After the vote, or, the Union saved

In the end it all went horribly wrong for the splitters. Gordon Brown rose from the dead to revitalise the union cause, the waverers wavered toward "No" and Alex Salmond fell on his sword. 55% was not as much as I would have liked but it is sufficient to put this issue to bed for a while. We still live in a United Kingdom.

Mr. Salmond is likely to be replaced by his deputy, Nicola Sturgeon. There seems to be a element of the piscine about the names of the SNP leaders but heaven forfend that anyone should make cheap jokes about it all being a bit fishy.

Mrs. Commuter and I heard the news in our hotel bedroom in Dijon, whither we had repaired on a short holiday to taste (and I mean that literally) the delights of Burgundy, a beautiful rural region of France that is home to many memorable dishes. Our final night's dinner of oeufs meurette, boeuf bourginogne and an assiette of fromages was not the sort of thing you eat every night, if you value your waistline, but we had done a fair bit of walking and felt justified in indulging.

Dijon has no underground system but trams run around (though not through) the historic city centre and though we did not travel on one, I know you'd like to see a picture anyway so here you are.

Sorry about the street sign but I think it adds a certain something to the picture [amateur naffness, perhaps?: Ed]

Scotch Mist - Occasional reflections on a referendum. No 7 – SNP and the destruction of the English language

I really was not intending to write any more about the referendum. But it is now the number one topic on current affairs programmes and inevitably one is drawn into the arguments. This morning I was idly listening to Today in bed, as one does when taking a day off. [He's been retired for a while but we don't want to shatter his pathetic illusions that the business world still needs him: Ed] I heard an SNP supporter using the phrase "this failed political union" and once again the blood rushed to my head, my eyes rolled and my writing fingers began to itch.

• Direct control from Westminster over all matters of Scottish life including allocation of housing, education, the police, investment, control over candidates for Parliament - that might signify a failed union.
  
• Scots unable to buy property in the rest of the UK, forbidden to travel, discriminated against when working south of the border, refused entry to pubs and hotels, singled out for stop-and-search by the police, kept waiting for many hours to cross the border - this would indicate a failed union.
  
• No democratic elections for many years despite continuous mass demands for them - that would show a failed political union.
  
• Arrests of anyone campaigning for independence, bloody suppression of demonstrations, secret police, disappearance of activists, English commissars with arbitrary powers including detention, torture and execution - that would indeed signify a failed political union.

And so on. Now you could say that some of these things did indeed take place following the battle of Culloden when the people of the Highlands were punished for support for the Jacobite cause. And you could counter-argue that even then the majority of Scots supported the union and were not Jacobites and that, within a generation, Scots were serving proudly in the British army, were represented in Government and were enjoying the full fruits of the economic boom accompanying the expansion of the British trading and political empire (as anyone who has wandered through the splendid Georgian streets of the "new town" in Edinburgh can witness).

All that was more than 200 years ago. To describe the current state of the British polity as failed is like a child who has not been picked to star in the class play (where there are only 6 main roles and 25 kids) screaming "It's not fair" and banging her head on the desk. Put it another way - the UK model is widely copied and respected around the world as an example of how to create a peaceful, representative, honest system of government. The very fact that the referendum is taking place and will be legally honoured if the result is for independence is testament to the strength of the system. Yet the SNP says it is failure, and sure the SNP are honourable men and women. [That's enough Shakespeare at this time of the morning, thanks: Ed]. Yugoslavia was a failed union. Pakistan was a failed union. When it all ends in militias, shelling of cities and slaughter of unarmed civilians, that's a failed union. The UK has been an outstanding success, despite the relative domination by the English over the rest, a domination that is acknowledged and is steadily being reduced as devolution increases, and the merits of the UK far outweigh its disadvantages. If this is failure, give me more of it.

Scotch Mist - Occasional reflections on a referendum. No 6 – The psychology of Yes

The referendum is reaching its final days. Politicians are scrambling to put over their messages to the undecided, who may amount to 10% of the electorate. Business leaders have made warnings about the penalties should the result be yes, others affirm their faith in Scottish robustness. The opinion polls have shown a sharp narrowing of the gap and there seems to be a new sense of urgency in the No campaign that was not there before.

A psychologist has pointed out the associations of the words Yes and No, one being positive and uplifiting, the other with negative associations. People like to say yes, to be part of something bigger and to feel they are making a contribution. Saying no is akin to isolating oneself and to go against the crowd, and humans are instinctively herd animals always uneasy about being out of the group. So to allow the referendum to be based on Yes or No was a clever tactic by the SNP. A better balance would have been to have two questions, viz:

• Should Scotland become independent?; or
• Should Scotland stay within the United Kingdom?

     Select one answer only.
     Write your answer on one side of the paper only.
     Do not use green crayon. Candidates expressing opinions
     about the parentage of the English,or
     the importance of loch-fulls of whisky
     or anyone threatening to play the pipes for non-payment
     of a gratuity will be the subject
     of tut-tutting and averted eyes.

Anyway, too late to change anything now. This column believes in the union. Small may be beautiful but the UK is in many ways fairly small anyway on the world stage. Let's not diminish it any more.

Scotch Mist - Occasional reflections on a referendum. No 5 –What is best for whom?

The first televised debate between the leaders of the opposing sides took place the other night. As it was on STV I was unable to watch (not that I necessarily would have, what with the build-up to the West Middlesex pro-am hopscotch first round relegation play-offs on Garbage) but gleaned the impression from the press coverage that Alastair Darling, for the “Naes” made a good case for the economic weakness that an independent Scotland would experience.  Predictably Alex Salmond for the “Ayes” continued to bluster that Scotland would remain in the sterling area with the full support of the Bank of England because this would be in the best interest of both countries. This line of argument has irritated me for a long time. The SNP have always campaigned, single-mindedly, that their policies were for Scotland and nothing else mattered. For them to now suggest that everything they do is best for everybody, even though their policies are contested by all of other the main political parties in the UK (yes, UK, there are other parties in Scotland), is confusing. Why should they care what is in my best interest?

Anyway, as I said in my last piece on this particular topic, what matters is the instinct not the endless batting back and forth of numbers. I believe that there is no conflict whatsoever between a healthy patriotism and the choice to join or remain part of a larger polity. Many of the North American states made this choice at a time when most of their residents identified with their state first and the USA second. Increasingly the citizens of Europe are moving this way, at least in part (Try driving from France through Belgium, Netherlands and Germany and see how many times you have to produce your passport). I believe that the UK can produce a better and safer quality of life for all of its citizens than if it breaks apart. The Scots have a flag, an anthem, a football team, a language (if they want it) and huge numbers of them prefer to live and work south of the border. Do they really want to see Prime Minister Salmond taking his place with the minnows at international conferences while Prime Minister Cameron (or should that be Johnson?) sits down at the top table? Do they really want to see their finest businesses relocate to ensure that they remain within the sterling area?

The vote is on 18 September. Five weeks before this business can be put behind us. It matters to me because I am a citizen of the UK and I continue to be frustrated that my views will not be taken into account on that day.

Scotch Mist - Occasional reflections on a referendum. No 4 - The futility of the "cash benefit" debate

The Scottish referendum on independence is now just four months away.  Somewhat overshadowed by the European and local council elections last week, the debate has hotted up with some conflicting claims about the monetary benefits of going it alone, or not.  Some say the Scots will all be worse by off some ludicrous figure - say £2,000 a head; others argue that independence will put an equivalent amount into each sporran.

To reduce the question of independence to a supposed monetary value is stupid. It is an insult to the intelligence of Scots voters, regardless of which way they intend to vote. If a nation truly believes that it is being suppressed or victimised by another and that independence will bring about redemption then the cost (or benefit) is irrelevant. The early settlers of Israel in the 1920s and 30s did not ask how much money they might get if they gave up their relatively settled lives in Europe to live on a kibbutz. I doubt if the Slovakians gave a second thought to breaking up the confederation with the Czechs, nor did the Bosnians and Croats and Slovenes pause to count their potential bank balances when fighting against a perceived dominance by Serbia. They may all be worse off than they would have been had things been difference; they may be doing much better. Who can tell? Who, looking back, could care less?

In any case all such calculations are futile. Economics is a "science" riddled by the need to make untested, and often untestable, assumptions about human behaviour. I should know - I have a degree in the blasted subject from one of the premier universities of this country. Economists may produce wonderfully elegant theories but they rarely produce useful predictions.

There are legitimate subjects for argument - Scotland's place in the European Union, the viability of a sterling currency union, the impact on future investment - but it is pointless to pretend that they can be given monetary values. Far more important is whether the UK can generate a safer and sounder environment for all of its citizens if Scotland remains in than if Scotland leaves. I believe it can, and that to lose the Scottish voice from the UK's privileged seat at the UN and other key institutions such as NATO and the G8 would weaken both parties to the Union. I think British ideas of justice, tolerance and fair play have been of enormous significance in the development of global culture and the Scots have made a massive contribution. And equally that contribution might have counted for little had it not been delivered as a part of the UK.

In the end if the Scots want independence because, well, they just really really want it, then none of the arguments will count for anything. It would just be a shame and a diminution of both parties.

Scotch Mist - Occasional reflections on a referendum. No 3 - the BBC debate and what it reveals

Should Scotland become an independent country it will naturally want to establish its own broadcasting services. There is no particular reason why a publically funded system such as that used for the BBC should be employed but doubtless Scots like the model and appreciate the quality and range of the huge range of BBC services. However as always there is a fascinating subtext in the arguments about money.  In an article in The Guardian the culture secretary has highlighted the proposal of the SNP to retain all of the licence fee collected in Scotland and to spend it funding its new service.  This is the key bit

The Scottish government has argued that in 2016 the BBC will raise £320m through the licence fee in Scotland, but it will spend only £175m on services for Scottish viewers and listeners.

Yes, BBC Scotland does not get all of the money raised in Scotland. So what? Nearly all of the BBC's budget goes on programmes that go to the whole of the UK. If the SNP are proposing to keep the licence fee for their own purposes and to go on having the full range of BBC programmes made available in Scotland then this simply won't fly. As a statement of principle it is so obviously stupid that I must have misunderstood their position. But they have stated they will keep all the cash and will not charge their citizens any more for receiving BBC output.

Now, citizens in Ireland receive BBC programmes and pay nothing for them and no doubt there will be an excellent signal to most of Scotland for some time to come (Whether terrestial television and radio continues  or whether the BBC goes subscription based is another story).  But it is the attitude of the SNP that grates.  "We want to share whatever you've got and we want to keep whatever we've got." Not "How can we best work together in future?". As with the currency union idea, it is all about what the SNP wants,  and sod the views of anyone else involved,  because if you are not Scottish and have a view then you are interfering, bullying, out of touch, elitist and probably a disciple of Beelzebub.

And on another note a major company suggested it might want to relocate if an independent Scotland left the sterling currency area. Another instance of interfering, bullying etc etc? Er, no. This is the highly respectable epitome of canny financial management Standard Life, HQ firmly (for the time being) in Edinburgh. And why? Because 90% of their income comes from the rest of the UK. Seems fair. If the licence fee argument, as quoted above, is a guideline then it works in exactly the same way for businesses reliant on the stability of the sterling financial system that are essentially based south of the border.

Scotch Mist - Occasional reflections on a referendum. No 2 - Independence

What is a "country" or a "nation"? Do you start with the political borders, with a language group or simply with a bunch of people who define themselves as a nation?  What happens when opposing religions divide the populace? These are difficult questions to answer and the more you (or me, at any rate) think about them, the harder they get. Do you need to be born in the territory that defines the country? Or have parents who were? Does it matter where you now live or where you aim to live in the future?

What are the classic reasons for any country to emerge as independent?

• Where an existing country has been conquered or absorbed into another and then re-emerges - Poland, destroyed in the 19th century and reborn in the 20th. albeit with shifted frontiers is a good example, as are the Baltic states and indeed all of the 19th Century Russian empire.
• Where the previous arrangement forced people of different languagues and cultures into a polity neither would choose freely - Czech and Slovakia perhaps, or East and West Pakistan.
• When a group of people are oppressed by another and only a full separation can relieve the problem - South Sudan, the nascent Palestine
• When stupid borders have been created by previous empires or colonial administrations that divide people who would naturally wish to be united, though forming new countries by merging old ones together happens pretty rarely and is, I believe, frowned upon by the UN. Kurdistan is the obvious case.

I have been trying to see how Scotland fits the case. The country has had its territorial integrity for a very long time and has never been subsumed into another. The UK was effectively a new country, not a takeover (unlike in the case of Wales). Whether Scots would have chosen the Union freely in 1707 is a matter of debate but not relevant now - what is relevant is that Scots consistently show a preference for staying in. It does seem that the case for independence is not based on any of the classic reasons. Indeed, given that Scots as a people are totally in control of their culture, their media, their police, education, health and legal systems, and compete in the football World and European cups as a nation, one wonders what difference it would make were the Act of Union to be repealed. For the huge number of Scots living elsewhere in the UK, one might think not very much at all.

So it comes down to the ordinary bloke (or blokes) in the street. After independence will they cease to be oppressed? Will they have freedoms they do not have today? Will they be able to worship as they wish, bring up their kids in a system that works for their benefit, work as they choose, live where they like, pay reasonable taxes and spend the remainder as they choose? Yes, I would think so. The SNP's domestic policies are pretty close to the standard European left-leaning Social Democratic norm (as far as I know).  But my point is that this is already pretty much the case.

What then is the true meaning of independence in this special case, a country that has its economy massively integrated into its neighbour and with whom it has lived peaceably and with full participation in national government for three hundred years (skipping over the odd Jacobite rebellion)?

The answer, I think, is that independence for Scotland really won't mean a lot. They already have it in all but name. So why bother? Pride? Maybe. But pride has never been a really good reason to break up a marriage if everything else is working fairly well.

Scotch mist - Occasional reflections on a referendum. No 1 - Currency Union.

I wrote ages ago that I was not impressed by the leader of the Scottish National Party, one A. Salmond and now that the debate about the Scottish referendum is hotting up, I am bound to say that not a lot has changed. Mr. Salmond is now not simply the only man who knows what is best for Scotland, he is (according to his own statements) the only man who can speak for the future of the UK. He wants his country to be independent but simultaneously wishes to dictate the currency and, by implication, general economic policy, to the rest of us. He has decided that his country should continue to use the Pound sterling and wants a "currency union" with the rest of the UK. The trouble with this is that it makes no sense whatsoever. Currency unions throughout history are precursors to full political union. Countries surrender sovereignty in such arrangements and it generally follows that they then recognise it formally. The history of the unifications of Germany and Italy, and the expansion of the United States across the North American continent show us this.  Equally, when for other political reasons, and there is nothing wrong with having such reasons, countries separate, then they also separate their currencies so that each may take full control of its monetary and fiscal policies. Otherwise there is not much point in being independent. The first act of the Bolsheviks in seizing power in 1917in Russia was to take over the state bank. Communists they may have been but they knew where the power lay.

So, now that all main political parties at Westminster, backed by the Treasury and the Bank of England, have ruled out a currency union ("bullying" apparently, according to Mr. Salmond; I expect his next soundbite will be "It's not fair") the choice for the Scots is simple. If the EU permits it then join the EMU (Economic and Monetary Union) of the EU and move swiftly to adoption of the Euro. Or make the Scottish Pound legal tender. Actually the first choice is probably out because like all other applicants, Scotland may have to wait a while to show that it it is fit to join the EMU. So something else must be done in the interim. Therefore it has to be the Scottish pound. But can this work on anything other than a 1:1 parity with Sterling and fully convertible balances? I doubt it. So the Scots will end up with a shadow currency and no fiscal independence to speak of, because if they do anything to spook the markets the resulting run on the Scottish pound could empty the coffers overnight (cue bitter memories of the Northern Rock fiasco). And they will be bound by whatever economic polices the Government in Westminster sets.

The solution to all of this is obvious - stay in the UK and avoid the hideous mess of splitting up. The only people who do well out of divorce are the lawyers.

The People and the Union

Let us leave matters commuterial alone for a moment and consider the fascinating constitutional crisis that is threatening the continuance of the United Kingdom.  Though united through the person of James VI of Scotland (and I of England) in 1603, the two kingdoms were separate states until the Act of Union in 1707. During the hundred years of shared monarchy there was open warfare in the Bishops' Wars 1637-40 and the vicious internecine strife of the Civil Wars. The union in 1707 did not prevent the Jacobite rebellions of 1715 and 1745 but rapidly afterwards the two kingdoms did indeed seem to become a truly united kingdom. Now, with the Scottish National Party threatening a referendum on independence and the intervention of the Prime Minister, and others, to force their hands, we may be in living in times that will see a reversal of 1707.

There is much to draw on from history, though it seems unlikely Mr. Cameron is aware of it. The Scots have always reacted instinctively against anything seeming to emanate from England. They remain convinced that any policy drawn up in Westminster must be a conspiracy to do them down. It was certainly thus in 1637 when Charles I tried to force his particular brand of religion on to his mainly Calvinist subjects north of the border. The resulting struggle kicked off the "English" Civil Wars and Charles lost his throne and his head, ironically at a time when the Scots were more or less fighting on his side, having decided that the King they knew was preferable to the Cromwell that they were scared of. So the lesson for Cameron is to keep schtum and leave it to the many Scots who oppose independence.

As to the referendum itself, we will watch with some interest the machinations of Mr Salmond, leader of the SNP and one of the most arrogant politicians this blog has had the pleasure to follow. He is currently declaiming that the decision is for the "Scottish people" alone. I would love to be able to propose a referendum on whether Scotland should be permitted to remain in the union that would be put to the voters in England, Wales and Northern Ireland - but not in Scotland - and see what Mr Salmond would say to that. I fail to see why he can choose whether to be in a club but the other members have no say on his membership.

In addition, the word "people" may trip him up. Just who are the Scottish People? Those who live in Scotland or those of Scottish birth? Many Scots live abroad (some even in England, believe it or not). Do they get to vote? How, if they are on the English electoral roll? And if they do, where is the line to be drawn? And why should, for example, a rich film actor or racing driver who chooses not to live in Scotland so he can avoid paying taxes to the Scottish treasury, be entitled to vote? If you have a Scottish father and an English mother and you live in England, are you part of the Scottish people? Huge numbers of Scots emigrated to the USA and Canada in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Are their descendants Scottish? And if you live in Scotland and are registered to vote but were born elsewhere and retain the nationality of your birthplace, as do many migrants from the EU, then do you get to vote about the future of Scotland? What about emigrants from Hong Kong, or from the Commonwealth? If they have become citizens, then they are citizens of the United Kingdom, not of Scotland.

There is so much here to trip up the SNP that I have no doubt they will duck the question altogether, wrap themselves in a tartan banner and a subtext of "We hate the English bastards" and wait for the anniversary of Bannockburn.