Independence isn’t as simple as a yes/no question

Defensive as I am over Scotland’s ability to be successful economically, I do not see how Scotland and Scots can maintain a role anywhere near as pivotal as that currently held by the UK.

Allow me to offer this as a preface. I feel, and have always felt, British and Scottish. My grandparents, from whom I derive no small part of my identity, were born in Scotland, England, Ireland, and what is now Belarus. Two of them were immigrants to Britain, three saw service in the Second World War, in the armies of Britain and Poland. I was born in Glasgow, Scotland’s biggest and most diverse city, and went to school with Scots of a host of different heritages – Chinese, Indian, Pakistani, Persian are just some of the ones I can name.

I feel Scottish and British. Therefore, the issue of Scottish independence in the upcoming referendum pulled me squarely in two directions. I voted for the Scottish National Party at the last Scottish election, in part possessed by a sensation of not really being able to vote for any other party on the ballot, but also with the dim perception that the SNP might be able to shield Scotland somewhat from the austerity politics then and now in vogue in Westminster. Cautious though my rationalisations were I knew that what I didn’t want was independence, not because of doubts of Scotland’s ability to succeed as a separate nation state, but because I value being a British citizen.

Whenever anyone asked me about independence I would tell them that I would not vote for it, but that I would vote for some form of a further devolution of powers. This admission was typically followed by an impassioned case for how, if the unthinkable happened, Scotland wouldn’t be so badly off as talking heads in politics or the media might think. Yet, it was decided yesterday in the document developed by David Cameron and Alex Salmond known as the ‘Edinburgh agreement’  that the referendum will take the form of a simple yes or no to independence, no mention of further devolution, specific or otherwise. This means that I will no longer be able to offer my now familiar caveat.

In addition, it has made me not only regretful, but annoyed. As has been pointed out, further devolution commanded widespread popular support along with those either fervently pro- or decidedly anti-independence. Those people will now have to be split between the other two camps, and I think if they are anything like me, they will opt for the latter.

There are several reasons why I would have liked to see further devolution on the ballot, as well as my natural caution. The ability to raise taxes specific to Scotland to pay for a Scottish budget would have been, for me, the best outcome of devolution of powers. In this way the Scottish Government could experiment with the Scandinavian social democratic model that the SNP champion. Scotland is quite politically distinct from the rest of the UK – Scotland is no great lover of the Conservatives, and is, given the results of the last Scottish election, rapidly souring on the Liberal Democrats. Why then shouldn’t Scotland be able to direct its economic policy in a different direction to the rest of the UK, even fewer Scots than Britons overall support the current government? Federalism in this mould would suit the UK well, with its politically and culturally disparate regions.

What problems would further devolution have solved or lessened? For a brief list, there is Scotland’s share of the UK’s debt and deficit, membership of the EU and the need to take up the euro on joining, and the ownership of North Sea oil. Scots would retain British and EU citizenship, and would not have to create many of the trappings of an independent nation from the ground up. Defensive as I am over Scotland’s ability to be successful economically, I do not see how Scotland and Scots can maintain a role anywhere near as pivotal as that currently held by the UK internationally. (Though, cynics might point out that Scotland would never again be brought along for the ride on such ventures as the war in Iraq with the rest of the UK).

It is clear to me that further devolution is viewed as not a real viewpoint, but the holding pen on people who cannot make up their minds. David Cameron essentially said as much on Newsnight where he expressed his relief that the referendum would be an either/or question:

“What we have is what I always wanted which is one single question, not two questions, not devo max, not different options, a very simple, single question that has to be put before the end of 2014. So we end the uncertainty, we put beyond doubt Scotland’s position either within the United Kingdom as I hope, or separating itself from the United Kingdom. One single simple question; that for me was always the key.”

A poll in January 2012 conducted by ICM and the Sunday Telegraph showed as many Scots supporting a Scotland with its own tax-raising powers as independence. Other polling demonstrates consistent support for some form of further devolution. Further devolution was a real option that people really wanted, and David Cameron is ignoring it. Alex Salmond is as culpable, for not fighting for an option that would enable much of his the policy positions he would like to enact, without the uncertainty that full independence would endow.

Just as depicting would-be further devolutionists as indecisive and tentative is ridiculous, there is no point trying to treat independence-yes and independence-no groups with broad strokes. They both include a great variety of people motivated by a great variety of concerns. It would probably have been easier for them to migrate into the potential third group, rather than for inhabitants of that group to try and split themselves between the two black and white options. Further devolution might have been an opportunity for Scotland to experiment with a better way of organising and paying for a fairer society safely. Now that that’s gone, I and I many others, whether they are Scottish or British first, will have to align ourselves with a choice that is imperfect and does not fully represent how we feel.

Party leaders cutting their losses

“Alex Salmond’s sweeping the board, […] signals the possibility that Scotland might be irrecoverable from the SNP in the future.”

With the result of the Scottish election having returned an unprecedented majority government to the Scottish Parliament in the form of the Scottish National Party, leaders from the Labour, Liberal Democrat and the Conservative parties north of the border have all announced that they will be standing down. More so than Alex Salmond’s sweeping the board, this signals the possibility that Scotland might be irrecoverable from the SNP in the future.

Most closely watched in the wake of the election are the leaders of Scottish Labour and the Scottish Liberal Democrats, Iain Gray and Tavish Scott. In the first instance, Labour was expected to be the strongest opposition to the SNP’s campaign, and were hoping to pick up votes from disaffected Liberal Democrat voters – perhaps even offering a blueprint for Labour recovery at Westminster. However, Labour’s problem was brand recognition – its leader, Iain Gray, was significantly less prolific during the campaign than his SNP counterpart, and even in his home constituency, clung on by a nail-biting 151 votes. The fact that Labour lost so many seats (while still remaining the second largest party at Holyrood) is testament to the lack of confidence that the electorate still has with Labour one year on from 2010’s general election.

Tavish Scott’s resignation is unsurprising, given that the results of a whole slew of elections across the United Kingdom as well as the AV referendum were taken as the first expression of public opinion over the Liberal Democrats’ joining the Conservatives in coalition. They were disastrous, seeing the Lib Dems returning just five MSPs to Holyrood, losses in the Welsh Assembly and being trounced in council elections in England. The face of Nick Clegg is more war-weary than ever before.

As for the Tories, their stalwart leader Annabel Goldie has also taken the decision not to stand again as party leader – surprising, given that it doesn’t much matter who leads the Scottish arm of the party as their fate at every election is utterly predictable. At the general election in 2010, the Conservatives emerged with just one MP in Scotland; this year, they lost five MSPs. The Conservatives retain their toxicity nearly twenty years after the end of Thatcher’s premiership; they are anachronous, their voting base confined mainly to rural areas in the south. Prior to this election, they couldn’t touch Labour’s stronghold in the Central Belt, and now could never hope to crack the solid support of the nationalists that has been shown across the country as of a month ago. The Conservatives do not have a hope of gaining firm support in Scotland, and what little they have has followed a predictable pattern. It does not match the absolutely catastrophic results for the Lib Dems, or the apparent dissolution of Labour support in traditionally solid constituencies across the country. Annabel Goldie has little to apologise for – the problem for her party is that the Conservative brand is unthinkable for most Scottish voters. No amount of effective campaigning from Goldie or anyone else is going to be sufficient to crack this particular nut.

With the SNP’s triumph, the reactions from the other parties have varied enormously. Labour have called for scrupulous self-examination, to see exactly why voters abandoned them in such numbers. The Liberal Democrats have taken the result on the chin, but not without a few tear-stained cheeks; they are now committed to demonstrating the necessity of having entered into coalition with the Conservatives in the oft-quoted “national interest”. Their partners are jovial, having got their preferred result in the AV referendum as well as gaining council seats across England. The Conservatives know that Scotland is always going to be a bastion of centre-left politics that will resist their overtures, so losing a few MSPs is very much par for the course.

The political landscape in Scotland is going to be defined forever based on the SNP’s governance over the next five years. Voters seem to identify with their agenda on many points other than total independence, for now. Even if an attempt to convince Scots of independence fails, the SNP have proved their competence sufficiently, so much so that other parties will have to work hard to re-build their brand. With the resignations of the party leaders, is this an admission that this generation of Scottish politicians aren’t prepared to put up with that responsibility?

Energising debate

“Scotland’s suitability for a range of green energy options from wind turbines to tidal power stations is regularly touted.”

As always in twenty-first century elections, commitments to green energy generation and ways of reducing energy waste are given top billing in most party manifestos for this year’s Scottish election. These range from the wildly ambitious, such as Scottish Labour’s promise to generate 80% of Scotland’s energy from renewable sources by 2020, to the tokenistic, like the Scottish Lib Dems’ timid ‘support’ for the use of electric cars. In the miasma of offerings that reflect or react against policies down south, how do Scottish parties address the environmental concerns of their voters?

The issue of the target for renewable energy generation is thorny, but one that our politicians seem blithe about promising audaciously. On the centre-left, Labour, the SNP and the Lib Dems are all resoundingly keen to make Scotland an exporter of clean energy to the rest of the UK and Europe by using renewable sources for 80 to 100% of energy generation by 2020. Scotland’s suitability for a range of green energy options from wind turbines to tidal power stations is regularly touted, as is the many thousands of hypothetical jobs that these industries would bring to the country. Industry leaders, reports The Scotsman, remain utterly unconvinced. The Scottish Greens also remain firmly set against further development of coal and nuclear power stations in Scotland’s energy economy.

The question on voter’s minds will be: is such a target feasible? Denmark, one of the greenest nations in the world, produced only 20% of its energy needs from wind turbines in 2008; in Scotland, 8% came from wind and wave power combined in the same year. Realistically, can the country make such a transition in the space of less than a decade?

The Conservatives, meanwhile, are pushing for nuclear power to take a central place in Scotland’s energy industry, where the Lib Dems and the SNP remain firmly opposed. The Conservatives would allow proposals for new stations on existing sites to be considered, but with the ongoing crisis at the Fukushima plant in Japan forcing populations across the developed world think thrice about the benefits of nuclear power, this campaign promise might come at exactly the wrong time. All the major parties appear dubious on the future of conventional fossil-fuel plants, preferring to highlight that carbon capture and storage technology that will be an intrinsic aspect of the industry if they win the election (and if such technology becomes at all viable).

In concert with hopes to move to cleaner, greener energy, political parties want to get voters to engage with their hopes to make Scotland and its people more energy efficient. The Scottish Government is committed to cutting emissions by 42% by 2020 and 80% by 2050. Top of the list of policies to achieve such targets are support for electric or fuel-efficient transport, both in the public sector and among consumers. Another issue that remains familiar to recipients of political promises is to make housing more energy efficient. Some policies also mirror closely those of the Westminster government, as well as its u-turns. The Conservatives recommend a Big Society-esque approach by which local councils are required to publish their own details of energy consumption and commit to their own targets to cutting it. Also, in response to the failed attempt to privatise forests by the coalition, promises abound to protect Scotland’s countryside and encourage afforestation, as well as encouraging the consumption of locally grown produce.

Other than an April that has seen an unprecedented amount of short-wearing and the tread of flip flops in the Meadows, Scotland has yet to experience drastic change in climate. However, in the last decade the effects of rising water levels and temperatures have meted out an often tragic toll. Every party seems to want to transform Scotland into a blueprint for clean energy and green living. If your vote on May 5^th is going to be based on energy issues, then you have plenty of rose-tinted visions of the future from which to choose. You have only to decide which party you trust sufficiently to carry out their promises.

Originally published in The Student 03/05/2011