![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Scottish independence, yet again
Our fearless leader, Nicola Sturgeon, recently introduced to the Scottish National Party the task of a listening exercise in which they talk to people to, as far as I can determine, try to understand how to package a more appealing case for Scottish independence in another referendum campaign. This presents me with a moral dilemma.
I know what I would tell them. First, it would be to describe a more attractive vision of what truly sounds like independence . (The Scottish Green Party did a better job of that.) What they described before remained so closely entailed with the remainder of the UK that, while perhaps comforting people scared of change, sounded like a fantasy of having one's cake and eating it, combined with poison pills like another Eurozone-style instance of how not to do a currency union. (The cynic in me would say that the SNP wouldn't like true independence because they would no longer be able to blame their own failings on Westminster.) There may well be an attractive independence story in which, say, they could let their currency depreciate Iceland-style and offer the world useful services, like various tourism and cheap call-centers with well-educated native-
Secondly, I'd tell them to be more realistic about the numbers . Their previous laughable portrait of a generous welfare state founded on oil revenue has already been shown to be a sham but, further, the independence may well last far longer than the oil does. If they want to throw away the Barnett-style crutch of redistribution from the UK then they need a story that uses the oil money as no more than a transitional step toward something more sustainable. There are good things that could be said, including exploiting the UK goverment's regrettable backing off funding renewable energy projects by Scotland's becoming a world leader in hydroelectric technology, etc., but
Thirdly, I'd tell them to be realistic about the available options . There was a notable lack of any kind of
I expect that the SNP are not reading this blog! Of course, the above is but a brief summary of my thinking, and can certainly be fleshed out. But, the broad themes are there. So, this leaves me wondering if I should actually respond to their listening exercise.
On the one hand, I am a big fan of responding when asked. People complain that politicians aren't doing what they want them to but they complain to each other and don't say anything to the politicians! (Indeed, I have a single-page letter beside me now waiting to be mailed to a local councillor.) I believe that we should do what we can to have the voting public presented with the best options possible. If the SNP want to present a better independence plan to the electorate then perhaps it is my duty to assist them in offering that option.
On the other hand, the median member of the voting public is startlingly ignorant and prejudiced, hardly an open-minded truth-seeker. (Try talking to them about public policy, you'll see! Though my impression may be influenced by years of living in the US.) And, my impression of the Scottish National Party is that they are no better. What horrifies me far more than Scottish independence is the idea of the SNP being in charge of negotiating it then running Scotland afterward: there's just too much tribal patriotism there that doesn't comfortably brook dissent or, in my opinion, live in reality. I also find it quite plausible that the UK leaving the EU followed by Scotland leaving the UK might be quite awful for Scottish scientific research funding. Perhaps my duty is to help ensure that the SNP lose another independence referendum, to which end their having another (literally) incredible plan for independence would be a boon.
I know what I would tell them. First, it would be to describe a more attractive vision of what truly sounds like independence . (The Scottish Green Party did a better job of that.) What they described before remained so closely entailed with the remainder of the UK that, while perhaps comforting people scared of change, sounded like a fantasy of having one's cake and eating it, combined with poison pills like another Eurozone-style instance of how not to do a currency union. (The cynic in me would say that the SNP wouldn't like true independence because they would no longer be able to blame their own failings on Westminster.) There may well be an attractive independence story in which, say, they could let their currency depreciate Iceland-style and offer the world useful services, like various tourism and cheap call-centers with well-educated native-
English-speaking staff, and they could adapt immigration policy to welcome the overseas students who graduate from Scottish universities. Basically, I'd encourage them to describe a plan that truly embraces the opportunities that independence would newly open.
Secondly, I'd tell them to be more realistic about the numbers . Their previous laughable portrait of a generous welfare state founded on oil revenue has already been shown to be a sham but, further, the independence may well last far longer than the oil does. If they want to throw away the Barnett-style crutch of redistribution from the UK then they need a story that uses the oil money as no more than a transitional step toward something more sustainable. There are good things that could be said, including exploiting the UK goverment's regrettable backing off funding renewable energy projects by Scotland's becoming a world leader in hydroelectric technology, etc., but
the oil will keep us in the pink, especially when perhaps it shouldn't all be extracted and burned as soon as possible, just isn't enough.
Thirdly, I'd tell them to be realistic about the available options . There was a notable lack of any kind of
Plan Bin their previous campaign and this is partly why an attractive story about true independence is important. What if they must have a controlled land border with England? What if they can't easily stay in the European Union? What if they are forced to adopt the Euro to be in the EU? The bland assertions that everything would remain essentially the same were simply not credible. They need to face the questions of what might happen, what others would plausibly impose, and show how those wouldn't be disastrous.
I expect that the SNP are not reading this blog! Of course, the above is but a brief summary of my thinking, and can certainly be fleshed out. But, the broad themes are there. So, this leaves me wondering if I should actually respond to their listening exercise.
On the one hand, I am a big fan of responding when asked. People complain that politicians aren't doing what they want them to but they complain to each other and don't say anything to the politicians! (Indeed, I have a single-page letter beside me now waiting to be mailed to a local councillor.) I believe that we should do what we can to have the voting public presented with the best options possible. If the SNP want to present a better independence plan to the electorate then perhaps it is my duty to assist them in offering that option.
On the other hand, the median member of the voting public is startlingly ignorant and prejudiced, hardly an open-minded truth-seeker. (Try talking to them about public policy, you'll see! Though my impression may be influenced by years of living in the US.) And, my impression of the Scottish National Party is that they are no better. What horrifies me far more than Scottish independence is the idea of the SNP being in charge of negotiating it then running Scotland afterward: there's just too much tribal patriotism there that doesn't comfortably brook dissent or, in my opinion, live in reality. I also find it quite plausible that the UK leaving the EU followed by Scotland leaving the UK might be quite awful for Scottish scientific research funding. Perhaps my duty is to help ensure that the SNP lose another independence referendum, to which end their having another (literally) incredible plan for independence would be a boon.