CAN Scotland ever be independent? The classical answer to this question, given by politicians of all persuasions, is: yes. If the people express their will democratically and that will is independence, then no-one would stand in their way. The problem with this answer is that it is based on a cruel deception. In truth, Scotland can never be independent and it is time that all of our political parties, the nationalists in particular, recognised the fact.
The reasons why an "independent" Scotland would be nothing of the sort are simple. Part of the UK or "free", Scotland is within the powerful economic sphere of influence of her nearest neighbour, England; she is part of a larger and increasingly dominant European Union; and she is part of the global economy. Depending on your view, this nation is constrained or strengthened by these influences on her. What no-one should deny is that these influences exist.
It should not be in the least bit controversial to make such a statement, yet the Scottish National Party, supported by its fellow travellers, the Scottish Socialists, and the nice but naive Greens, maintains that if Scotland were free she would have it within her power to create a land of tartan milk and honey. Overnight, poverty would be banished, wealth created. There would be peace and prosperity. The trains might even run on time. This is self-delusion on a grand scale.
So far, nationalist politicians have managed to delude only themselves. Voters are far more realistic about the world they live in and the position of their nation in that world. Despite promises of a brave new independent dawn, Scots have resolutely refused to give their support in sufficient numbers to parties advocating what is described as independence. Consciously or not, the voters are ahead of nationalist politicians in the sophistication of their thinking.
To demonstrate why the electorate have advanced beyond crude nationalism, imagine that, after a referendum or two, Scotland had declared independence. Stopping only to change his title from First Minister to Chancellor, Alex Salmond - returned from Westminster to lead his country to freedom - sets about taking Scotland into the community of nations. Chancellor Salmond wants to boost the Scottish economy in line with his Keynesian instincts, but finds that, because the country is part of the eurozone, he is not allowed to borrow more than 3 per cent of the newly calculated Gross Domestic Product.
This is something of a problem because Mr Salmond’s government, in going for what he described during the referendum campaign as full independence, has taken on responsibility for social security. Scotland has an ageing and declining population. Older people expect their pensions to be paid, and the taxpayers resent suggestions that they should foot the ever-increasing bill.
Mr Salmond resolves to do something about this by seeking to bring new people from across the continent to Scotland. These new Scots would form the basis of a dynamic entrepreneurial class who get the nation’s economy moving, generating the tax to pay for the generous welfare state that the new government still believes in. However, the Chancellor has overlooked the fact that England and Wales still refuse to sign up to the Schengen agreement on open-borders migration within the EU. Mr Salmond has a dilemma: either have border posts along Hadrian’s Wall or restrict entry to Scotland.
With Scotland a member of the euro, the Chancellor is unable to devalue his currency or manipulate interest rates, which are now set in Frankfurt - further away from Scotland than they were under the Bank of England. So, in search of a quick economic revival, he vows to slash business taxes and exploit Scotland’s reputation as a trading nation. Immediately, the EU, having learned its lesson from Ireland in the late Nineties and using the power Scotland agreed it should wield when it negotiated entry, orders him to equalise taxes with the rest of Europe to prevent unfair competition. The leader of Scotland is also told in no uncertain terms that he cannot negotiate on trade separately, as this has been a matter for the EU and the World Trade Organisation for more than a decade.
Chancellor Salmond is also determined that his long-standing and principled stance on defence should now be adhered to in practice. He therefore decrees that NATO forces in Scotland, including nuclear submarines on the Clyde, should be expelled forthwith. He declares Scotland a neutral country and pulls out of NATO, while England remains firmly wedded to the alliance. Mr Salmond finds himself condemned by US politicians, who urge a tourist boycott of Scotland and also has to explain to Scots in the Borders how, despite neutrality, they can avoid being hit by nuclear weapons targeted on the English defence forces.
This scenario may seem like fantasy politics. It is not. For the course a future nationalist government could take has been defined - in a book published this week which ironically bears the title Scottish Independence: A Practical Guide.
This thorough tome goes into great and commendably objective detail on every aspect of possible independence - from Scotland’s alleged deficit through the parallels with the Czech and Slovak velvet divorce to matters such as accession to the EU. But it is the concluding chapter by Professor Michael Keating that sets out cogently why independence as conceived in the 19th century is no longer applicable for states, including Scotland.
After the deliberative style of the co-authors, the academic Jo Eric Murkens and Peter Jones, formerly a journalist of this parish, Keating pulls the ideas and themes together to spell out the realities of independence - your columnist used them to construct the only slightly mischievous Salmond scenario set out earlier.
Keating and his colleagues are to be congratulated for their detailed work. It will now fall to the nationalists to explain their policies in the light of such dispassionate analysis. The present leader of the SNP, John Swinney, must answer some searching questions about the Scotland he wants to lead. Does he really want control over defence, social security and foreign policy, with the costs and the risks that they bring, while being severely constrained by the proximity of what would remain of the UK, the authority of the EU and the exposure of Scotland to the tides of the global market?
Or can Mr Swinney be brave enough to lead his party to a position that canny and ambitious Labour and Liberal Democrat politicians see and which Keating describes as a Home Rule Third Way?
Setting out views that will be familiar to readers of this column, Keating sees stateless nations such as Scotland accruing more powers and maximum autonomy but within the constraints of 21st-century realities. For Scotland, that means inside a more devolved UK. It would be a brave move for an SNP leader to tell his party that it could win power if it dropped its attachment to the outdated concept of independence. One can hope that Mr Swinney will be bold enough to do so.
It is time to debate what Scotland can be, not what some Caledonia dreamers wish she were. We should all be home-rulers now.
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου