors.
Glibly dismissing those genuine concerns, and calling people who express them ‘Unionist’ (with all that implies historically) does no service at all to the cause of independence, which I on balance would actually support in a referendum. It drives away people who are looking above all for stability in a world economy wracked by recession.
The SNP – whose whole reason for existence is Scottish independence – won those elections with a majority of seats and votes.
So yes, it does seem from those elections that Scotland wants independence.
And I think that would be great for the peoples of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Earlier this month a Sunday Times poll indicated:
37% support independence
33% support the status quo
30% support “Devo Max”
So far as I can see the direction of travel favours independence.
When discussing the anglo-Norman conquest of wales the key word is NORMAN.
While Wales was conquered it was as part of feudal dynastic war, at a time when the English crown also extended over much of modern France. And while the Anglo-Norman chivalry and nobility where beginning to identify themselves as a Staatvolk, the concept of modern national identity did not extend to the majority of the population of either Wales or England. The ideological concept of the Norman yoke
Whoops o am on the train and posted that before I finished.
What I wanted to say us that the folklore tradition of the Norman yoke was not entirely an 18th century conceit.
Modern concepts of English and welsh identity draw upon historical sources, but as with all nation building stories they mythologise and impose modern ideology of the nation state onto a different preIindustrial society and one where different social classes did not share the same language and culture within a state.
In a very real sense modern welsh identity grew up contemporaneous with British ness, and the specific nation building ingredients of welsh ness developed into a social and political movement only in contingent circumstances.
That is not to dispute that Wales is a nation in the modern sense today
From what I can gather it is a right wing middle class Christian Fundamentalist surge that is pushing and financing the Independence movement, with the collapse of the BNP and SSP/Solidarity there has been a surge of young lumpen support to the SNP, but it is the act of the desperate who just want to overturn the status quo, we are not witnessing a Tartan Spring.
The question here is how independent would an independent Scotland be and I think the main article if not definitively answering it, certainly goes along way to doing so.
The answer is that the SNP/Salmond idea of independence would most certainly mean something less than true independence. “Independence-lite” as some have called it retains the English/British monarchy. There is no intention to remove the monarchy as head of state. Equally there is no intention to remove the aristocracy or the monarchy from their lands and houses. The intention of Salmond to “play” by Westminster rules means that it has to accept Crown rules and thus the imperatives of the British ruling class, judiciary,military and civil service etc. The SNP’s strategy is based around compromise with the existing order which means winning the support of (or the neutrality of) corporate capital and Scottish business. Most business backers of the SNP’s strategy want to retain the sterling which of course means that the BoE and the City will continue to direct monetary policy.
The SNP has previously taken an interesting position on Westminster’s military debacles. Although nominally anti-Nato it supported the wars in Afghanistan and Libya. SNP spokespersons have happily been photographed in the cockpits of fighter planes at Kinloss airbase and have openly campaigned to retain bases in Scotland. As I understand Salmond is keen to retain three “Scottish” regiments for self-defence but it is unclear what would happen in the event that Westminster went to war again i.e. Falklands. Would said regiments be called upon? Would they have divided loyalties? Don’t forget that many Irish Free Staters served the British army in WW2 and they at least did have a revolutionary phase until 1922.
So in answer to the first question the SNP’s “independence-lite” may not alter a great deal. It is true however that the British ruling class is still deeply concerned about the independence issue. There are all sorts of constitutional issues. If Scotland were to have seats in the European parliament for example or the UN General Assembly how would Westminster feel about this? The compromise therefore that may be acceptable to both sides is Salmond’s “devo-max” which Cameron has implied recently that he is willing to accept. Or a form of. The Scottish parliament would get the power to raise taxes internally and set the agenda for internal policy, whilst however preserving the union and Westminsters control of other policy such as foreign. This may be an acceptable compromise to the US for example. In one sense it is not that different to current Britiish ruling class policy, a sort of devo-all round. Don’t forget that a successful referendum in Wales has now granted legislative powers to the Welsh assembly not disimilar to those of Holyrood. I think it was Enoch Powell who once said that “Power devolved is power retained”. Independence will cause all sorts of anxieties over currency (what happens if the Brits say no you can’t have sterling) but “devo-max” will presumably mean a balancing out of funding with a reduction of spending in Scotland.
“If the objective is a low tax paradise for big business and he likes of Donald Trump, this surely contradicts Alex Salmond’s recent pledge to have Scotland set a progressive example for other nations to follow.”
Not necessarily. Blair/Brown made the UK a good place for the “filthy rich” and hoped the tax take from a loosely-regulated City could fund a ‘progressive’ State spending agenda. It worked quite well, until it didn’t.
A few years ago, Iceland was Salmond’s great exemplar, along with the ‘Nordic Arc’ from Finland and Norway through Iceland to Ireland.
Alas for Alex, Iceland went bust, Ireland are bust, and Scotland’s financial sector ain’t big enough. If they’d got independence 10 years ago, RBS and HBOS would have brought Scotland to its economic knees – Darien all over again. Alex’s best bet is ‘Devo max’ and an even bigger subsidy from the English …
“In contradistinction to its Westminster counterpart, the SNP have refused to introduce tuition fees for Scottish students entering higher education, cancelled all PFI and PPP contracts within the NHS in Scotland, maintained free personal care for the elderly, free bus passes for the elderly (both introduced by Labour), introduced free prescriptions, committed to a five year council tax freeze across all 32 Scottish local councils (though this particular policy isn’t as progressive as it seems at first glance given it has deprived local councils of the ability to invest in local services and jobs, especially at a time of deep spending cuts by central government), and remains committed to ending Trident when and if Scotland wins independence.”
Yes, amazing what you can do when people in the country south of you are subsidising it. An Independent Scotland won’t be able to do that anymore.
The SNP are utterly confused and dishonest. They push the ‘romance’ and pride of Celtic tigerism (but not its costs), and also the lofty self-regard of how well they treat Scots (with English money).
Let’s see what the Scots are willing to spend in the way of public money when it’s finally all theirs that they are spending. If they run their public accounts like they run their banks (the ones Salmond was always chestbeating about beofre the crash), then the Scots economy will go back down the pan pretty quickly.
Scottish Independence may satisfy the tedious anglophobia of some Scots – including, evidently, John Wight. It is unlikely to bring Scotland itself closer to the prospect of a socialist state. On current showing, the Scots will need some other donor to subsidise their ‘proud’ and ‘generous’ society.
Who have you got lined up, John? Will Respect be organisaing a whip-round?
#50 Bollocks! No independence over taxation at all. VAT? Minimum levels dictated by the EU not to mention long term moves within the neo-liberal EU towards tax harmonisation. And what about Ireland, Greece and Italy. Independence? Your having a laugh.
Laban Tall at #71 Explain why “devo-max” would require an “even bigger subsidy from the English”? My concern with so-called devo-max is that it tears up the post-war social democratic concensus (solidarity?) that resulted in the Barnett formula. Thatcher would have just loved to have done that. Oh I remember, Wee Eck is a fan of her!
New Forth Road Bridge
No work for Scots in this billion pound farce.
I will be built by a foreign consortium.
Steel will be produced in China where the Bridge will be fabricated and sent to Scotland.
Being constructed within a few miles of Scotland’s largest Cement works the Cement is coming from Germany.
The majority of Labour will be contract workers.
fffff
aaaaa
rrrrr
ccccc
eeeee
There seems to be a mythical belief that “Scots” are a mono-cultural entity. It’s well known that to the highlander that anyone from the line below Perth is a Sasanach, and it was the Scottish lowlands ruling class that shafted us repeatedly, not the English.
Anyway, us highlanders have a secret weapon. Should Scotland break from Britain into the glorious arms of the EU, and fail to become a socialist motherland ……
We’re offski! Parts of us were Norwegian until 1296, to social democratic Norway we shall return. Leave Scottish rump to the Queen and NATO!
Keep repeating this shortcut to socialism until it works .Socialism in a third of a country, anyone?
Bollocks Heiland Socialist, I’m for the Peoples’ Republic of North Ayrshire!
I’m sure it’s for the SNP to answer these questions and win the argument in front of the people of Scotland. But to me the answer to the question posed in the headline is simply “more than they are now”.
It is the case that they can only choose between two currency unions- a British one or a European one. Currently the terms of the British one are more favourable. But that isn’t a reason to avoid attaining statehood.
In Europe there are alot of linkages between the different states that are managed whilst still having independence (within the EU). I don’t see the “how independent would they really be?” question as being a huge problem or contradiction. There is no definitive independence for any country in the European context and this has been obvious for some time. But there are stages that are more independent than the current union.
Where I agree with John Wight is in the idea that independence has to be substantive when dealing with issues like neoliberalism, austerity and economic policy (or at least those parts of economic policy that won’t be decided by the Bank of England). Within that context there is alot more the SNP could do IF they wanted to as an independent country. It is in their interests to promote the benefits of independence to working class voters in Scotland. If they approach independence from an unpopular position they will not win. If they take up popular and democratic positions they will win. Socialists should not only support self-determination and for Scotland as an entity to decide the question without British interference, but should actively support a ‘Yes’ vote in order to weaken one of the world’s primary imperialist states (whilst accepting this is not necessarily at the forefront of the SNP’s mind or project). Socialists should use their call for a ‘Yes’ vote as a means to promote policies that cut against the grain of neoliberalism, austerity and the permanent reduction of the state’s ability to fend for people. There could be campaigning demands around independence to discuss the kind of post-independent Scotland that progressive people wish to create.
What definitely shouldn’t happen is for socialists to support retaining Scotland in the British state on the basis of disagreeing with something as small-fry as the SNP’s theorised corporation tax policy. That policy would be a matter for the people to decide in elections in Scotland. The idea that the EU wouldn’t allow it to happen might well have basis in fact, but it’s hardly a reason to stop supporting the attainment of statehood for Scotland.
Also despite the quite detailed left analysis of the SNP that has been built up over the past eighteen months in particular, I am not at all persuaded that Labour (in any of its recent Scottish manifestations) was more leftist than them, or that Scotland would be more progressive under a Johann Lamont Scottish Labour government.
For all the discussion about elites and wealthy Scots, it is inescapable that this question will be settled by the mass of the people in Scotland which means working class voters have the most bulk and the most power.
#64
And has been repeated here and elsewhere, many fear that social democratic policies will be unsustainable within a small independent state in a sea of neoliberalism. In fact, the pressure could equally be towards being *more* business-friendly than their competitors.
- So there is nothing to worry about then if Scotland is still neoliberal after independence. Nothing will be lost and nothing will be gained.
But of course, as you fail to supply any references for your fears I assume your claims about fears will be from the usual totally unbiased London-centric sources.
Glibly dismissing those genuine concerns, and calling people who express them ‘Unionist’ (with all that implies historically) does no service at all to the cause of independence…
- I don’t think I’ve referred to any unionists and even if I did, using a label is hardly an argument against the Scottish case for independence from Westminster.
I think someone up the thread mentioned Lewis Grassic Gibbon that great Scottish communist? Or maybe it was mentioned in a socialist magazine (the latest Communist Review – On Culture and Revolution) i was reading tonight over a pint.
Anyway, here’s a great wee video on the Scottish socialist classic “A Scots Quair”, taken from a Morning Star meeting on “Our Class, Our Culture”. (Much more on the ball than discussions about nationalism – class politics is key after all)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRIUXVmJH-A
#64
I hardly think there is anything perjorative in calling people who politically support the union as unionist
80# “Unionist” in Scotland is a term used to describe Protestant Supremacists in certain areas, The term “Republicans” also has religious political connotations. I think it has something to do with the fact we are all unable to see the others point of view.
News to me Jim. The only term I’ve ever heard in Scotland or Ireland for that matter to describe Protestant Supremicists is Loyalist. Now all Loyalists are Unionists but not all Unionists are Loyalists. I don’t know anyone who does not observe the difference. You know what I mean, for example, the Labour Party in Scotland are Unionists but no one thinks they are Protestant Supremicists.
Gotta say your point at .69 is not supported by the evidence of where SNP support is coming from. Its very strong in the bottom two social quartiles and amongst the young. Far too strong for your ‘Lumpen’ arguement to hold true.
Conversely Unionist support is strongest in the top two quartiles among the older and wealthier.
I find the political acrobatics you suggest of BNP members/supporter who are Unionists with strong Loyalist links moving to the inclusive Civic Nationalist SNP to be very unlikely. It isn’t that long ago that the Orange Order in Scotland was calling for a Labour vote a much likelier outcome.
Martin,
The Head of State issue has no bearing on the question of Scottish independence.
Firstly, our monarchy is as much – if not more – of a Scottish institution as an English one. In 1603, the then Scottish king took over the English crown and this created our “united kingdom.”
Secondly, 16 of the 50-odd Commonwealth member states – including Canada, Jamaica and New Zealand – have the Queen as their Head of State, so an independent Scotland which retained the Queen would be no less independent than these nations are.
I’m certainly not advocating this position, just pointing out the fact that it doesn’t compromise independence.
You’re absolutely right on the question of currency however, Scotland cannot be independent of the UK if it keeps sterling. If the Bank of England is its so-called “lender of last resort” then it will dictate Scotland’s interest rates and fiscal policy.
That’s self-evident.
Westminster would not allow a truly independent nation to have sterling in any case – unless all Scotland wants is “independence” along the lines of the Isle Of Man or the Channel Islands.
Scotland must either create its own currency or join the euro – these are the only tenable positions.
As to whether an independent Scotland will move further in the direction of social democracy or slip back to neo-liberalism, well none of us has a crystal ball.
But I think the former is more likely, based on the evidence of the past few years.
And I think this would be a boost for those of us here in England who also want to move in that direction.
Whatever about where Cameron’s hostage statement takes him you need to think about how the Union came about.
It was an agreement between the England and Scotland or at least the ruling class of the two. The legalities of the case begin there and with the two principals. If Scotland breaks the Union the UK is over and assets and liabilities will have to be allocated to the successor states. There are precedents for this in international law and that is how it works. As such no UK referendum could be required or indeed deployed to overturn the results of a Scottish plebiscite.
“Westminster would not allow a truly independent nation to have sterling in any case – unless all Scotland wants is “independence” along the lines of the Isle Of Man or the Channel Islands.”
Sterling is a joint asset not an English one and its a tradeable currency. These things mean Westminister could not deny an independent Scotland the use of it.
Ireland pre Euro pegged the punt against Sterling and had Westminister wanted to stop that it could not have done so.
Karl, the United Kingdom was created over 100 years later, shortly following which the Stewart succession ended to be replaced by a German line from which the current lot are descended. The picture is complicated by the fact that the first serious rebellion against Charles I was by Scots following his attempt to impose the Book of Common Prayer.
John, I think the best model for that is to look at the Catalan dev-max situation. When I was in Brussels (We talking 10 years ago) the Catalan’s had a large regional ‘embassy’ that worked the Commission prising out as many grants as possible, yes they worked with the ‘official’ Spanish team but they pushed an independent line as far as they could. The President of the Committee of the Regions was also a Cat and he used that position almost like an Ambassador would. The MEP’s had a Catalan Group which met across party lines to push a pro Catalan agenda as well as meeting with their own European Party groups and national group.
Even back then the Scottish regions were following a similar approach, they had more staff in Brussels between them than did the three UK embassies.
The UN General Assembly is completely different, it is open to Nation States not dev max regions.
Carl, if the Scots kept stirling then monetary policies would be set by the Bank of England, not Fiscal.
Saying that, theoretically Fiscal policies would be independent BUT if for example the Scots set a deficit budget and issued Govt bonds to pay for it, or for that matter the Westminster did then they could have major implications for the exchange value of Stirling. Ironically that would lead to exactly the type of problem the Euro is having with the Franco-German block calling for fiscal common policies as well as monetary ones.
So the Scots would have a choice, stay in Stirling and see Fiscal policies set, as they would be, by the larger economy to the South, or join the Euro and see Fiscal policies set in Luxembourg. The only independent position would of course be to set up their own currency – The Groat maybe?
The Groat maybe?
The fav at the moment is 100 “bawbees” to the Poon
Vanya, the “united kingdom” was created in 1603 by the asension to the English throne of James VI of Scotland. From this date onwards, there are countless references to “this united kingdom”.
What happened 104 years later was the Act of Union, which merged the two separate parliaments.
This was something much sought by the early Scottish capitalist class, who had suffered heavy financial losses in an ill-conceived attempt to create a Scottish colony in what is now Panama.
It was these Scottish capitalists who actively initiated the Act of Union in order to join forces with their English counterparts the better to exploit the “new markets” opening up in the “new world” and develop the slave trade. It was a business merger and after some initial reluctance, the Engish capitalists saw the benefits of it.
Back to the 17th century and yes, there was a “prayer-book” rebellion, but this was a presbytarianism v high Anglican ecumenical dispute, not an anti-monarchial social revolution.
The revolution of 1642-1649 was a largely English affair, during which the Scots sought to make their own separate peace with the king.
It was English revolutionaries who thwarted this, executed the king in 1649 and declared a republic, after which the Scots crowned the dead king’s son and invaded England in an uinsuccessful attempt to place him on the throne.
As I said, as much a Scottish monarchy as an English one. If anything, historically, it’s been the Scots who have been more consistently royalist than the English.
#81
Exactly AN.
Anyone who thinks “unionist” is a label of abuse is obviously out of their depth in the debate over independence between Scotland and RUK, the Rest of the UK.
Unionists are quite happy to be called that by name and even incorporate it into the title of their political parties, even calling their political unions between the various parts of the British Isles after it.
If anyone is interested, here is some more stuff on the 1975 suppressed McCrone report, as well as another suppressed cabinet document from 1997 -
McCrone Report and Oil
Another side of Lesley Riddoch
18 Feb 2012
McCrone DeJa Vu
Auld Aquaintance
09 Feb 2012
Good links Joe and well worth a read. The second one had passed me by, very intriguing. Thanks for posting it.
Alex Salmond must have dreamt of the day his name would be chanted by Celtic fans.
Well his dream came true today.
Though maybe not the way he’d hoped for.
All together now:
‘ALEC SALMOND,
YOU’RE A WANKER, YOU’RE A WANKER
ALEC SALMOND,
YOU’RE A WANKER, YOU’RE A WANKER’
#95
Yes, Salmond’s intervention in support of Rangers was ill advised. During their game on Saturday at home against Kilmarnock a packed Rangers crowd spent the match singing banned sectarian songs.
It really does defy belief how this ‘institution’ hasn’t already been banned. Is this the progressive example that Alex Salmond had in mind when he trumpeted independence in England recently?
Jim #74 “Explain why “devo-max” would require an “even bigger subsidy from the English”? “
I think Salmond recognises that a fully (i.e. economically) independent Scotland would struggle to fund from its own resources the health and education goodies the SNP are handing out – not at least without hefty tax increases. So his best option is to try and get more control over spending while keeping the Barnett cash coming in and if possible squeezing even more out of Westminster.
No ethnic or linguistic group needs its own state. What we need is international socialism. Focusing on anything else is just a waste of time.
84# Thats the Problem, we knock (knocked) around with different people, in different areas and probably a different generation.
The political voice of the Loyalists in my home town was the voice of the Progressive Unionists who played a major part in local politics.
#100 In Scotland?
101 Talking about early 60′s west coast Scotland, not the present or earlier NI similar named organisations. Now merged with Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party. Then again the area of Scotland where I was raised was one of the Belfast without Bullets towns although a lot of my views are based on retrospective observations.
Oh fair play on that Jim, but my point still stands all Loyalists are Unionists but not all Unionists are Loyalists. People know the difference between the two.
97. You have not a shred of evidence to support that view.
103# Oh fair play on that Jim, but my point still stands all Loyalists are Unionists but not all Unionists are Loyalists. People know the difference between the two.
accepted wholeheartedly, while many people I know in the Labour Party would recoil at the thought of being classed a Unionist, as members of a party opposing “separation” they are de facto unionists. So in the referendum debate I accept the use of the term unionist as a legitimate one.
#104 Given that recoil, given the main reason for it is probably that it has connotations with Ireland, and that a fair few of these said Labour Party people will be of RC extraction, added to which Ireland and Scotland are different places (in more than one sense) would that not suggest that “unionist” is not a very useful term in this context?
Karl Stewart #92 If you read further back up the thread I did mention the whole Darien (Panama) colony attempt earlier. In the region of a quarter of Scotland’s wealth was wiped out in 1700 and so to the Scottish Lowland Capitalist class the Act of Union and complete involvement in the English/British capitalist project was an excellent idea. The Highland Clearences whilst supported by the English were largely orchestrated by Scots lowlanders and their supporters such as the Campbells: the intention of course being to remove any obstacles to the expansion of capital. Anyway the point of all this is to show that unlike that which took place in Ireland in the same period the Scots by and large were not oppressed for being Scots and in many cases were better imperialists than many English. Likewise I agree with the points you make about the Scottish state in the seventeenth century. In the same vein whilst not entirely relevant to this debate (although monarchy is a medieval institution) despite the William Wallace/Bannockburn/Mel Gibson nonsense even a cursory look at relationships between both kingdoms shows that Scotland was often invading southwards just as much if not more so than the English were going north i.e. Battle of the Standard, Battle of Flodden etc.
Unionist is, or was, a term of art in British politics.
It refers, or used to refer, to those who were against Irish home rule.
Scottish nats now use the word to refer to anyone who disagrees with them. They are particularly fond of using the word when addressing those Scots of an Irish Catholic background, the agenda being fairly obvious.
If the word can be degraded this far then perhaps we should continue the process and use it to include those who are in favour all forms of political union eg the EU.
“Cancelled all PFI and PPP contracts within the NHS in Scotland” – which will be news to anyone employed in Edinburgh Royal Infirmary , Wishaw General Hospital , Hairmyres General Hospital etc etc – The SNP came into power with a promise rto abandon PFI / PPP – they have reneged on it. Their much vaunted Scottish Futures Trust just became a vehicle for rebadging PPP…
The SNP are currently consulting on breaking up Scotrail – which will be very good news for Brian Soutar who’s bus monopoly is the beneficiary of changes in subsidies from local to long distance bus travel …
Chris #98 asserts that only international socialism matters, which is somewhat simplistic, however I do feel that there is a kernel of truth in what he is driving at. Lets be clear the working class are a part of the people of a nation, but the people are not soley working class, so to use the two inter-changeably is wrong. The people of Scotland include the middle classes and the upper classes, the landowners, the aristocracy, the military and so on. Their interests are not the same as the working classes.
As far as I can see the whole independentist project is a Scottish middle class strategy dressed up with some superficial social democratic policies designed to undercut the Labour Party. The Scottish NATIONAL Party is attempting to do what such political groupings always do which is to convince workers to support them whilst retaining control and the direction of their nationalist and sometimes mythological project. Just as the Scottish middle class walked openly into Union they are now (or at least some) trying to walk out of it. Does anyone think that if the SNP get their way, especially if independence/devolution-max leads to less Westminster funding that the SNP will do anyhting for the residents of Easterhouse etc? A lot of this strategy revolves around saying that supporting the SNP means getting rid of the Tories. I don’t think you can defeat the Tories and the class they represent by running away and playing with your toys in a smaller sandpit. Nor do I think that you can increase working class combativity by openly helping to create new capitalist states. In fact linking working class activity to nationalism runs the risk of reducing combativity.
I don’t agree with the strategies that the SWP/SSP/TS etc. seem to have adopted recently. These seem to revolve around support for Indepedence on the basis that it will irretrievably damage the British ruling class. For the reasons discussed above I am not convinced, although you do wonder whether some on the Scottish left are thinking that further devolution or independence will enable them to get nice jobs in Holyrood.
No it would not, Unionist is a political identity if refers to a historical political current that believes that the nations of Britain and Ireland should be subject to Unionist Governance or putting it bluntly, it cannot be otherwise because of the numbers, English dominance. The fact that Unionism had to fight hardest in Ireland does not make it a purely Irish phenominon, plainly it is a very British one. Indeed the creation of a British identity is a direct product of Unionism.
So in using the term Unionist in the Scottish debate we are being precise doing no violence to either history or popular useage.
The Conservative and Unionist Party was in living memory the most popular party in Scotland, Labour’s journey to Unionism has been slower but its fair to say they have been Unionists for at least a quarter century. The Lib Dems are Unionists too. In a debate about Scottish independence we can use no other word than Unionist to characterise their shared political stance.
Oh and what recoil?
107. Yes we could refer to European Unionists although they lack the long pedigree of British Unionists. Yes I can see how uncomfortable it might be if you grew up singing Kevin Barry to find yourself championing an increasingly unpopular Union. But there is a cure for that and its not the banning of the word Unionist from the discourse.
John Grimshaw I suggest you read Cameron’s speech on defence of the Union it sets out precisely what the British ruling class fear to lose in the event of Scottish independence. After you have done so you can drop him a line and put his mind at ease by telling him there is nothing to worry about.
What Cameron did not say, though its well recognised, is that the likely effect of Scottish independence on England is a direct threat to the British ruling class’s interests.
You need to get over the idea that an independent Scotland must be a poorer place. There is no good evidence for that beyond the myth that England pays for everything beloved of the media. It does not, Scotland is a net contributor to the UK economy.
Check out Tim Monthomerie in today’s Guardian.
Like most strategically inclined Tories he is relaxed about Scottish independence because he knows well that the constitutional arrangements on offer will not materially affect the production relations in Scotland except,in the case of the SNP’s scenario, to locate more of the key decisions to the EU and European central Bank bureaucracies.
This discussion would have more of a point if the various protagonists would come up with an explanation of how the project for changing Scotland’s constitutional relationship to the United Kingdom relates to the conquest of political and state power by the working class. In doing so they should perhaps give some consideration to what might be the reaction of the British state and the British ruling class as a whole (including its disproportionatally large Scottish element) if the working class of a 6 million strong nation were to attempt to take state power independently of a parallel movement within the existing UK state framework.
# 68
There’s nothing mythological about Offa’s Dyke! A boundary not between Wales and England but between “y Cymry” and ‘y Saeson’.
One Brythonic/Welsh national myth can be traced back to Gildas in the 5th century – Welsh loss of sovereignty of the island of Britain due to the misdeeds of our kings… According to Welsh medievalist RR Davies, during the Elizabethan age (and following disillusionment with the Tudors) the Welsh would congregate to bemoan their loss of sovereignty in the old sense.
Can you point me to where the SWP has said this? Ta.
“But while we support the “devo max” option being included on the ballot paper, we should vote for full independence. Why? Because Britain is a major imperialist power that still wants to be able to invade and rob other countries across the globe.
“A clear yes vote for independence would weaken the British state and undermine its ability to engage in future wars.”
From this article on the 21 January:
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=27213
I only know this because been reading all the Left’s views on the developing discussion on Independence. But I have not had the time to intervene in this thread but my views are know elsewhere
‘Yes I can see how uncomfortable it might be if you grew up singing Kevin Barry to find yourself championing an increasingly unpopular Union.’
I don’t feel uncomfortable about it at all.
Maybe because I have more than a superficial understanding of the issue.
Scots from an Irish Catholic background have for generations supported Irish home rule and have seen no contradiction between that stance and wanting Scotland to remain as part of the UK. The wish to see Scotland remain in the UK was at least through fear of what life would be like for them in an independent Scotland. Don’t forget that one of the main drivers for the formation of the SNP was that Scottish nationalists regarded the influx of Irish Catholics as a threat to the Scottish race.
There’s a reason why people still refer to the SNP as Soon No Papes, or Strictly No Papes.
And the SNP’s actions and pronouncements in office have rekindled suspicion of them.
“And the SNP’s actions and pronouncements in office have rekindled suspicion of them.”
Umm, yet polling shows that the SNP have greater support than Labour among Scottish Catholics. That suggests that Scots of Irish Catholic descent have decided that they like the SNP’s civic nationalism almost as much as they dislike Unionist neo liberalism.
There is your dilemna what you say about Catholic fears was once true but it isn’t anymore.
“A clear yes vote for independence would weaken the British state and undermine its ability to engage in future wars.”
‘A clear vote for independence would strengthen the English state and would bolster its ability to engage in future wars.’
One statement is as valid as the other.
#117′Umm, yet polling shows that the SNP have greater support than Labour among Scottish Catholics.’
Not since the Holyrood election.
‘what you say about Catholic fears was once true but it isn’t anymore.’
When did it stop being tue?
KrisS #114. I was about to answer but Jimmy Haddow seems to have got there before me.
This is quite interesting
http://www.scottishelectionstudy.org.uk/docs/Mitchell_slides.pdf
Talking to people in the Labour Party in Scotland I think the SNP will get most of the Catholic vote.
As to when Catholics began to realise the SNP might prove to be an acceptable use of a vote I think its been a long process. The first stirrings I noted were in 1977 by the mid 80s it was a real current. Now I would say its verging on orthodoxy – why wouldn’t you vote for them sort of thing. There are lots of factors in the mix to account for this shift but it would take a lot to reverse it.
I can’t see any “irretrievably” in there, meself like.
122~~~ semanitics, me thinks
KrisS. So you agree with me!