An Independent Scotland? Well, Maybe

I am, generally, quite an opinionated person. As a rule around my family dinner table, if you can think of a topic, Simon will have an opinion or a piece of knowledge on the subject (or at least he’ll think he has a piece of knowledge on the subject). Like all things, my opinions are very much subject to change; ask me what I think about something on a Monday, and you may not receive the same answer as you would on a Wednesday. Every article I read, every book I finish, every television programme I watch, every scrap of information I glean from the vast multitudes of the Information Highway warps and reshapes my views, changing them irrevocably from what they were before. Until tomorrow, that is, when I’ll learn something new, and go back to what I thought yesterday. Despite this, I’m never shy about putting what I think out there, whether in conversation, on my blog, or on Twitter. Except…

On the 18th September 2014, the question will be asked. The Big One. Yes or No. For or Against. Everyone has an opinion, at least everyone who lives in this 1/4 of the Isle (although technically we’re a 1/3 of the Isle, as Northern Ireland is on a different island, and we’re probably not even a 1/3 of the landmass, but I don’t have the geographical wherewithal to be any more technical). It is discussed everywhere, in households, on the telly, in the newspapers, in pubs. Perhaps more important to the armchair pundit than their own opinion, is your opinion. What do YOU think, Simon? What do you think?

“I, uh, well, I, uh…” Is pretty much where I get to with an answer, recently. I used to be able to argue about the values (or the lack of them) of a Scotland independent of the Westminster government for hours on end, and have done in the past. I was, and to some extent I still am (deep breaths kids) A Unionist. I know, I know. Get your tomatoes and rotten cabbages out. I can take that, but please refrain from dressing in kilts and painting your faces for the duration of this post. We’re trying to raise the tone of the discourse here. You! Put that bagpipe down. I can see you back there.

While that last part is sort of (vaguely. Go on, give me vaguely!) amusing, it does incorporate a part of the independence debate, the effects the Union has had on Scottish identity. Which in itself is the wrong terminology. It should be Scottish identities. To suggest there is a singular definition of a Scot, that a person from Ayrshire has the same culture identity as a person from Glasgow, who has the same cultural identity as a person from Fife, is ridiculous. Differences in culture can occur in such small a distance as the next town over, that to try and amalgamate them into a definitive Scottishness is just as peculiar as to insinuate that there is some great struggle between the concepts of Scottishness and Britishness. Perhaps it is an over-simplification on my part, but I have no such worries. I am both Scottish and British, thanks very much.

Although, I must admit, it is that British part that has come to trouble me of late. It has nothing to do with an anti-English sentiment, or anything of the kind; the SNP, for their part, should be praised for keeping this debate on Nationalism firmly inclusive, not based on prejudicial jibes and arbitrary squiggly lines drawn on a map. It is an integral part of their campaign that the definition of a Scot in this debate is not someone with an accent, an unnatural affinity for fried goods, or even someone born here, but merely anyone who happens to be a permanent resident in this country right now. Rather, it has everything to do with the politics of our island, and the social contract therein, or more accurately the slow breakdown of that social contract.

Sometimes the party you voted for does not win an election. This is an integral part of the democratic process and should be treasured. The last Labour government did not win re-election because they presided over the biggest financial fuck-up, ever. The Liberal Democrats didn’t win because, well, they’re Liberal Democrats. They’re not very good at winning. Or government. Or curtailing the Conservative leanings of this present government. Or, it would seem, anything, really. The Conservatives did not win either, technically, but acquired a minority-majority (whatever that is) and rightly were given the chance to form a coalition government. That’s fine. Tory is more of a swear word than Cunt north of the border, ever since their complete electoral annihilation in Scotland and that nasty Poll Tax/destroy-your-manufacturing-sector-and-economical-self-confidence thing, but the people of Scotland had just about come to terms with the fact that a Conservative government we didn’t want would take power at some point. We live in a free democratic country, and that’s just what happens.

What’s more troubling is the manner of this Conservative government, arguably one of the most savage in history. A complete change, most say for the worst, in education policy. The commercialisation of the NHS. The Bedroom Tax. Disabled people being forced into work they’re not suited for by private contractors whose only thought is for profit, not wellbeing. By and large,a lot of these changes do not affect Scotland because of our devolved parliament, but there is a fear that these ideas may slip, quietly and insidiously, across the border and into our system if they are given legitimacy. Be crippled financially and socially by going it alone? You’re doing that to England and Wales already.

More important to our social contract is the rise of UKIP. The United Kingdom Independence Party has no base, whatsoever, in Scotland. In the recent English local council elections they commanded around 25% of the vote. With the devolved parliament in Scotland led by a left-wing, progressive party with inclusive and forward thinking views on equality, immigration, the green economy, to name but a few, how can this seemingly inexorable slide towards hard-right policies in England be reconciled? All the signs seem to point that, if Scotland forged ahead into the unknown, we would eventually become a progressive nation with more in common, in terms of a social contract, with Norway, Denmark, Sweden, than we do at the moment with England. That’s even before we get on to the subject of Europe, which Better Together tells us we’d most definitely obviously not be allowed to join straight away if we became independent. Don’t go it alone! They won’t let you in! Despite the fact that staying within the UK is seeming more likely every day to guarantee our exit from Europe, thanks very much Conservative party. Socially and economically speaking, of course. They aren’t about to hook a big cable onto us and tow us further out into the Atlantic. Although they’d probably try it, given half a chance.

On the economic side of the argument, I don’t know very much about GDP’s and national debts, but from what I can gather nobody really knows what would happen. We might be better off, we might be worse off: more than likely we’d stay pretty much round about where we are. And herein, dear reader, lies the rub. In lieu of any side, Yes Scotland or Better Together, having a definitive plan for what will happen after the referendum, factions on both sides have inevitably opted for blatant scaremongering. If we vote No, Westminster will see it as a mandate to ignore us, we’ll be sidelined from power, from Britain, from history. If we vote Yes, we’ll be bankrupt within a year, the oil will run out, they’ll never let us into Europe and we’ll be treated as an “enemy power” (like in some crap BBC3 drama series) by England and the United States. Don’t vote no, you’ll die. Don’t vote Yes, or you’ll, well, die.

My view, as it stands, is that the social contract, frayed and creaking as it is, can be fixed. Much the same as my view on Europe, the world is getting smaller, thanks to the internet and there just being too many of us. To fracture apart and become insular while the rest of the world works together and becomes better connected simply isn’t the way forward. But does that have to mean staying as we are? Would a Britain made up of four independent nations, striving together towards shared goals and aspirations, be better? A mini-EU on our islands? Or is it more worthwhile simply to forget the concept of independence? We are not, by means, a country under the yoke of a foreign power. Should we be using up valuable time and money on a debate on the independent nature of Scotland, and instead be soldiering ahead with plans to redefine the social contract of our nation so it is better for all, using this inertia to fix Britain and push ahead as a single entity? Is there even anything there to fix anymore?

The short answer is, I don’t know. I’m not sure many people do. I can tell you how I might vote if the referendum were tomorrow, not how I might feel in a years time. A clearer set of terms on what will happen depending on which way we voted would help enormously. Political parties trying to scare us, and therefore treating us as idiots, to voting in the direction they want us to vote. won’t. They might push us in the complete opposite direction. What this requires is a highly intelligent, highly accessible means of discourse so both sides can be seen with clarity, and then for all the politicians, campaigners and commentators to get out of the way so that we can decide on our own.

So, from all of us, to all of you, our sincerest thanks: but just fuck off, will you?