As the Scottish independence referendum draws closer, I’ve come to realise that I actually don’t mind massively either way who wins. Which isn’t at all to say that I don’t care about the issues – it’s just that I think it’s in many ways a close decision with a huge number of unknowns. Ahead of considering the specifics, I instinctively favour people coming together in common cause rather than breaking apart, and my politics are the politics of solidarity – I think, in an ideal world, the people of Glasgow (for example) should be finding common cause with the people of Newcastle, Liverpool and Sheffield rather than cutting themselves adrift from them, and they have much more in common with the people in those cities than they do with the people of Perthshire, Stornoway or Banff. And while I’m not a patriot of any stripe, I rather like being part of the nation that produced Charles Darwin, Isaac Newton, David Bowie, the Suffragettes, the NHS, trade unionism, Fawlty Towers and A Bit of Fry and Laurie AND being part of the nation that produced David Hume, James Clerk Maxwell, Keir Hardie, Alexander Fleming, James Connolly, Teenage Fanclub and Armando Iannucci. So my emotional default will always be in favour of maintaining the unity of Britain. On the other hand, and on an extremely petty level, anything that will disturb and diminish the sorry and corrupt political establishment that we have today can’t be all bad, and a legacy for David Cameron - who I utterly loathe to an extent I find difficult to put into words – as the prime minister who lost Scotland is one I’d enjoy on that same petty level. But, more positively, I also think it would be genuinely fascinating to see how an independent Scotland would shape up. I think it would – at least potentially - provide an exciting opportunity to shape a new and more egalitarian state that could inspire the rest of Britain (an old colleague of mine puts the case as well as I’ve seen it put: newstatesman/politics/2014/08/i-hate-bagpipes-i-hate-kilts-ive-changed-my-vote-no-yes). However, in reality I doubt very much that will happen. For one thing, I think at least in its initial stages independence will be fraught with difficulty – you can’t easily dismiss the warnings of the likes of Paul Krugman (nytimes/2014/09/08/opinion/paul-krugman-scots-what-the-heck.html?_r=0) or even Paul Mason (blogs.channel4/paul-mason-blog/measure-big-indyref-risks/2311) – and this is likely to severely hamper the ability to do some of the big daring things some independence supporters appear to be hoping for. And that’s assuming the political will is there, which I’m not actually convinced it is – I suspect that the political centre of gravity of an independent Scotland might drift somewhat rightwards from where it is now, particularly as many of those quite happy to vote for the Salmond who cheerfully cosies up to Murdoch, Trump and Souter seek a new post-independence political home. If anything, my main problem with the Yes campaign is that it hasn’t been bold enough. If they’d been selling a vision of a wholly independent Scottish democratic republic then that would have piqued my interest greatly, and might even have been the sort of thing I could consider getting on board with. But instead they want to keep the ridiculous and outdated symbol of inherited privilege that is the monarchy and they want to keep using a currency based in London, which by its nature means losing a good deal of the autonomy that’s supposedly so precious. Bizarrely, a certain strand of the Yes campaign has been along the lines of “vote Yes, and don’t worry, we’ll continue along just as before”. And in fact, given that there’s already a Scottish parliament, I’m actually not sure that too much *would* radically change in an independent Scotland in the long term, whereas the rest of the UK could well notice the adverse effect of losing Scottish MPs. But to the extent that things won’t carry on pretty much as before, I think it’s literally impossible to confidently predict ahead of time whether this will be for better or worse, and anyone who claims otherwise is full of it. Which brings me on to my final point – the quality of argument during the campaign itself has been appalling and a bit depressing, with both sides indulging in their fair share of scaremongering, wild speculation, evasion and pulling ‘facts’ out of thin air. The No campaign claims that an independent Scotland will be reduced to a third world nation, its citizens living in slums, the Yes campaign counters that in 6 months the UK will be a fascist state governed by Nigel Farage and the reanimated corpse of Enoch Powell. Or there’s “vote Yes, and soon it will cost you £10 for a loaf of bread in Asda!” or “vote No and the villainous English will steal all our oil and Boris Johnson will soon be raising the flag of St George above Holyrood!” (I exaggerate only slightly with these examples.)_ As soon as anyone on the other side, however insignificant, says something provocative or offensive it’s jumped on and circulated furiously, as if to say “Look! This is exactly what everyone who disagrees with me thinks!” In many ways, it’s reminded me of nothing more than the equally terrible AV referendum campaign, with both highlighting the contempt in which the political classes (on all sides) hold the general public. So my main feeling, to be completely honest, is that I’ll be glad when this is all over and settled one way or the other. I’m feeling increasingly sure that it will be a “no” vote, and possibly a more convincing one than is being predicted (if I had to make a guess, I think I’d say it will be about 54-46 to No). I’d like to think that, whatever happens, it will be seen as a watershed moment, with genuine, positive reform stemming from it, and this seems at least possible. But - and apologies if this sounds overly downbeat – at least equally possible is that, whatever the outcome of the vote, nothing much will really change.
Posted on: Fri, 12 Sep 2014 14:02:07 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015