They say we ‘get the government we deserve’. Which means of course that we are privileged to live in a democracy, so ultimately it’s all our own fault when inexplicably, we manage to elect into office another band of dangerous halfwits totally out of touch with the common man. However, from Scotland’s perspective, mathematics gets in the way somewhat. The English make up 84% of the population of the UK, whereas the Scottish contribute only 8.3% to the total of 63.7 million (source: ONS, mid-2012).
So, in fact, the Scottish end up with the government that the English deserve.
This is where devolution comes in. It allows Scotland to elect its own band of halfwits. But let’s back up a moment and consider the problem in more general terms.
The UK is incredibly diverse. It’s not just simply that it incorporates four distinct countries, but within those countries there are regions, each with its distinct characteristics, history and identity. Considered in that light, it would be astonishing if a centralised government could establish a policy on anything that would suit the needs of all parts of the UK. Possibly the largest degree of difference in our diverse nation is between Scotland and the south east of England. Add into the mix that what was once conservative Scotland is now socialist, whereas England is currently moving to the right, and we have the driving force for devolution of power to Scotland.
Let’s not forget that the political needle can and will move again in all parts of the UK. If Scotland gains independence, and perhaps at some point suffers a recession, might it not shift back to the right? We often elect a conservative government to dig us out of the financial holes that socialist governments sometimes drop us into. I’m just saying that it would be unwise to regard the difference in political leanings between London and Edinburgh as something that is set in stone.
To my mind, devolution of power to country-specific assemblies makes a great deal of sense. This could be applied to the regions within England as well. The proud and pragmatic Yorkshire men and women could make an excellent case for saying that their needs also diverge from the mean, as could the people of the South West of England.
How far should it go? How much power do we shift? ‘As much as is required for effective and appropriate government’ can be the only answer to that, although of course it’s not really a useful answer as it just begs the next question.
Surely the level of devolution is a matter of ensuring that policies can be set to suit the region and should be a negotiation on the basis of common sense and good advice. Furthermore, that level should be adjusted as time goes by and circumstances change. Unfortunately, power goes to people’s heads and all politicians have one thing in common; they don’t like to give up any of that power. This makes devolution discussions far more painful than perhaps they need to be. We, the electorate, need to tell our representatives in parliament to know when to fold.
Let’s wade into the murky waters of how the Scottish view the English, and how that informs the current situation.
There are many reasons Scots want full independence. I’ve exchanged messages and spoken with quite a few in the last several weeks. As with the vast majority of Scots I’ve met in my life, most of those I’ve talked to are level headed people who bear the English no ill will. There are some who give lip service to the same sentiment but harbour resentment underneath. Yet rarer are those who see no reason to prevaricate and voice their hatred of the English in graphic terms. Ignoring the frothing-at-the-mouth types for now, most of the ire and resentment is aimed at Westminster, Thatcher or the events of 1707 (and earlier). The response of most English to complaints about Westminster would be “Well, yes, they’re terrible. Bunch of crooks.” In other words, the Scots want the same as the English; a better government. Thatcher is history, as is 1707. Again, let me assure any Scots reading this; while I am fully aware of the issues with the poll tax in Scotland, Thatcher’s policies caused huge damage to the social fabric of the whole country. For every Scot who hated what she did, I could probably show you half a dozen English who feel the same way.
Let’s put Thatcher’s legacy behind all of us. It has no part in a debate about the future. The circumstances of the Act of Union in 1707 and the battles between our countries that pre-date that should also have no place in how Scots choose their mode of government in the 21st century. Leave those issues to the historians to chew over. There’s no-one alive in either country who had a part in any of it.
My wise and wonderful partner (half Scottish, by the way) made a very good observation to me the other day. She pointed out that the English have been invaded and ruled by a whole host of foreign powers: The Vikings, the Saxons, the Normans, The Romans of course, who did us over twice. I’m sure I’ve forgotten a few, but you get the point. We might as well have installed a revolving door. So the English are mongrels, a mix of many races that have been to these shores with swords in their hands. As a result, it might be part of the English psyche to move on from these events, to take what was good, and forget what was bad. It’s not like we had any choice really. By contrast, the proud Scots and their Celtic cousins in Wales and Ireland are not used to conquest. The only nation that ever did them over was, ahem, the English. Speaking as an Englishman let me assure you; we’ve got it out of our system. We buried being English and decided to be British, an identity that was never meant to be a synonym for English. It was meant to be inclusive, something all the countries of these islands could be proud to be a part of. We’ve fought two world wars together under that banner; side by side. We should all be very, very proud of that.
I think I’ve wondered off the point a bit.
Hauling myself back to actual relevance to the topic, let’s consider what we hear from the Yes and the No camps. Take almost any topic; currency, taxes, the EU, interest rates, oil revenues, pensions. You name it, if one side proclaims that one outcome will happen, the other side will proclaim the opposite. For Scots, it must be infuriating. It’s a Punch and Judy show isn’t it. If there is anything that can be taken from all these pronouncement and earnest analyses, it’s this:
No-one knows what will happen.
Scotland could be wildly prosperous, or it could find things pretty hard going. I don’t pretend to have the slightest clue which it will be, but most would put their money on it being somewhere between those extremes.
My advice to Scots would be not to allow the Punch and Judy show to influence your thinking overmuch. There are certainties that can be considered instead; the natural resources of the country, the skills and industries you have, your reputation throughout the world in so many fields. Think about those things, as they are not so caught up in the politics.
Remember also that any policy put forward by the SNP is no more than a statement of what they will do in power. When you have the next election, you will almost certainly see changes to those policies, or even complete reversals. I would not be surprised to see a resurgence of conservatism in Scotland post-independence, as Scottish politics would no longer be influenced by the Edinburgh-London tensions. Who knows? My point is that policies change, so don’t bet your grandchildren’s future on them.
Perhaps you will decide, as a nation, that you do not want independence. If that happens, some advice for you from an Englishman. You’ve been fighting with Westminster for decades to get the Edinburgh parliament. Wrong target. Talk to us, the people of England instead. We elect 84% of the Westminster government. Convince the English man in the street why it makes SO MUCH SENSE for there to be an effective and powerful devolved parliament in Scotland, with all the powers it requires to properly serve the Scottish people, and we will talk to our MPs, we will make it an election issue so that the parties will be clamouring to throw power at Holyrood, just to get our votes.
I’m going to talk about my fears now. I have, for a while, been supporting a Yes vote in the referendum. Not that I have a vote of course. My belief is that greater devolution would be the best way to avoid throwing out the baby with the bathwater. However, what state will our union be in if there is a No vote now? The stench of burning bridges gets stronger each day. I think perhaps, and with regret, that it is better that Scotland does become independent. I hope that, with time, the Scots will forgive the English as we have long forgotten the wrongs visited upon us by those sword wielding types I referred to earlier. We’re not all that bad.
I’ll finish on Football. Oh come on, it had to happen. Nothing perplexes us English more than the fact that Scots will ferociously support ANY team (even were they Beelzebub’s First XI) walking on to the pitch to face England. We shrug our shoulders and move on. But… I wonder… If Scotland were independent, do you think, at the 2016 Euros, that perhaps you might… give us a little cheer?
Naah. Forget I asked.
