Do we need more national boundaries dividing up this little island?

Here are observations on Scottish Independence from an ordinary fellow who lives in England but who comes from a multinational background and whose wife is half Scottish.  Please explore there links and let me have your views:  

Peace, democracy, strong economy +  cultural & historical heritage development rather more national borders
Is independence really worth it? Perhaps Scotland should be more outward looking and concentrate on improving the economy and creating a better future for our children.

Scotland has wide-ranging financial spending freedom now!
Does Scotland need independence to achieve a better future for people who live in Scotland? There are doubtful benefits to independence and many potential major catastrophes including the issues surrounding oil prices and oil extraction in the North Sea. Here,  I try and put the facts and signal some of the dangers.


An historical view on Scottish independence
Why did I write this? Because I remember Winston Churchill's words (and many others who have the same sentiment): “Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it” 


PS: 
If I were to be cynical I could say: perhaps some of the leaders of the independence movement want to strut the world stage like kings of old? 

Scotland has wide-ranging financial spending freedom now!

Despite the rhetoric in the Yes/No campaign the Scottish Government has been able to spend what they like on a whole host of areas for the last 10 years so I really can’t understand why they’re saying that independence will allow them to spend more money on health education social work and housing etc. The Scottish government have also had tax-raising powers which they never used. Perhaps they’re frightened that this will lose them an election!

Perhaps the ‘feel good’ factor for Scotland’s government (free university places etc) in recent has been brought about by the formula which is used to calculate the amount of money the Scottish government has full control over. Scotland has a much larger allocation than England, – just over £10,000 per head, whilst England has about £8,500 per head.

For 10 year now, the Scottish Parliament has had full financial management over many areas, include:

• Health
• Education and training
• Local government
• Law, including most aspects of criminal and civil law, the prosecution system and the courts
• Social work
• Housing
• Tourism and economic development
• Some aspects of transport, including the Scottish road network, bus policy, and ports and harbours. (Capital expenditure on railway is still centrally funded).
• Planning and the environment
• Agriculture, forestry and fishing
• Sport and the arts

· 

The UK Parliament control includes:

• Constitutional matters
• UK defence and national security
• UK foreign policy
• Immigration and nationality
• UK economic and monetary policy (other than Scotland's tax-varying power)
• Energy: electricity, coal, gas and nuclear power
• Employment legislation
• Social security payments  (the DWP - Department for Work and Pensions)
• Some aspects of transport, including railways, safety and regulation
• regulation of certain professions such as medicine and dentistry

In the UK Parliament Scotland has 59 MPs.  

Current Financial Facts

The main source of finance for the Scottish Parliament is still the block grant from the Treasury. This is worked out according to the 'Barnett Formula.' This allocation of money pays for all the spending programmes for Scotland, such as health and education. Because of the 'Barnet Formula', Scotland receives a proportionally greater share of the money available - more than the share received by England. About 19% more currently!  

The Scotland Act (2001), which drew up the conditions of devolution, granted the Scottish Government some tax raising powers  allowing Government to vary income tax by plus or minus 3%. This has never been used by the current SNP or the previous Labour administration in Edinburgh. Currently the block allocation shows that £10,152 per head is provided to the Scottish Government for spending on public services. This is £1,623 more than in England.  

The 2011 census shows that the population of Scotland is: 5.295 million so one can see the Scottish budget is a sizable at well over £50 billion.  

Future financing of an independent Scotland

If Scotland decides to become independent Scotland will have to raise its money from the number of people employed (part-time or full-time) which is about 2.547 million (2012 figures). They will also raise income on businesses and other things like North Sea oil.

The dilemma for Scottish government really relates to taxing businesses. They really can’t up the tax for working people very much as this might cause people to move their job from Scotland to England. The amount of money they can raise through inheritance tax and taxing rich people is tiny compared to what they can raise from businesses. However they have a dilemma – if they raise corporation tax too much businesses will just migrate south as many of them already have offices in England. If they raise taxes too high on the North Sea oil revenues then it might dissuade the big oil companies from investing in exploration. Therefore I believe they are between a rock and a hard place and they have three Achilles heels:

1.   North Sea oil revenues – if the world price of oil goes down then it makes extraction from the North Sea less attractive for the oil companies and therefore revenues will fall as the oil companies will go elsewhere.

2.   Recession – with all the turbulence in the world we could still have another recession. As we found in Iceland, Ireland and other small countries recession hits hard. If Scotland were independent they would not be able to call upon the extra borrowing power they would need internationally to sustain a fall in tax income.

3.   Currency – Alex Salmond doesn’t want to let a new Scottish currency float freely on the international markets as he secretly knows that this would lead to a heavy devaluation of the Scottish pound thus making all imports to Scotland massively expensive. It might make exports cheap but that won’t affect the North Sea oil which is based upon the international dollar rate. So Alex Salmond wants to link the Scottish pound to the UK pound and he says he can do it freely without asking us. Yes he can, but if they do this they will have to operate in a similar way to countries like Panama who have no international borrowing status and who rely solely upon holding massive reserves to protect their country. Without any formal agreement Scotland will not be able to borrow on international markets nor will it be able to operate independent banks.

So, the other option for Alex is to link the Scottish pound to the English pound in a currency union. Well, will the English want this? That means to say that if Scotland spends unwisely then the British government will have to pick up the tab. We have seen examples of the lack of controls but retaining the common currency in places like Greece. In the end Europe in the form of Germany has had to pick up the tab. I’m not so sure that the English taxpayer will want to pick up the tab for Alex Salmond’s spending in Scotland. 

The people of England haven’t had the opportunity to be asked as to whether they want to give free rein to Alex Salmond on the currency issue but I’m sure they would give a resounding no!

There are many other side-effects of Scotland becoming independent which I don’t think have been thought through by Alex Salmond and his colleagues. Who is going to pay for all of the Scottish embassies around the world? Will they come to the UK government, cap in hand, and say ‘please can we have a room in your embassy’? Is Scotland going to have a defence force? How are they going to fund it? How long will it take for Scotland’s application to join the EU take? Whether or not they join the EU they will have to do agree terms similar to those which countries like Norway have had to agree to which means that they have to comply with all the EU regulations and make the necessary payments to the EU without having a say at the Council of ministers or in the European Parliament.

My conclusion in all of this is that Scottish independence will not benefit the people of Scotland financially and may actually make them a lot poorer. Certainly it will cost English taxpayers who will have to bear the brunt of the cost of the decade or so it will take to unravel the departments of government and other organisations and will take up a lot of unnecessary parliamentary time to make sure the correct provisions are made when we should be concentrating on other more important world affairs and economic development for all of us.

An historical view on Scottish independence

Robert the Bruce

Whether we like it or not history shows us that Scotland and England have very close ties and their economies have been intertwined for over 1000 years. Even before the Norman conquest Anglo-Saxons arrived in some parts of Scotland and so we can see that ‘Alba’ was made up of Gaels, Scots, Picts Vikings, Britons, Angles and latterly Anglo-Saxons. After the Norman conquest there was intermarrying between the powerful Scottish and Norman families which added Normans into the mix. So by the time the great Robert the Bruce is crowned King of Scotland it was already a country with roots leading back into many other countries and cultures. Indeed Robert the Bruce was himself of Norman origin.

Looking back we can see as early as 1100 there was integration between the crowns of Scotland and England - Edith known as Matilda, daughter of Malcolm III of Scotland, marries King Henry I of England. There were many twists and turns over the centuries which could have led to a different outcome today. After the death of Alexander III of Scotland, Margaret, Maid of Norway inherited the Crown in 1286. Had she not drowned on her way to Scotland in 1290 the map of Europe might have been very different with Scotland and Norway being united. However that wasn’t the case and the entanglement between the Scottish & English crowns became ever closer. After Margaret died an heir could not be agreed amongst the Scottish lords and so they appealed to Edward I of England. In 1292, Edward I of England grants the Scottish throne to John Balliol, an Scottish/Anglo-Norman. He was followed by another Scottish/Anglo-Norman, Robert I (Robert de Brus), popularly known as Robert the Bruce. So, one can see that the influence of the Normans in the British Isles culminated in Norman ascendancy in the Scottish Crown. This may have led to disputes but inevitably it led to economic and political integration.

Some may see the action of the Scottish lords as being fatal but in practical terms it set the seal on the future destiny and later integration of both crowns of Scotland and England. 

Eventually in 1603 James VI of Scotland inherited the English crown and by his own words he declared the joining of the two crowns as ‘Britain.’ Under James both parliaments continued to sit, one in Scotland and one in England. As we see so expertly revealed in Episode 1 of BBC Scotland series – 'The Stuarts' by Dr Clare Jackson it was the English Parliament who were reluctant to integrate with the Scottish Parliament. 

This integration wasn’t to happen until 1707 when the Scottish Parliament voted for a single parliament under the Crown of Great Britain. Why did they do this? It was claimed that union would enable Scotland to recover from the financial disaster wrought by the ‘Darien’ scheme. (The colonization project that became known as the Darien Scheme was an unsuccessful attempt by the Kingdom of Scotland to become a world trading nation by establishing a colony called "Caledonia" on the Isthmus of Panama on the Gulf of Darién in the late 1690s. Today, the site of the colony is now called Puerto Escocés, or Port Scotland).

From 1707 onwards Scottish MPs sit in the British Parliament.

Of course that is not the end of the matter. Charles Edward Stuart, (Bonnie Prince Charlie), grandson of James II of Britain, is the cause of an uprising after he arrives from the continent where he had been born and lived all his life and where he had been encouraged by the Pope and Catholic forces on the continent to claim the throne of Scotland. This Jacobite uprising fails as we all know. Scotland certainly suffered after this uprising and we can see the physical evidence of military occupation under the Georgian kings around Scotland. 

However much happened in terms of the economic, engineering, artistic and academic development in Scotland in the 18th, 19th & 20th centuries which puts Scotland on the world stage where it remains. So, why is independence necessary? Perhaps some of the leaders of the independence movement want to strut the world stage like kings of old? 

Scottish Independence Vote

Personally, I am not one who is enthused by the idea of ‘nationhood,’ – I am more concerned to live in a peaceful, democratic society with a strong economy that can sustain our children and future generations. I am more concerned with the development of our cultural & historical heritage rather than distinct legal national borders. I suppose my feelings on this matter are partly rooted in my ancestry which is a combination of Welsh, German and English. Also, my wife’s father was born in Glasgow. I am happy seeing myself as a European and as Welsh, English and German with Scottish links. Now, I see myself as a ‘man of Sussex’ (where I have lived for over 30 years) as well as a citizen of the world where I wish to travel and understand other peoples and enjoy their culture and history!

I do not believe we should go back to the concept of ‘tribal like’ land disputes of the past dividing up this little planet but to seek co-operation between countries and regions for economic, ecological and future sustainability reasons; to protect ourselves and to have influence over other spheres of the world working towards world peace but at the same time to protect us from aggression, extremism and terrorists. As John F Kennedy said: “United, there is little we cannot do in a host of cooperative ventures. Divided, there is little we can do -- for we dare not meet a powerful challenge at odds and split asunder. As the Greek philosopher, Aesop, tells us: “United we stand, divided we fall”.

We have to think how all the billions of people in our fast growing world population are going to live in peace and be fed; not who runs which little corner of the world.  

We can all regret the passing of nations for example the King of the Britons, the  great King Arthur, that great mythical British Monarch; the loss of the Welsh principality; the loss of the Kingdom of Wessex and the Kingdom of Northumbria and the like ……… but what remains and what we must cherish & nurture is the historical & cultural heritage. I do not believe that formal fixed borders will help us economically or culturally. In fact the more one divides up the geography of our planet the more likelihood there is for dispute and economic difficulties. For example I believe the federation of 52 American states in the form of the USA is far better than 52 separate countries!  As for Europe, before the formation of the EU the people of Europe had suffered from centuries of war and economic crisis.  

The vote in Scotland next month is a simple action, too easily taken but what will follow is a long period of economic uncertainty and to what benefit? The debate seems to have been inward looking and not outwards to the world where our destiny really lies.