EVEN among politicians convinced of its benefits, it’s rare to hear an argument from them in favour of the Union which isn’t based either on an appeal to the familiar or on some sense that an independent Scotland would manage less well over the piece in the world than it would as part of the UK.
To be clear, neither argument when made sincerely is in any way unfair. The onus is always on those of us who seek independence to persuade others positively of the merits of our case.
Nevertheless, it’s also true that there is a “Project Fear” tendency at play in some arguments. We have seen during the 2014 referendum, and afterward, Unionist politicians seeking to contend – even faced with clear evidence to the contrary – that leaving the UK would see Scotland in some way isolated from all that’s good in the world while left at the mercy of all that’s bad.
It’s been put forward most recently in the political weaponisation of the UK’s response to the pandemic. In this, it’s asserted that despite the comparable financial measures taken by countries of a similar size to Scotland, the package of measures taken by the UK went well beyond the scope of anything that an independent Scotland could ever have accomplished by itself.
The Barnett Formula is often – entirely incorrectly – hailed as a means of allocating undeservedly high levels of public spending to Scotland. Yet taken together with a lack of meaningful borrowing powers, the way the formula works means that despite devolution, an extremely large proportion of the resource available to invest in Scottish public services is still set rigidly in proportion to whatever a UK government decides to spend in England.
What this meant during the pandemic was that when the Scottish Government wanted to take a particular action with a cost implication, it had to ensure that the required resources had already been released through policy decisions taken in England. It also meant that if there was a need to act in Scotland in a way that hadn’t yet happened in England, then it would either require special pleading to the Treasury, or raiding domestic budgets already earmarked for other services, such as education, local government, transport or other aspects of healthcare.
Most obviously, it left Scotland extremely exposed in terms of furlough payments. If the public health advice was that Scotland should lock down and England was locked down too then no problem – there was resource for furlough UK-wide. But if Scotland alone had needed to continue? Well, under the present Union settlement of “pooling and sharing”, that would just have been too bad.
We should remember that in the debates to come on Scotland’s future. For whatever challenges we face in the future – in “building back better”, responding to the climate emergency or tackling the cost of living crisis – one thing is certain. We’ll only get the best outcomes for Scotland if we can elect our own governments which reflect our own choices and our values, and which are able to match the totality of our vast resources to the scale and nature of the problems we face, without having to worry about whether politicians in Westminster have approved it first.
This article was published as part of a special-edition paper distributed in Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire by the Aberdeen Independence Movement. Click HERE to read more of these articles.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here