Since devolution was first introduced I think the Scottish parliament has worked quite well. They have been able to run the country’s affairs efficiently and, importantly, make changes to the legal system that have been decades, an often centuries, overdue: in fact one of the first acts of parliament was to abolish the archaic feudal tenure arrangements. Above all we have had some sort of buffer to the usual idiocy that is generated from Westminster. So could Scotland successfully run all of its own affairs? Of course it could. However, like leaving home for the first time, whilst the freedom of independence would be wonderful, paying all the bills and doing one’s own housework is something of a bind. The devolution agreement, so long as the split in duties is appropriate, strikes me as a rather good idea.
The problems I find with the Union are not to do with the UK as such – I rather like the concept – but with the democratic deficit that is created by Westminster. The SNP often phrase this in terms of Scotland being lumbered with a Tory government but it is quite probable that you will get a government that you don’t vote for: that is the nature of an evenly balanced elective democracy. In fact those that are under-represented at Westminster are the 20% of Scots who vote Conservative who typically get next to no representation whatsoever regardless of the government of the day. They do get represented at Holyrood and, whilst I might not agree with them, they have made a valuable contribution and have ensured that their constituents’ views are aired. To add to the lack of lower house representation at Westminster the upper house is completely unelected and mostly made up of grace and favour friends of the elite and those that have bought themselves into power. In short it is an anachronistic relic of a failed imperial state.
So my preference would be to reform Westminster: make the elected MPs truly representative, replace the House of Lords with something approaching democratic accountability and devolve power down to the English regions so that they can enjoy the kind of local accountability that we do. After that we can see what additional powers would be best devolved to Scotland and what we are better off sharing with the rest of the UK. Except I don’t get a box to cross for that and the options are either to go it alone with all the uncertainty that comes with that or to chance it with the bunch of shysters who usually run the UK. It’s not an easy choice. In fact it’s a bloody awful one. I‘m not going to say which way I’m voting because I believe that future harmony is better served by everyone abiding by a secret ballot but ultimately my vote is one amongst millions and whichever way the result comes in on Friday morning it is the one I will have to live with. So how do I feel about that?
A Yes vote on Friday morning is the result I am a probably a bit more apprehensive about. It’s not so much to do with the Independence decision itself but there will be several years of uncertainty about how the whole arrangement would work. For all the telling of economic gloom and doom, I don’t really see this as a long term problem. Scotland is, by and large, a well-educated and well-skilled country with a variety of industries and whilst some sectors may dwindle or relocate there are plenty of others who are tied by location (e.g. tourism and whisky) or leading in their fields (engineering and video games spring to mind) and many others could be attracted by what the country has to offer. Having travelled around Europe there are many other countries with a similar population who have a very good standard of living – even those with a much lower GDP. There is always the oil as well but I’d rather that wasn’t part of the equation. With the possible exception of Norway (who have invested rather than spent their oil money) I don’t think economies based of fossil fuel resources are particularly nice places to live. Whilst there may be vast prosperity for the few there is often little hope and even resentment amongst the poorer in society. I suppose the lesson is that money can’t buy you happiness – then again, poverty can’t buy you anything.
If the vote is a No to independence then in a way it is business as usual. We have been promised “extra powers” but as of yet we have to see what that actually entails. I rather suspect that it will be things that London can either not be bothered with, don’t want to pay for or those things that they regard as a poison chalice to be thrust upon whichever devolved parliament is daft enough to take them. We will, presumably, get more tax altering powers but I suspect that this will not be anything that is likely to give any sort of competitive advantage to Holyrood. On the plus side there are a multitude of things that I really couldn’t be bothered with having to change and I rather like the idea that family and friends wouldn’t be calling me a bloody foreigner! I think the key thing with a No vote is to see Westminster reform – they have had a fright with the independence vote but I don’t think that will cure them of their arrogance. I can’t see it being the end of the Scottish independence movement either because if, as some want, there is an attempt to take the UK out of the EU I can see Scotland having another vote almost immediately.
So that’s it. Whatever the outcome of the vote I don’t really mind. That’s not to say I don’t care, because I do, but the way the campaigns have been run are far more like a general election campaign with the differing groups of snake oil salesmen telling everyone that the sky will be bluer and the grass will be greener if only we take their particular vision of cloud cuckoo land. And that’s not mention the huge number of threats, veiled or otherwise, which are almost exclusively pernicious lies aimed at the vulnerable. Independence is not about that – it’s something far more fundamental about how we live and identify ourselves and I can see benefits to both sides of the argument as well as distinct disadvantages. However, I was taken by the words of the actor James McAvoy on this subject who seemed to have a far more brutal assessment of the whole thing:
“This should be a choice about identity, not about whether we’ll get oil, the pound or whether we will be richer. You know that there are statements that just can’t be backed up on both sides. It shouldn’t be a question of ‘are things going to be better?’ There’s no country in this world that says, ‘I’m really happy with this government. Taxes are great, education is great and everything is cool, because I voted for my guy’.
“So yes or no, we’re still going to be bitching. Things are still going to be s**t, or good. It’s just going to be different s**t, or different good. These politicians, you can’t trust them as far as you can throw them, and we’re getting sucked into a meaningless political debate. I will go with whatever way my country votes, but I don’t know which way I want to go yet.”
I’m very much in agreement with him on this. I’m not planning on going anywhere and whatever we wake up with on Friday morning we will just have to get on with whatever s**t or whatever good it brings.
No comments:
Post a Comment