Scotland Yes, England No.

Or

The Devolution of Scotland?

After 300 some years an element of the Scots have succeeded in bringing to their electorate a choice, one that they say they have never had before and that choice is to decide whether it is better to be divorced from the Union that comprises England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (with other associated realms that forms the British Isles) or remain within the core Union of it. The Union here is one that was formed between England and Scotland by historical adventures culminating in 1707. At the time and what being consistently expressed now by the nationalist, is that no one alive from there on up to this 21st century has had a choice to revisit that momentous decision; to evaluate the relevance or suitability of that Union for the Scotland of today. What is also worthwhile noting is that the vast majority of the English also had absolutely no choice in taking on the nation of Scots that jointly later became one of the most successful peaceful and prosperous Unions in history, all for it to last this length of time.

At the time of the formation of the Union, after it must be said a disturbing time of Scottish inter tribal warfare, over laid with the interest of landed clan chiefs and English aristocracy participating in fights for controlling interest, the Scots of peasant stock had little involvement in the formation of the Union but in which most, importantly those in wealthy influential positions unwittingly established the turmoil from which the Union was created. The Union was in large measure brought about by the collapse of the Darien Scheme (1698) a grand scheme designed and promoted by Scots for Scotland to establish a trading colony in S. America – Panama, to circumvent the economic power exercised by the English. For this Panama adventure,  Scotland, in a period of famine and wide distress, raised finance and created maniacal debt from a broad range of private and civic capital, to hire ships and acquire resources to build and sustain the purported colony. Within a decade the venture became a terrible financial failure to the extent that Scotland was bankrupt and this led directly to the senior Scottish investors seeking an absolution from insolvency via the completion of the act of Union and also being bailed out and recompensed by the English government.  It is fabulously argued by some now that the failure of the Darien misadventure was propagated by the deliberate lack of support particularly of financial investment from England and compounded by the inimical trading strength controlled by the English, all engineered to cause such a failure of the hoped for Scottish economic liberating enterprise.

 As an interesting aside to note, that at the time of the Union, the Royal bank of Scotland was formed to re-establish a financial structure for Scotland wilfully destroyed in the Darien scheme and this same bank had to be rescued during the CC of 2007/8 for partaking in excessive financial exuberance; a re-run of what had created the Union in the first place.

Since the Union there has been a simmering dissent at the influence and centralist power emanating from London and a resentment of the English ‘forced’ Union marriage. For the recent two decades the dissent had been growing stimulated by the antics of the Scottish National Party which has successfully lured its own Scottish people to believe total independence can be reclaimed from the act of Union, despite having already achieved many element of self determination powers via its own parliament, with the enhancement of  the return of the stone of Scone (stone of destiny) taken from Scotland in 1296 and returned in 1996 by the conservative government, this small act of accession gave some measure of confidence to the nationalist and they have since gone from strength to strength with the aid of increased devolved powers started by the Blair administration. However it has to be acknowledged that a great deal of preparatory damage was enacted by the policies of the Thatcher government in the 70s that has so alienated the Scottish voters from any Tory influence ever since.

So this year on the 18th of September the Scots will go to the election boxes and decide on a Union ‘in’ or ‘out’ vote, (No/Yes) a vote in which the English again have no say in the matter. All the history and benefits are to be reassessed and argued over. The risk and rewards are all subject to conjecture yet there is clear evidence (desputed by SNP) that there is a huge unquantified financial risk, totally disregarded by the SNP and its supporters. Throughout the whole campaign the SNP have been unable to offer any clear answers to key question being asked of it, all brushed aside with some degree of vitriolic attitudes to counter that there are any risks and Scotland can be an independent prosperous nation and freed from the shackles of an unrepresentative politically exiled English government. The questions are all well rehearsed in the media ranging from what will be the currency of use, what will be its value, how much debt / deficit will have to be taken on from the joint Union enterprise, who will own what, how will pension, health, state assets, business, environmental, security, immigration, EU, NATO, be effected and although the English have no say in the matter of ‘in or out’ the debates ignore the fact that although the people of the north of England have been hit harder by conservative centralist politics, to now have a population of 5m Scots who are about to dictate effects on a population 65m, with most of them living in the north of England, would seem inequitable.

There is little doubt that the SNP want independence at any cost and have been playing to the undercurrent of racist attitude that some Scots have long had for the English. What they do not recognise is the divisive nature of the referendum enterprise and the long term repercussions for both Scotland and England. As such a deliberated choice of separation or Union has never been done before, there is no obvious indication of which way a vote will go. There is a small percentage margin on either side for a yes or no vote however anything less than a conclusive decision will be for both Scots and English contentious; either way the rump of the Union - England, Wales, N. Ireland etc will be affected and eventually blamed for whatever miss fortune befalls Scotland after the event of the 18^th.

There is of course a small chance the no’s will have it, which will give Scotland considerably more self determination power but not total independence; the SNP, in the long term, will not accept that, but it will take the additional powers being promised. However for them a win of ‘yes’ by any margin will be a total win regardless of the democratic and sociological damage it will cause.

Although the English do not have a choice, the impact in the event of a ‘yes’ will be profound and long lasting. In the event of full independence for Scotland, England could not continue to accept a political landscape that does not also recognise the need for some form of regional devolved powers. It will raise the issue of a fractured economic system that allows the south to act as an independent economic force. The continuing social disenfranchisement of the north, repercussions of the forestalled Westlothian question, the inequality of the Barnet formula which will continue to benefit Scotland for perhaps a full parliament term beyond the 2017 date that SNP expects to gain overall completion of devolution and a likely unfolding of an economic war of attrition, one that neither ‘country’ can really afford; will all have to be addressed. The financial markets and business will not tolerate the uncertainty that a deferential currency or interest rate will cause and will play for cautious positions putting pressure on the value of sterling. There is a lot to lose and little to be gained by either nation.

There are many arguments of what ifs and hindsight that have impacted on the Union but it is abundantly obvious that history cannot be rewritten, yet to ignore the shape of current world affairs and the whole dynamics of global pressures which are of such a nature that the viability or not of one small nation acting alone, can have little impact and influence on the wider geopolitical conflicts.  

In the event of a No, it is assumed by some of the Scots that the English political ranks cannot be trusted to deliver on the addition devolved powers. There is absolutely no doubt that the wide range of discussions expressed in the devolution campaign will not mean business as usual after a No vote; Scotland will get all that has been promised but also there has to be a reassessment of the way regions are treated to give similar devolved powers; as has been said on numerous occasions “there is no going back”   

In the event of a Yes, why should the English be magnanimous in the face of a hostile devolutionary vote; to know that after a long mutually successful associated history, to be now ignominiously discarded assumes that everything will be sorted smoothly for the outright benefits of just 5m people at the expense of the other 65m. Not to expect a social physiological backlash would be foolhardy. Why should the pressurised finances of a reduced UK be favourable to expenditure north of the border, invest into a ‘foreign’ country, why spend ones disposable income in a country that chooses no longer to want you – the English, yet all existing on the same land mass! 

Conflicts have started on divisiveness. 

© Renot 2014

169141930