1916: In the middle of World War
One, Ireland stages a bid for independence in Dublin, threatening the British
chances of success at a crucial moment in the war effort.
2012: In the middle of the worst
recession since the Wall Street Crash, Scotland stages a democratic bid for
independence “in Edinburgh, in London, or anywhere the Prime Minister pleases”,
with many deeming the act detrimental to British growth at a crucial moment of
European downgrading.
Certainly, the debate waging
around the possibility of independence versus unity has seen battle lines
drawn, but these may be premature concerns.
Previous breakups of the United
Kingdom in Ireland provide a primary cause for concern. However, the eventual independence
granted to Ireland was more an appeasement following a costly war, with
transition handled distastefully by both parties. Looking back over the course
and administration of the change of power, there are easily identifiable
mistakes that could (and should) be avoided in the case of Scottish
independence.
Continued violence and hostility
is the true legacy of Irish independence and that was a threat suffered
particularly till the turn of the century, but a decade ago. Scottish
independence, on the other hand, would be entered into through democratic
debate rather than the forceful mode of conduct that kickstarted and marked the
Irish movement. England, not as prominent on a world scene, would be more
amenable to these discussions than its own rash nature almost 100 years ago,
when maintaining status was a priority.
Besides, a peaceful resolution
would be encouraged while resources are stretched so thin across the United
Kingdom due to cuts.
However, Scotland would surely
earn the lion’s share of these resources from a split. Economically vibrant at
the moment, Scotland has, as expected, the second largest GVA per capita in the
United Kingdom, after England. Yet, many do not appreciate, or are completely
unaware of, the fact that revenue from the North Sea oil rigs are not included
in these figures, as the profit is currently ‘distributed’ around the UK
instantly. With independence, 91% of the oil area lies within the Scottish
borders. The sudden wealth that would be available to the northern territory as
a whole would transform many areas of public spending and investment: leaving
Scotland with little deficit.
In fact, it is already recognised
that Scotland is the largest producer of petroleum within the EU, and that
there is potential for other offshore oil-sites.
Additionally, Scotland is the
central zeitgeist for whiskey lovers worldwide. Exports in specialisms such as
whiskey, shortbreads, fudges and fishing produce earn the Scottish country a
reputation for delicacies renowned the world over. Add the prominence in
manufacturing and construction (Glasgow for example houses the largest shipping
construction area within the UK), and one can see the advantages to a booming
Scottish economy.
Already a relatively rich nation,
the boost proffered from continued exports would ensure gained capital and
circulation of the pound. In 2007 alone, Scotland’s top 10 export destinations
alone earned the country in excess of £18,825 million. Imagine the growth in
this figure with Scottish independence, backed peacefully by England.
In turn, this could help Scotland
to tackle its slums and poverty problems. Despite the economic benefits of the
oil, there is still marked difference between lifestyles of many Scots and
their counterparts south of the border. An average male in Glasgow for example
only has a life expectancy of 69. Scottish public services see themselves as
inhabiting a different social area than England and Wales, with different key
issues of poverty, drugs, and unemployment to tackle.
However, even with the
separation, use of the GBP will insure continued intrinsic links with the
remaining UK factions. Extra trade on the pound from Scotland will ensure
continued circulation that benefits England and Wales itself in the long run.
 |
| A poll by YouGov last May showed marginal support for the move, but an overwhelming rejection from Scotland itself. |
Perhaps the break-away of
Scotland would also encourage a deeper look at the British image: a modern
twenty-first century conglomerate of cultures hinged on London. The investment
seen across Scotland should be mimicked across larger areas of the UK. HS2
makes some steps in that direction, but relatively few and relatively slowly.
England is not capitalising upon its current market opportunities. Expanse of
infrastructure would allow greater migration of peoples across the country for
jobs. Focussing our main sources of income on development would allow a certain
independence in a time of Eurozone uncertainty, creating a more stable market
area. A galvanised population to the
North could teach English people a thing or two about national pride for sure.
Scuppering Salmond’s hopes for
Scotland however are the Welsh and Irish members of Parliament, claiming that
Scottish dominion in its own right would leave the two areas outvoiced within
Westminster.
Nonetheless, considering moves
towards Welsh parliaments, it would appear rather foolhardy to prevent progress
for the sake of tradition. Not only does the move allow England a greater
democratic voice, but it is not in the apocalyptic fashion that the Welsh and
Irish describe: rather radicalisation on both sides of the border due to the
split would see new ideas emerge as to how the country should be run and here
lies the prospect of wide social and cultural change (the thing the Welsh and
Irish appear to advocate amidst a Tory government).
With no date currently set for
the vote (despite furious debate over timing this past week), we shall have to
watch the development and resolution of lingering issues, such as currency,
military, and Nuclear warheads over the coming months.
Shaking of the shackles of union
is never an easy transition, but for the cultural, economic and social benefits
that Scotland could wager, perhaps the UK should be more amenable to the shouts
of “FREEDOM”.
No comments:
Post a Comment