Scotland’s decision: The Scotsman’s verdict
With exactly a week to go before our historic referendum on Scottish
independence The Scotsman gives its verdict on the choice before us
We have been given a historic opportunity. We have a say in a decision that
will have a fundamental and far-reaching impact on all our lives, our country
and its future. We will all make that decision on where we believe the best
interests of Scotland and the Scottish people lie. We will make that decision
from a position of pride in our country and belief in ourselves.
One of the questions at the heart of the referendum debate has been: “Could
Scotland be a successful independent country?” There is only one answer to
that: of course it could. We are a nation of innovative and hard-working
people, with a culture of altruism and egalitarianism. We can stand alongside
any country in the world, large or small, and hold our own.
Scotland could be a successful independent country, but next week’s
question is: “Should Scotland be an independent country?” What we then have to
look at is whether this is where the greatest success will lie.
As we approach this pivotal moment in our history, there are issues to be
weighed and measured. There are some areas where straight answers are not
clear, and they are not only worthy of examination but it is absolutely crucial
that examination takes place.
The debate has seen strong arguments on both sides and throughout we have endeavoured
to air all arguments fairly and give a voice to as many shades of opinion as
possible. That will continue regardless of the position we take on the
referendum today.
Perhaps the first area to be examined is currency. The Scottish
Government’s preferred option is a formal currency union between an independent
Scotland and the rest of the UK (rUK). The Scottish Government has accepted
that our best economic interests lie with the pound. The Governor of the Bank
of England, Mark Carney, said in a speech in Edinburgh that, for a formal
currency union to be possible, an independent Scotland would have to cede some
sovereignty.
He said this week that a currency union between rUK and an independent
Scotland would be “incompatible with sovereignty” and both statements probably
amount to the same thing; that some political power over factors that would
have an impact on the currency would have to sit with the remainder of the UK.
We don’t know exactly how much sovereignty we would have to cede yet.
There are other problems with a formal currency union that would allow
Scotland to continue operating under the UK economic mantle. The three main
Westminster political parties have declared against it, saying they will not
enter in to one. The First Minister has dismissed this as “bluff and bluster”,
saying that position will change after a Yes vote. To add pressure to bring
about that change, the First Minister has said that if rUK won’t share the Bank
of England in a formal currency union then Scotland would not pay any share of
the UK’s accumulated £1.6 trillion of debt. It is argued that Scotland would
have no legal or moral obligation to pay that debt. What English politician
would lay his people open to that financial cost, goes the argument.
And although this rejection of formal currency union may be political
posturing, because that’s what politicians do, and of course pledges have been
broken in the past, underlying a formal currency union is a political decision
that would seem to be difficult to thole if you were an rUK politician.
You would be asking the people of your country, with their savings and
assets and taxes, to be the ultimate backing for a foreign country. A foreign
country that has just decided to leave a union with you and set out on its own.
And all this when the very real banking collapse is still a vivid memory with
the effects still being felt. Those taxpayers are already unwittingly large
stakeholders in the Royal Bank of Scotland. That has to be a difficult ask. And
it may well be right, under the law, following a Treasury statement to reassure
money markets, that Scotland has no legal responsibility for the UK’s debts and
the UK has taken full responsibility for them, but the assertion that Scotland
has no moral obligation for part of that debt will sit awkwardly with a lot of
Scots; Scotland had a part in running up that debt. Is it fair and right to
walk away from that? Is it the best way to start a new relationship with a
country that is still going to be your closest partner and ally?
Should the politicians all act as they have said they will, and refuse a
formal currency union, the most likely fall-back position is sterlingisation –
an informal currency union where we just keep the pound. But there are
significant problems with an informal currency union without any political
union. There are arguments over the effects of this and the cost of this, but
regardless of them, political power over decisions that could affect Scotland’s
currency would sit in London with no input from Scotland.
It is clear that any currency union would leave some power residing outside
Scotland. But we don’t know how much. We also do not know what impact Scotland
walking away from the UK debt would have – some say the markets would welcome a
debt-free country which had the nous to get itself in to that position and it
could then borrow at really good rates, others that we would be regarded as
untrustworthy defaulters. We just don’t know. And in the event of Scotland
going its own way on a new currency, that would also probably have an impact on
borrowing costs and interest rates. What can we take from all that? It seems
highly likely that there will be a cost implication here, but we don’t know
what it is.
The issue with EU membership and what that brings is also a difficult one.
It seems clear now that Scotland will not be automatically and immediately
accepted as a member of the EU and that there will be some admission procedure
to be gone through. We do currently fulfil many of the convergence criteria, but
what we would have to do for membership is unclear. It may well be the case
that common sense on the rest of Europe’s part would be to accept Scotland in,
and that we would be welcomed as a valuable member, but there is no certainty
of that. Possibly of greater consequence is doubt over some of the special
agreements the UK has negotiated and enjoys over the euro, borders and rebates.
This whole issue is, of course, complicated by the doubt over the UK’s
position in Europe, with the referendum on membership promised by David
Cameron. But it is probably wise not to let that form a part in Scotland’s
decision, given there are fairly fundamental questions, not least whether Mr
Cameron will still be in power in 2017 to deliver on his promise.
So, in tick-list terms then: Europe is generally seen as a good thing for
Scotland, but the future for an independent Scotland in Europe is unclear. We
just don’t know what the terms of that would be.
Defence is another major issue. It is said that the primary responsibility
of the state is the safety of its citizens. Some people will vote for
independence just because it will come with a pledge to clear nuclear weapons
from our country. Weapons of mass destruction are an emotive subject, there are
deep and fundamental issues about their morality. There surely must be huge
doubts about whether our society now would mandate their use in any
circumstances, there are questions over their military value given the changing
nature of the threats to our security, and there is the far more pragmatic
question of their cost for their perceived benefit. But those issues should be
separated from Scotland’s constitutional future. The proposal, as things stand,
is that an independent Scotland would become nuclear-free but would still be a
member of Nato. How we can take the principled stance to free ourselves of
nuclear weapons and then shelter under Nato’s nuclear umbrella is difficult to
reconcile. The bottom line is that, as a Nato member, we would be part of an
organisation whose back-stop is nuclear strikes. All this assuming we were to
be accepted as a Nato member on the terms we outline. Again, opinion is divided
on the subject but we don’t know for certain. It stands to reason we would be
more secure as a member of a larger alliance, especially when it comes to
intelligence sharing.
There are many other unknowns in many other fields, not least the actual
cost of creating a separate Scotland and how that Scotland would be represented
around the world and what relationships it would have with other countries.
But unknowns are a part of all life, we all have to deal with them and plan
for them as best we can.
The benefits for an independent Scotland are posited as bringing
decision-making vital to our creation of the society we want to see to the
people best-suited to make them – the Scots. And that by doing so we will
improve social justice in our society, making us fairer and more equal and
reflecting and retaining our cultural values and sense of identity.
But we are already holders of many of the levers that allow us to create a
society that reflects our desires and values. And more are on the way in the
Scotland Act 2012, including greater control over taxes.
And that’s without any more powers which have been promised as part of this
referendum battle.
We are in complete control of education, which must be the surest way of
shaping the future we want, we are in charge of health, which is the very
practical delivery of how we care for people. The NHS has become an emotive
topic in this debate, because it is close to us all for very practical reasons
but also because it is the embodiment of the altruism and egalitarianism that
forms a large part of our collective identity. But we can shape the NHS in
Scotland as we choose.
We have our own unique legal system and we are predominantly in charge of
the policing of our society.
All these policies are formulated by the people we Scots vote for, with the
decisions taken by our parliament in Scotland.
We have already gone our own way and created a different country in many
big areas, including no tuition fees, free care for the elderly and free
prescriptions.
The biggest factor in creating a prosperous and equal nation is the
economy, and an independent Scotland would, of course, be able to stand on its
own two feet, but under current proposals some of the levers needed would lie
elsewhere and stability is under threat and that could come at a cost.
Next week, for many people, it will be independence at any cost. Others
will weigh cost against benefits, risks against potential gains and losses.
There are significant uncertainties with the proposals before us. There are
some major parts of life that will be changed and we do not know what those
changes are or what impact they will have, and at a cost we cannot calculate at
present. It is clear there will be some constraints on what an independent
Scotland can do.
The political Union has helped to provide security and stability. And over
the centuries Scots have played a large part in shaping that Union. Many, many
Scots have benefited from opportunities it has afforded. We are a part of the
fabric of the United Kingdom. We are a significant part of its history.
Does the Union cast a dark shadow over us? It does not seem that way,
Scotland is a prosperous, peaceful, successful country. We are confident in our
national identity with our own distinctive society. We have our history and
heritage.
So, with the choices before us, the conclusion is that we are better
together, that Scotland’s best interests lie not in creating division but in
continuing in the Union and using its strengths to help us continue in our
success.
That is not a view taken because of fear, or lack of confidence, or lack of
patriotism. It is the very opposite.
It is not a view that simply does not want to take risk. It is a measured
view that assesses risk against possible benefit and loss. It is seeing where
the best interests of the Scottish people lie, understanding the benefits of
working with the people in these islands in collaboration and partnership and
seeing the opportunity to shape the strongest, most secure, fair and just
society that we all want.