Random Pre-Referendum Thoughts
It's not for me to suggest how anyone should vote. There are too many ready and willing to do that already, and your vote is entirely a matter for you. But here are a few thoughts and observations which are guiding my own thinking.
The Politics
For most of the period from 1885 to the 1918 the Liberal Party dominated Scottish politics. That probably reflects even today the ethos of most Scots who consider themselves responsible self-reliant folks with an element of concern for the welfare of folks beyond their own doorstep. With the growth of "Red Clydeside" in the 1920s the Labour Party gained influence and most of the 1920s was a 3-way fight between Labour, Liberals and Unionists (as the Conservatives were then known) The Unionists had a majority in Scotland for a brief period from 1955 to 1959, helped largely by the Orange vote in Glasgow. In 1959, in contrast to England, Scotland swung to Labour, which scored gains at the expense of the Unionists. This marked the start of a process which in less than 40 years saw the Unionists' Scottish representation at Westminster reduced to zero. This was the last occasion when the Unionists won in Scotland: their merger with the Conservative Party of England and Wales in 1965 to become the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party began a long steady decline in their support. (Source - Wikipedia)
Two things emerge from that brief summary - the influence of Glasgow on electoral outcomes notwithstanding how the remainder of Scotland voted, and the growing political divergence between Scotland and England.
For most of my adult life, the Labour party has controlled Scottish politics. That, I believe, has been to the country's huge disadvantage as the political elite sought to cultivate a dependent client class predominately accommodated in social housing and dependent on state sponsored employment. This stifled ambition and initiative and has resulted in a large part of the population lacking the mindset to take ownership of their own future.
During those years - the Scottish Labour years - the Scottish Conservative Party has had little, if any, influence on developments in Scotland. The sector of the population with conservative leanings and outlook, those who incline towards self-reliance and entrepreneurialism, regarded their interests as being fostered at a UK, rather than a Scottish, level. This has allowed the left-leaning sector to disproportionately influence political trends in Scotland.
It seemed that the coming to power of a Scottish National government in 2007 brought a refreshing wind of new thinking and vigour after 40 years of Labour control. At last we'd have a politics which took into account the Scotland outwith the urban areas. It disappoints and troubles me therefore to now to see the SNP government apparently intent on centralisation of essential services around a central Scotland base.
To me it seems unsustainable that the Scottish Government has the ability to spend cash it doesn't have to raise. That means there's no direct link between spending policies and taxpayers, and that link is essential in a democracy. The Barnett Formula is anachronistic and patronising. Scotland needs to stand on its own two feet, spending only such money it raises directly from within.
UK politics is a muddle following devolution and what is needed to un-muddle it is an elected body with responsibility for England, leaving the UK government with a smaller, but critical, role principally of managing international relationships and UK-wide security. Wouldn't that make sense? At the moment the UK Government clings to the notion that the UK is a major force in the world. That's no longer realistic in today's world and has led us to all sorts of horrors and upheaval in the middle east, and a very large defence budget.
There's no doubt that London is a major world financial centre, possibly the largest. But how far do the benefits and prestige surrounding that flow to the rest of the UK? Isn't it the case that the effect of that status focusses the UK government's vision and policies on the south east of England to the disadvantage of other parts of the UK? That affects the whole of the UK, not just Scotland.
A Degraded Democracy
We live in a degraded democracy: Voters no longer vote for the most capable individual to represent all constituents, they vote for their preferred party. This results in politicians of low calibre, point scoring rather than meaningful debate, and the rise of party managers and spin doctors. The objective is no longer the national interest but the party interest - and that with a 5-year horizon. We are on a downward spiral of decline.
"Yes" motivations?
Who are the "Yes" voters? What drives them? Are they pro-Scottish or is it more the case that they are anti-English, or even anti-wealth? I hear a broad range of support, from arrogant ranters to quietly expressed and well reasoned views. I hear too many folks who seem not to realise that governments don't have any money at all unless organisations and people who generate economic activity stimulate a flow of taxes from the product of their efforts. It's easy to vote "Yes" if you're unfortunate enough to have little to lose, more difficult but certainly not impossible if such a vote, even if beneficial in the long run, might undermine your savings and investments and threaten your pension in the medium run. I'm inspired by folks in the latter group advocating "Yes".
I don't, unfortunately, derive much from the "No" campaign. Essentially by nature negative, the campaign has been poorly managed and has focussed on the possible negative outcomes we're already aware of, seeking to stress their certainty rather than presenting them as factors to be considered. They have done themselves no favours by telling Scots constantly that they're incapable of running a successful country, and last week's dash north by senior politicians was little more than farcical. I've yet to hear any reasoned rationale underlying the "No" assertions and the "No's" haven't convinced me. Any doubts I have revolve simply on uncertainty of outcome.
After Thursday?
I'm not deterred from the prospect of independence by the downsides stressed by the "No" campaign, but they do deserve consideration rather than rebuff. The reality is that the political and economic development of an independent Scotland would be driven, not by the SNP, but by Scottish voters and their preferences, (hopefully considered and informed preferences). So who can tell how things will turn out? As the SNP delight in telling us, "the future of Scotland will be in Scottish hands". "Not entirely" I would add.
It would be foolish not to anticipate an immediate downturn in share prices, financial outlook and so on, as markets react in their knee-jerk fashion to news of a "Yes" vote. That's to be expected. Will shop prices go up? I did think that was a nice try, and you have to admire them for their ingenuity in thinking of that one. As with much of what the "No" side have said, that statement was notably lacking in any rationale.
Change is always unsettling, but equally can be energising, and some of the World's most thriving economies are small independent countries. So I take the negativity with a generous pinch of salt, and Scotland has a lot in it's favour.
In the event of a "Yes" result, it is agreed that there would be a period of cross-party negotiation with the r-UK government on the terms of separation. That's when all the nitty gritty about currency and r-UK/Scottish interface will harden up, and Scotland has some pretty effective bargaining chips in the form of the Trident facility, renewable energy generation and a thriving life sciences and technology sector.
The SNP vision seems to be of a Scandinavian style society and economy with a large but efficient and effective public sector delivering quality service to a highly taxed electorate. I could live with that if the outcome lives up to that aspiration and we'd enjoy Scandinavian style joined-up efficient systems and a low tolerance of non-contributors, but I just can't see how we'd transform our public sector bodies and our national psyche to that position in a few short years. That seems impossible. It certainly won't be instant Nirvana, and years of hard graft and lower living standards seem almost certain.
What about the positives? The acquiescent conservative-leaning folks I referred to above would have to engage at a Scottish level and that would bring a very welcome and necessary balance to the political debate in Scotland. We'd find a higher calibre of politician in the Scottish Parliament. As things currently stand, because Scotland has a constrained remit and the perceived "real politics" is in London, many of them are little more than out-of-their-depth local councillors. I find it difficult to believe that Scotland leaving the UK would not shake up English politics and, were that to happen, we could see a much more representative form of English government emerge (and many parts of England view the UK government in much the same way as Scotland does)
How will I vote?
Beleive it or not, I still haven't decided how I will vote on Thursday. Having swung from "Yes" to "No" to "Yes" and back again, I still remain undecided. Much as I envy their peace of mind, I suggest respectfully that those who have always felt committed one way or the other are taking a simplistic and ill-considered view. I'll make up my mind by Thursday, not on the basis of campaigns, TV and radio debates or rallies, but on the basis of what I conclude will be in the best interests of folks throughout the whole of the UK. I'm hugely aware that this result will matter more not to folks of my age but to our children and grandchildren. A decision not to be taken lightly, but also not to be taken timidly.
