A personal view of the Union

My parents are both Scottish, my brother was born there. Before I emigrated to Scandinavia I had lived in
Scotland for most of my adult life and I hope to live there again one day. Despite being born and raised in
England much of my formative years were spent in Scotland. My holidays were spent at places such as the
Wallace monument, Stirling Castle, Culloden and so on, so I knew all about William Wallace, Robert Bruce and
Bonnie Prince Charlie, to me they were just and righteous heroes, like King Arthur, fighting for the freedom of
us Scots; I always felt welcome in Scotland, by friends, family and strangers alike, it never occurred to me that
Scotland was not part of my home, part of me. Then one day when I was maybe 10 or 11 and an older lad told
me to go home to England (he used choicer language) I was shocked and bemused. Arent my brother and I
the same nationality? If we are, why was this guy so angry, no one in England cared that we were Scottish?
I started to read all I could on Scots history and discovered there was terrible cruelty on both sides, but this
animosity was all ancient history surely? Ten years later and my degree gave me the chance to really find out.
In my final year I wrote a thesis on the Economic and Social Impact of the Union on Scotland. I read every book
and paper on the subject I could find in the libraries of Manchester, Leeds and Edinburgh and ordered still
more from the British Library. I dug up raw data on trade and transport infrastructure in dusty books and spent
days digitising it for analysis: this wasnt about the grade. The result? Union allowed England to focus on its
existential battles with France and Spain, but what was in it for Scotland? While English gold did buy the
votes of some parliamentary rogues, the deeper motive on the Scots side was a desperate need to alleviate
crushing poverty. Interestingly the issues that Union solved for the Scottish economy then are still the
fundamental issues today; political unity, dependency on international trade, and currency.
A good proportion of my degree was spent on statistical analysis of currency data. Im not going to pretend to
be an expert based on some undergrad courses, but I can honestly claim have been firmly and vocally opposed
the UK joining the proposed Euro during class discussions a minority view at the time. My reasoning was
basic: For monitory union you need fiscal controls, and fiscal controls mean ceding significant political
sovereignty (which I did not believe there was yet a democratic mandate for). A currency union within the
Pound is exactly the same. If Scotland wants to borrow in order to invest and grow and thus pay off the
national debt, that is not going to be allowed under a currency union dominated by a Conservative government
that wants to impose austerity in the rUK on the pretext of paying off the debt. So even if rUK agreed to a
currency union, the minimum price would be continuing austerity, but according to Paul Krugman it could also
become much steeper. So, which nobel prize winning economist do you choose to believe, Paul Krugman or
Joseph Stiglitz? Well, my point with the class discussion anecdote is that the question is not out-with mortal
ken, dig into the evidence yourself.
So why does Alex Salmond want a currency union if it means leaving economic sovereignty in London?
Essentially because, as in 1707, Scotland still has a relatively small domestic market so it is very dependent on
international trade to find a bigger market. That makes its economy and government finances vulnerable to the
exchange rate. This is principally why Norway has to pour all its oil income into a big trust fund for currency
stabilization and fund its public services with other taxes. Because Scottish government income would thus also
vary with the fortunes of a few key industries and with the exchange rate, lending it money is riskier and the
markets charge higher rates. So without a currency union, the ability of the Scottish government to fund the
Welfare State will be limited to the willingness and ability of its population to pay extra tax to either fund it
directly or service more expensive borrowing, the alternative is more austerity. That is a tough pitch to sell.
Norways answer to currency stabilization brings up the issue of political unity. I have spent allot of time
working in Norway over the last ten years analysing production and subsidy data. A key factor in Norways
political culture is that there has been no significant aristocracy since the black death! They were a nation of
comparative equals long before oil and the Welfare State arrived. In 1905 Norway voted with 99.5% unity for
independence. Since then they have been a rock of solidarity in the face of both great poverty and unbelievable
wealth. Electoral promises of a quality welfare state paid for by oil revenue not income tax dont wash in
Norway because people know that will cause inflation and jeopardize export based jobs. It isnt just Norways
vast natural resources that give confidence in the Norwegian Kronor, it is rock steady financial management
over decades, having learnt their lessons. That level of consistency depends on an electorate who are basically
in agreement as to what they expect from their government and who are willing and able to pay the necessary
tax. Scots are probably willing to pay some extra tax, but they are probably also expecting substantially better
services in return. In Sweden the basic rate of tax is 29%. VAT is 25% including food. Yet, even without Trident
to pay for, the Swedish NHS ranks two places lower than the UK for health treatment outcomes (Norway ranks
6 places lower). It is a matter of economy of scale, Sweden has only 10 million people to pay for everything.
Similarly Scotlands future does not depend on its oil. It depends on finding unity. In this referendum at most
half of the population even want Scotland to be independent, let alone agree on what sort of a country it
should be. For many Yes voters it is nothing to do with National identity but a desperate attempt to save public
services from cuts. For others it is for Scandinavian style wealth redistribution, some businesses see potential
tax advantages. So what happens when a currency union or market forces deny these disparate hopes? What
happens when banks once again offer pain free tax revenue in return for light regulation? Will Scots all stand
together and deny themselves affordable imported food for the sake of the domestic farm industry? Will Scots
all say I will vote for you because you plan to charge me extra tax to fund the NHS instead of using oil
revenue, I dont believe so, at least not yet. People in the UK are simply are not used to their country being
pushed around economically, the last time was Black Wednesday, and that was self inflicted due to joining the
ERM (a similar idea to Sterlingisation). The income tax powers of Holyrood have never been used even for
politically popular purposes like extra funding for the NHS, never mind for somewhat arcane economic reasons.
So far so depressing. If independence is likely to deliver ongoing austerity, what hope is there in a No vote?
Well, to start with a Labour government is almost guaranteed in 2015 and if Neil Kinnock thinks weve got our
party back then perhaps Ed Milliband should be given more credit. He clearly believed so strongly that New
Labour had got it wrong that he actually stood against his own brother and he is being absolutely assaulted by
the rightwing press which is an encouraging sign. His party blocked the UK being dragged into the Syrian
conflict, has blunted the bedroom tax (no thanks to the SNP) and is committed to repealing both it and the
Health and Social care act. Labour delivered the devolution which already protects free university tuition and
the NHS in Scotland and are committed to giving Holyrood substantial extra powers. More over the statistics
show that support for the Conservatives is at critically low levels unless Scotland leaves the UK.
The SNP want you to believe this is the last chance to escape austerity, but the likely outcome of independence
in 2016 is more austerity in Scotland not less. Besides, if the Labour party should fail to deliver change, who
would doubt a massive landslide for the SNP at the next Holyrood election? It would be an undeniable mandate
for another referendum and the result would be a foregone conclusion; Scotland would have found that vital
unity. But now is not that time, Scotland is not united, and the social union is not defeated. Ordinary people
can still challenge global corporate power (as now blatantly exposed by TTIP) by using the UK political
infrastructure to combine our strength in the tens of millions, by taking back Westminster.
This does not mean of course that Labour will suddenly be immune to corporate lobbyists, neither will a
Scottish government. However the political landscape has changed since Blair was in office. Groups like 38
Degrees are starting to learn how to effectively counter-lobby. The Yes campaign has the wrong solution, but
it has made people believe again that ordinary people can effect real political change when for too long we
have accepted that being a good citizen amounts to voting for the manifestos proffered, recycling and perhaps
paying extra for ecological apples. This political disaffection is a comparatively recent and I believe temporary
phenomenon. Professor Tom Devine dismisses the Union as nothing more than bonds of sentiment, history
and family. I would argue that is a pretty good definition of a nation. These are the foundations of trust by
which we pool our sovereignty. A long history of such trust is why international markets consider our currency
and government to be a sound investment. Loyalty, built up over centuries of history and family is the very core
that gives a nation state its strength. Freed by the Union from National competition, the people of the UK have
fought together over 300 years for political emancipation, for emancipation from tyranny by destitution, and
over the long haul we are winning.
So am I the same nationality as my brother? Yes. The SNP would like to change that to not quite. He is Scottish
by birth. I am apparently no more Scottish than the American grandchild of a Scot born before the ship set sail.
Perhaps that doesnt really matter. What does matter is that everyone in Scotland and every Scot in England
will have to make a choice between inalienable citizenship (a foundation stone of civil rights) in one country,
and dual citizenship of both. To decide whose problems are their own concern, whose Welfare should their
State provide for, who may not be conveniently deported if they break the law in the public interest. The days
when politicians could make it their business to draw distinctions between the nations of this island are past
now and in the past they must remain.
I dont envy people having to make this decision, but to me the case is clear; No Thanks.