Writing from London ahead of Scotland’s vote on independence on Thursday, MAL FLETCHER reflects on what separation from the United Kingdom might mean…
London
As an “imported” though nonetheless committed Brit, I find it hugely sad – and somewhat surreal – that a unique family of nations and the cradle of modern democracy, Great Britain, may soon be no more.
Shortly millions of Scots will go to the polls to cast their vote to remain within or wave goodbye to a 300-year-old political, economic and, on many levels, cultural union.
|
PICTURE: © Alistair Williamson/www.freeimages.com “(M)ore than 90 per cent of the citizenry of the United Kingdom have no say in a vote that will impact everything from our economy, to healthcare, national security and much more.” |
Arguably it should never have come to this. There were no riots or massive pro-independence demonstrations before Prime Minister Cameron agreed to a referendum.
All that had happened was that the Scottish National Party won power in the devolved Scottish Assembly.
Granted, it did so against the odds and had as one of its long-standing central platforms the notion of an independent Scottish nation. Yet the SNP leader Alex Salmond, either as candidate or as First Minister, was in no position to guarantee a referendum as that was within the purview of the UK government – which also, it must be remembered, contains elected Scottish representatives.
Mr Cameron clearly thought it a wise strategic move to accede to the SNP’s demands. Perhaps he thought that a vote might once and for all knock out of the water any SNP claims about a mandate for independence.
It was a gamble he was never mandated to take – not by the wider population he is supposed to represent. It was a gamble in which England, Wales, Northern Ireland – and the great many Scots who, if polls are to be believed, would rather stay in the Union – had much to lose, unnecessarily.
As a result, more than 90 per cent of the citizenry of the United Kingdom have no say in a vote that will impact everything from our economy, to healthcare, national security and much more.
If the stay-together option is rejected, our international standing will be reduced – possibly to a degree that is out of all proportion to the eight per cent of our population that we’ve lost.
Already, geopolitical experts have made cogent arguments that Britain’s influence in the world will be hugely diminished if the Yes vote wins the day.
Questions are being asked about whether Britain could justify its seat on the UN Security Council and, to a lesser degree, what influence she would maintain within NATO.
China has already expressed positive interest in seeing a breakup go ahead. Britain has long been a thorn in its side when it comes to human rights issues.
If independence goes ahead Russia will also – if not publicly then certainly privately – express delight that a constant irritant, on questions like human rights, has been weakened.
For these reasons and others even members of the US government and military have expressed disquiet – sometimes bordering on alarm – at the possibility of seeing an ally significantly weakened, both as a moral and military force.
With Britain’s major nuclear facilities all being located in the north, important questions will emerge as to our national security if Scotland goes it alone.
And what of the very name ‘Britain’ and the shared yet multi-faceted cultural identity it supports?
Technically, if our Scottish brothers and sisters decide to walk alone, Great Britain would cease to exist on day one of an independent Scotland. This would be scheduled for 2016, after separation negotiations – that is, intense and costly legal wrangling – have taken place.
The ‘United Kingdom’ would be disunited. The term would have no meaning, as it currently embraces Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
I am not Scottish and do not live in Scotland. Mind you, were I Scottish born and living elsewhere in the UK I would feel even more aggrieved right now, as I would be denied the right to vote on a fundamental question affecting the future of both nations.
Yet it seems that some Scots are being hoodwinked by rank political opportunism north of the border and annoyed by political indifference to the south.
“If Scotland votes Yes, it will not suddenly implode. In a globalised world, everything is connected to everything else. No-one in Europe, not even the government in Westminster, would want to see a close neighbour fail – even if only for economic reasons.” |
If Scotland votes Yes, it will not suddenly implode. In a globalised world, everything is connected to everything else. No-one in Europe, not even the government in Westminster, would want to see a close neighbour fail – even if only for economic reasons.
Mr Salmond, as an economist, knows this and I’m sure is banking on it to help see him through some difficult times ahead. Those times, however, may last longer than he chooses to acknowledge.
He promises to free a people who do not in 2014 seem to be, in the true sense of the word, oppressed.
Are there deep social and economic challenges in Scotland? Is there too much poverty in parts of the country? Did parts of Scotland suffer during the privatisation pushes of the 1980s?
Absolutely, but the same – and worse – can be said for other parts of the UK which, by the way, do worse that Scotland under the current formula for apportioning percentages of tax revenue.
Drive through some towns in northern England and you’re left wondering why successive governments haven’t done more for them. Indeed, some of their inhabitants will wonder what some Scots campaigners are complaining about.
Is Scotland, as some activists claim, being bullied into staying on? Hardly. When asked that very question during a BBC radio discussion in the early parts of this campaign, I replied that in this respect the government is on a hiding to nothing.
If ministers refused to speak out, I said, they would be labelled weak and dispassionate – which has turned out to be the case in this campaign. If, on the other hand, they spoke out with passion – as did Gordon Brown and David Cameron (belatedly) this week – they would be accused of bullying.
Is the Westminster system flawed and in need of reform and/or rejuvenation? Yes, without doubt. The trust deficit brought on by the MPs’ expenses scandal lingers on, as does disillusionment about elitism at the top – on all sides of politics.
Are many Scots angry about the so-called bedroom tax, worried for the future of the NHS and annoyed that the current resident at No 10 is a Tory? Without a doubt.
But is that reason enough to ruin a union which has not only survived but flourished in the face of terrible odds? Is it a pretext for destroying a family of nations that has provided a model for other countries who seek financial prosperity, bounded and informed by a sense of moral justice?
In the past century alone, Great Britain has emerged as a voice of hope and a symbol of justice, having faced two horrendous world wars, a Great Depression, a Cold War that cast shadows over Europe for a generation and a near global economic recession.
The UK is far, far from perfect. It faces huge problems with insufficient housing, misguided multiculturalism, historic child abuse, political elitism and more. Arguably, it may well be weaker in the sense of what it stands for than it was a generation ago.
Yet what happens for Scotland if the Yes vote wins? Alex Bell, the former chief policy advisor to the SNP has admitted that, “The SNP’s strength does not lie with policy.”
Yet policy is going to be needed fast – providing all the pragmatic answers which, until now, the SNP leadership have refused to articulate.
This may be in part they don’t know the answers. Granted, some things will need to be worked out through negotiations after the vote, but people should at least be told now what the negotiating position will be.
“A ComRes poll published on Wednesday says that only 14 per cent of people surveyed in England and Wales think that Britain will be better off without Scotland. It is to be hoped that the Scots who feel the same will cast their vote accordingly on Thursday.” |
The SNP’s lack of definitive policies on, for example, the currency issue – and, by extension, who will effectively control much of its monetary policy – may also be related to the fact that they plan to be more socialist than the majority of Scots have assumed.
Whatever the reason, the fact is that Scots – and Brits in general – have little idea what flesh the SNP will add to the bare bones of its current announcements.
A ComRes poll published on Wednesday says that only 14 per cent of people surveyed in England and Wales think that Britain will be better off without Scotland. It is to be hoped that the Scots who feel the same will cast their vote accordingly on Thursday.
I, like much of the country, hold my breath in hope.
Mal Fletcher is a speaker, author, broadcaster and the founder/director of Next Wave International, a Christian mission to contemporary cultures with a special focus on Europe, and EDGES TV. Follow Mal’s daily comment at twitter.com/malfletcher. Mal Fletcher’s latest book Fascinating Times is available now.
Reproduced with permission from www.2020plus.net. Copyright Mal Fletcher 2014.
