10 Pretty Unpersuasive Reasons for Scottish Independence

This week the SNP will launch their campaign for Scottish independence. Or, rather, it’s the official beginning of what they term the ‘Yes’ campaign. Prefacing this, Joan McAlpine uses her column in the Daily Record to list ten reasons why Scots should endorse independence. It is an interesting list, not least because McAlpine, who is close to Alex Salmond, is one of the higher-profile SNP MSPs and someone to whom it is always worth paying attention. This is her list:

1. An independent Scotland would be the sixth wealthiest country on earth. According to the OECD, apparently. It’s the Black Gold, silly.

This is a very dubious statistic. It relies on GDP per capita whereas Gross National Product is likely to be a better indicator of real prosperity in Scotland since, one presumes, the new state will have no plans to nationalise the oil industry. The “asset value” of North Sea Oil is most impressive on paper; how much of its value would actually trickle down to Scottish families is a different, less certain, matter.

2. We have 25% of europe’s potential for wind and wave energy. We can export this!

True. Again, however, most of the profits from these ventures are owned by non-Scottish companies. Also: there has to be some uncertainty about a post-independence regulatory environment and its impact on the Scottish energy sector.

3. Scotland is very attractive to inward investors. With independence it can be even more alluring!

Perhaps. Inward investment has its uses but it’s not enough to drive the economy because, again, the main action stays elsewhere. Still, Mr Salmond is an enthusiast for lower rates of corporation tax (a reasonable policy!) but his room for manoevre in this area is likely to be limited .

4. “Independence will allow us to keep services such as the NHS and the welfare state. In England they are being privatised and cut.”

Or, to put it another way, independence will help ensure that an unreformed Scottish NHS continues to be outperformed by a more productive health service in England. Nevertheless this also amounts to: Why do we want independence? Because we want to stop welfare reform! My, that’s a clarion call for the ages!

5. Scotland has five good universities and we don’t charge (Scottish) students up-front fees. With independence we can do more.

Maybe. If “more” means anything here it must mean more funding for universities. Which is fine and may well be a good thing. But that will have to be paid for. If students won’t be asked to contribute it means everyone else must. That may be worth it.

6. “We’ll have more money in our pockets. If we got back what we sent south in tax, official figures show every Scot would have £510 more a year… The only tax the Scottish Government controls just now is council tax, and it’s frozen under the SNP. Imagine if we controlled fuel duty, national insurance, VAT and income tax.”

OK. But the First Minister has acknowledged that he can’t see how an independent Scotland would be free to set tax levels at rates very different from those applying in England. There’s a good reason for that since imposing higher taxes in Scotland than in England must increase the risk of capital flight and, rather importantly, human emigration too. If taxes in Scotland are to be different from those in England it stands to reason they will have to be lower. This is fine too but, if all this additional public spending is to be maintained, then Scotland will need to be a low-tax, low-regulation, open economy. Not a bad idea! But is this what the SNP really want? Remember: Scotland presently contributes a smaller share of UK income tax receipts than her population would suggest she should. There is little room for increasing these taxes.

7. “Our government would be more streamlined. Scotland, like Denmark, New Zealand, Norway and Finland, is a goldilocks country – not too big and not too small. The UK wastes money on bloated institutions bogged down by bureaucracy – look at HMRC, the tax authority. It’s gone from one calamity to another. The rich get away with evasion while the rest are overcharged.”

Hmmm. Perhaps. True, bureaucracy is subject to bloat. True too that smaller polities may enjoy greater policy-nimbleness. Nevertheless, this is scarcely the grandest claim for independence. Vote Yes for a streamlined bureaucracy! In Auchtermuchty they desire nothing mroe than this, I assure you.

8. Mobiles would work and we’d all get high-speed broadband.

Really? This is one of the Top Ten Reasons For Independence? There are only two ways of ensuring that every part of (sparsely-populated) Scotland receive better coverage: make it much more expensive for companies to provide these services or make it much more expensive for all consumers to access them. Both seem probable in these circumstances.

9. Our culture would get a boost.

Really? They said that about devolution too. Perhaps an independent Scotland would “export high-quality drama” and maybe “our young bands would have a platform on the radio” but it seems unlikely. Or, rather, how many Scottish bands presently fail because Scotland is part of the United Kingdom? Quite. And, sure, everyone (who watches BBC Four) is gaga about Danish TV these days but as a counter-example I’d point to Ireland, a country which has produced almost no worthwhile TV in recent years.

10. “Imagine the goodwill. Scotland is held in high regard around the world – by those who know us. But being buried in brand Britain means sometimes we don’t get to shine as we should. Independence would generate global interest. We would be the new kid on the block – young, modern, and happening.”

Ah, yes, that would be the bottom-of-the-barrel being scraped. Think of the goodwill is not much better than think of the children. It is almost certainly the case that Scotland has benefited – in McAlpine’s own terms – by being part of the United Kingdom. Far from being buried in “brand Britain”, the UK has been an outlet for Scotland to the rest of the world. As for this Cool Caledonia stuff, the notion that we’d be “young, modern and happening” is so much guff. Perhaps everyone would enjoy a spring in their step but the case for independence really isn’t advanced by suggesting that, well, journalists from Japan or Brazil would suddenly take a (fleeting) interest n Scotland.

So, all in all, a pretty poor effort, reliant on hefty doses of wishful thinking and great dollops of contradictory policy-making. Apart from that, it’s all dandy.

Strip away some of that, however, and you have a message that boils down to this: Vote For Independence So Everything Can Be Just As It Is Now Only More So. That’s all well and good but I’m not sure it’s quite good enough. Besides, as it does not take long to ascertain, many of the notions on Joan’s list can be achieved without the bother or trouble of independence.

Which makes it rather odder that Joan didn’t just stop her article after its first sentence:

The best people to run Scotland are those who care most about the country – the people who live here.