A Cut Above

The opinion pages of newspapers for me are the best. Particularly the ones half-filled with the tripe that is written on a regular basis about (almost) anything and everything. But I enjoy just as much finding something which I almost completely agree with, as I found in [Tim Lott’s article](http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/tim-lott-good-riddance-to-this-unequal-union-2284201.html) in _The Independent on Sunday_ regarding Scottish independence.

A recent YouGov poll published last week indicated that proposals for Scottish independence enjoy stronger support in the rest of Britain than they do in Scotland itself. Considering the Scottish National Party’s storming triumph of May 5th – in winning a majority in the Scottish parliament for the first time ever – the rest of Britain must be pretty keen then. Their utopian dream is total separation from the rest of Britain, and whilst David Cameron claimed last week that he would try with every single fibre to maintain British unity, I say good luck to them.

First off, I hold no personal Scottish bias. I know a number personally: I cheer on Andy Murray despite his profound lack of charisma; I revere David Hume; and Adam Smith is considered the founding father of one of my degree disciplines. But the cheek (let alone naivety) of both the recent results and the separatist rhetoric that has abounded in recent times are quite unbelievable. There is little wonder the rest of the inhabitants of these isles have had enough. Notoriously nationalistic, Scotland has long played the victim in this apparently unhappy union, an act propped up by an almost religiously zealous belief in their national exploitation. The role, however, does not quite fit.

{{quote Scotland has long played the victim in this apparently unhappy union}}

The most mystifying aspect of Alex Salmond’s quest for independence is where the money will come from following greater economic devolution. The salient issue of how Scotland will bridge the gap currently funded by the rest of Britain is noticeably uncertain, with the First Minister of Scotland meeting with Scottish Secretary Michael Moore last week. When indicating how much extra government funding Scotland receives per person than England – using 2006-7 figures and taking a UK-wide per capita average of 100 percent – Scotland receives 117 percent, with England significantly lower, at 97 per cent. To further such blows, _The Scotsman_ reported in March of this year that Scotland had “won” an extra £112 million that was being made available its government – a consequence of increased spending by UK departments. They’re clearly being hard done by.

Which brings us to what we are all about (supposedly): university education. Alex Salmond recently told MSPs this issue required a “distinctive Scottish” solution. Oh the irony. We received our distinctive Scottish solution for our university funding way back in January 2004 – essentially consigning us to pay full fees whereas Scottish students pay nothing. Salmond continued to state that the Scottish government would outline new options for funding by the end of the year. Oh, and ruled out a return to tuition fees. Despite this it can be tolerated temporarily. The SNP leader doesn’t plan to have a referendum on independence for a few years yet, saving that one for a boost in political support further down the line. In the meantime however, the Westminster gold keeps flowing in to Edinburgh – one recent estimate placing it at £24 billion. Perhaps an over-exaggeration, and whilst I’m not necessarily in favour of all of the Coalition’s cuts; but in the interests of consistency, perhaps rebuilding Hadrian’s wall would save a couple of quid down the line?

{{quote The most mystifying aspect of Salmond’s quest is where the money will come from}}

Answering English criticism, the Scots often point to the tax receipts the Treasury would lose arising from North Sea oil coming from devolved Scottish rigs. Either way, this recent upsurge in separatist support is both foolish and blatant; not taking long to surface after the end of a golden era of Scottish Labour leadership in the House of Commons. This isn’t just a matter of economics however; how on earth did it ever come about that Scotland could have its own parliament in which important matters such as Scottish healthcare and education could be decided upon, whilst they can also vote to decide on equivalent English matters? There are 59 MPs in Westminster from constituencies in Scotland, along with a number of other Scottish MPs whose seats aren’t actually North of the border. This is a highly significant number which has won votes for Labour in the past, and even the Labour-dominated Scottish Affairs committee at Westminster warned that this power was too great back in 2007.

As Tim Lott remarks, perhaps the most galling thing is that whatever happens, being English we will continue to cheer on Andy (even though he hates us) and continue to hope that the Scottish football team will sneak a win against whichever footballing giant they are playing (even though they will continue to hope that we slip up against whatever tiny nation we are playing). My agreements with ‘comment’ articles aren’t always so controversial. An example can be found only two pages later in that very same newspaper, where Quentin Letts writes about the comeback of the British lawn. Being a village cricketer and countryside dweller I feel this is a worthy cause to champion, and I can honestly say I hate moles an awful lot more than the Scots.