Is independence right for Scotland?

Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond’s plan to hold a referendum on Scottish independence in autumn 2014 has reignited a debate which has been with us for centuries. Met with cross party opposition in Westminster and, what is at best, uncertain support from Scotland, independence is far from a done deal. Its resurfacing generates a whole raft of questions. Why is it being proposed? How would it work? And most obvious of all, who, if anyone, stands to gain?

Where Scotland would stand economically post-independence is impossible to call. The move would be unprecedented and its outcomes reliant on a series of undecided and mostly external factors. Following independence, Scotland would hope, in economic terms, to resemble Scandinavian countries. Salmond had suggested that there would be an increase in growth through the “arc of prosperity” as a result of its small nation status. When it comes to the ‘English subsidy’, recent calculations put the current figure at £3,150 per head, excluding oil revenues. However, this comes with the caveat that due to persistent deficits, the UK’s overall subsidy “to itself” currently lies at over £2000 per head. North Sea oil is not technically deemed to belong to Scotland under current legislation; however, bringing it into the mix does give Scotland far more potential. Nevertheless, oil revenues are volatile and ultimately finite so here again, the impact is debatable. Currency is another grey area: whether it were to remain with the pound or join the euro, there are problems – both alternatives mean that Scotland’s monetary policy decisions would rest with others. The future for an independent Scotland is in this sense, as clear as mud. What seems more obvious given recent debate is that despite how we see things here at the Boar, the roots of the fight for independence are not in economic forecasting and statistical predictions but in economic and political thinking.

The SNP argue that what’s best for the UK simply isn’t best for Scotland. Salmond promises through independence to “address the priorities of the people”, suggesting that a South-East and London-biased government is the problem. There is evidence that Scotland and England just don’t have enough in common. Politically, they lie far to the left of England with only one Conservative MP out of 59 and a lowly 17% Conservative share of the vote. With unemployment higher and health standards lower, it is easy to see why Scots think they have been getting the rough end of the deal. However, when you look at a border town like Berwick-Upon Tweed which has switched allegiances throughout its history, a fundamental difference in the nature of our countries is difficult to argue. More than that, Yorkshire-born and bred, I can’t help making comparisons that go many miles south of the border. With a similar population, Yorkshire is currently suffering a higher unemployment rate than the Scottish average and also boasts a population significantly more left leaning than the UK average with 19 Conservative MPs from 54 constituencies. Furthermore, we’ve got the spirit the Scots boast of – in my completely unbiased opinion, you will not find a people more proud than those of Yorkshire. It seems we might not be all that different after all.

What the independence camp is so angry about seems to be a sense of growing inequality and increasing unfairness in the way the UK economy is run. The idea that Scotland will suffer as a result of a geographic bias from a government it didn’t elect is not one I feel fully able to dispute. However, these issues are by no means unique to Scotland; in fact, they apply to the majority of the country once you get past Watford Gap Service Station. Here independence becomes a backwards step, creating artificial borders between people where they do not exist. A fight from the left against increasing inequality and poverty in both Scotland and England is to be expected within the current climate. This should not have to mean a fight for Scottish independence.