Issue 19: 2015 09 10: Notes from North of The Wall

10 September 2015

Notes from North of The Wall

by Antoninus

‘If the Scots want independence, let them go.’ How many saloon bar conversations have included this glib judgement over the last few years? The truth is, notwithstanding the unremitting noise of Scottish nationalists, most Scots have never said they want to leave the Union. In our 2014 referendum 45% voted ‘Yes’ for independence on a turnout of 85%. In other words, only 38% of the electorate could be bothered to both vote and say they want to be separate. On a lower turnout for Westminster in May, a whisker under 50% voted SNP, again about 38% of the electorate. Nationalists claim it’s the proportion of voters that counts. But on such an existential issue shouldn’t most citizens vote to separate before it happens?

‘It’s the economy, stupid.’ Clinton said it, Salmond came to regret it. Second-guessing people’s motives for voting is a dangerous game. But polling evidence suggests referendum ‘No’ voters were heavily influenced by scepticism about the SNP’s economic assumptions in ‘Scotland’s Future,’ their prospectus for independence. They were sceptical about the assumption of an oil price to bankroll an independent Scotland (an average $113 barrel – it currently languishes under $50). They were sceptical that a separate Scotland could continue to use sterling. They were sceptical that EU entry would be a done deed. And they were sceptical of much else, including claims about the division of UK assets post-independence. An independent Scotland would be viable. But it would be much poorer than it is as part of the United Kingdom. A year after the referendum it is difficult to see how the economic fundamentals could change in the foreseeable future to make a separate Scotland the vibrant economy nationalists claim it would be.

‘Scotland is different.’ Well, yes, up to a point. But Cornwall is different from Tower Hamlets, Manchester from Cumbria. We should rejoice in that diversity. Nationalists exaggerate existing differences and create new ones so they can say ‘See, we have nothing in common with them.’ As this is written, our first minister is arguing at the Edinburgh television festival that the BBC should become ‘federal,’ with a separate board and more funding (of course) for Scotland. This rows back from earlier SNP demands for a Scottish Broadcasting Corporation controlled by the Scottish parliament and thereby, at present at least, the SNP. Never mind, the demand will be rejected as it should be, and will become transformed into the nationalists’ other great weapon – the grievance. In the meantime, all our railway stations and many road signs are having Gaelic versions of the place names added at considerable expense, notwithstanding that Gaelic is spoken by only 1.1% of the population in a small part of the country. So limited is knowledge of the ancient tongue that it has taken several years to discover that the Gaelic sign greeting visitors to the Isle of Bute in fact welcomes them to ‘Penis Island.’

‘Peaceful, inclusive, civic and democratic’ is how modern nationalists describe their nationalism. But scratch the surface and a nasty streak of chauvinism often lurks. A recent graphic circulating on social media said

Those who voted ‘NO’:

betrayed the people of Scotland;

betrayed the very idea of Scotland itself;

TRAITORS.

That’s the 55% of those of us who voted ‘No.’ And the unpleasant proportion of nationalists who write this stuff mean it. Challenged, they will reference not only dictionaries but events and documents dating back seven centuries or more. A self-styled ‘Scottish Resistance’ group on Facebook has over 7,000 members, proportionately equivalent to 82,000 people in the UK. One of our new SNP MPs, Dr Paul Monaghan, recently tweeted ‘Westminster becoming absolutely repugnant. Increasingly feels like early days of the Third Reich.’ Hmm. However dressed up, nationalism is not a benign force.

So what about ‘the rest of these islands,’ a phrase conjured up by our current first minister Nicola Sturgeon to avoid mentioning Britain or the United Kingdom? Sometimes referred to as ‘rUK’ (the rest of the UK), it would be significantly diminished by the loss of Scotland – although not as diminished as Scotland itself. An international border would appear north of Carlisle and Berwick-upon-Tweed. It would be a real barrier if they pursued different immigration policies from the UK, as they say they would. North of that border, defence against unfriendly incursions would no longer be a matter for the RAF and Royal Navy but for the sixteen fighter planes, two frigates and assorted smaller craft which ‘Scotland’s Future’ posited as the basis for Scottish defence. And in the land of eating cake and having it, an independent Scotland would still (the SNP say) be a member of NATO but would not have nuclear weapons in its territory. And so it goes.

Already there is talk in Scotland, including from significant SNP politicians, of a second referendum. This despite assurances in the Edinburgh Agreement of 2012, signed by Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon, that the 2014 referendum would ‘deliver a fair test and a decisive expression of the views of people in Scotland and a result that everyone will respect.’ Throughout the referendum campaign Alex Salmond repeatedly referred to it as a ‘once in a generation opportunity.’ It seems that time itself is speeding up as the SNP forget the result they said they would respect.

We live in interesting times in Caledonia.

 

Follow the Shaw Sheet on
Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedin

It's FREE!

Already get the weekly email?  Please tell your friends what you like best. Just click the X at the top right and use the social media buttons found on every page.

New to our News?

Click to help keep Shaw Sheet free by signing up.Large 600x271 stamp prompting the reader to join the subscription list