By Samuel Pennifold, Masters student at Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies
The issue of Scottish Independence has hung over the British Isles since London was known as Londonium, and this past week the UK Supreme Court kicked the can further down the road by blocking another route towards Scottish Independence. The Supreme Court ruled that the power to grant an independence referendum is exclusively held by Westminster and not by the devolved Scottish Parliament, Holyrood, controlled by the pro-independence Scottish Nationalist Party.
Scottish Independence has been one of the key political issues within Westminster since 2011 when, for the first time, a pro-independence majority was established in Holyrood. Momentum towards an independence referendum came to a head in 2014 when David Cameron’s Conservative Government in Westminster granted Holyrood the right to take the issue of independence to the Scottish people. In what was a closely fought election, arguably only swayed by the delicate intervention of the late Queen, the unionist vote came out on top by a majority of 5%. The issue was then, in theory, settled by what was billed as a once-in-a-generation vote. But the dark spectre of Brexit loomed in the horizon of British politics. So, when the tweed-clad dreams of Nigel Farage came true in 2016 and the people of the U.K. narrowly voted in favour of Brexit the issue of Scottish Independence raised its blue and white painted face once more. As the effects of Brexit have continued to take a bite out of British economic growth and standard of living – regardless of global factors – the calls for a second once in a generation vote on Scottish independence have grown stronger by the SNP and others.
The SNP has already promised to turn the next General Election into a “de facto referendum” on Scottish Independence. This is despite the unequivocal denying of every UK Prime Minister since Cameron to allow another referendum on independence in Scotland, the ruling of the UK Supreme Court – which is led by a Scottish judge – and the majority of parties within Westminster being pro-union.
Nonetheless, Scottish First Minister and SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon claims to hold the political legitimacy to call for a referendum as there is a majority of pro-independence Members of the Scottish Parliament, the majority of which belong to the SNP, within Holyrood. However, thanks to the complex constituency and region system this does not translate to a majority of people. In constituency votes, there was a pro-union majority and in regional votes a pro-independence majority. Polling, even now, shows that the Scottish population hovers around 50:50 between pro-independence and pro-union. Though it is worth noting that this varies widely when you break down the polling into age groups. Over 60s are more likely to favour the union while those under 35s usually favour independence.
At best the SNP has a tangential claim to holding the authority to call a referendum, unlike in 2011 when they held a true majority in Holyrood. Despite this, an argument espoused by many SNP MSPs has been that if the powers that be within Westminster are so scared of the result of another referendum they should just hold one. This has a smack of desperation about it. It was not a manifesto promise of the party in government, regardless of if we are on its 4th iteration, or the other unionist-dominated political parties of Westminster to hold a referendum. Quite simply the government does not need to grant the SNP their wish, no matter what way you cut it. Politics isn’t boxing, you cannot just call someone out looking for a bout because you think you’ll win. And just because you say you can win does not mean you will.
Alongside their ethereal-pro-independence majority, the SNP draw their authority to call for another referendum from the Scottish remaining majority at the 2016 Brexit referendum. This is simply irrelevant.
The Brexit referendum was a straight majority of voters within the UK. And whilst it is a useful analytical tool to separate votes by region it does not have any bearing on the outcome. What could have had a bearing on the outcome would have been if there had been a larger turnout in Scotland for the 2016 Brexit referendum. Scotland’s turnout was just 67.2%; the third lowest out of the four nations. In addition, the over 1 million votes in favour of Brexit out of approximately 3 million eligible people had a massive bearing on the eventually extremely tight outcome of the Brexit referendum.
It is also worth mentioning that Scotland is not ruled by some sort of politically utopian party. The SNP controls Holyrood and in turn, controls a majority of parliamentary business within Scotland, including health and education where Scotland ranks as poorly as England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Yes, there are Westminster-orientated factors behind this, but they do not explain why at one point in the 2010s Scotland was the only place in Europe where life expectancy was decreasing.
The SNP is a single-issue party and – if you allow me to mix metaphors – they are not poised to deliver a Scottish enlightenment-style renaissance. Regardless of who holds the power and why they would want to call a referendum, Scottish independence opens Pandora’s box of problems.
Primarily these issues take the form of Pounds and Euros. Whilst Scotland may hold many cultural and historic motivations for independence, it would be the economic equivalent of shooting yourself. The economies of England, Wales, and Scotland – now unfortunately less so Northern Ireland thanks to Brexit and the hard border down the Irish Sea – are virtually inseparable. Some towns straddle the border and if Scotland were to re-join the EU, as is the espoused aim of the SNP, this would lead to an Irish Sea border headache scaled up to 1000 for English, Welsh, and Scottish politicians, and businesses. There are also huge issues relating to government funding and pensions. The potential damages to both economies could leave an independent Scotland and the maimed UK in an economic position comparable to Weimar Germany.
Both sides, especially Scotland which has a tiny consumer and tax base, would be left poorer thanks to Scottish Independence.
Other issues come in the form of national defence. Alongside a large amount of the UK’s military infrastructure, the UK’s strategic nuclear deterrent is based in Scotland. Sturgeon has already promised she would now allow this to continue if Scotland was to leave the Union. Wherever or not, you agree with having a nuclear deterrent, the realities of the current geopolitical climate do not lend themselves to having a hamstrung one.
There would also be massive and close to unsolvable questions around national infrastructure such as water supplies, fisheries, and offshore wind projects. The UK can share the costs and distribute the benefits of working together to harness the resources of the UK. The current Conservative dynasty may have failed to do this but as a new political era looms change is close, it would simply not make sense to risk our bright hared collective future for the dark present.
On top of this, the UK and Scotland both benefit from shared cultural institutions. Each region, and each county, within the UK has its own unique and distinct cultural identity but they are strengthened by their interactions with one other. Central and devolved funding for the arts, sports and other cultural pursuits improves the UK. It would be a shame for each Scotland and the rest of the UK to lose this.
Scottish Independence is tied to the unfortunate act of self-mutilation we call Brexit and like Brexit, in many ways, it is set to say. But as a union, we are together stronger. Scottish independence would be a lose-lose for the nation and people of Scotland and the UK.
