As we go to press, literally on this occasion, residents of Scotland, one of the UK's four 'home nations' are voting in a referendum. The question in this referendum, as those living all over the UK are now very aware, is this: 'Should Scotland be an independent country?' (It is, of course, unfortunate that we could not go to press 24 hours later).
Since the start of 2012, Scottish independence has been the question at the centre of one of the longest election campaigns that the UK has ever seen. Now it has come to a rapturous conclusion following a lengthy and polarised debate. A huge number of column inches, masses of TV time and an infinity of web pages have been dedicated to every remark from those involved. Without exaggeration, there hasn't been a day in the last month without a new poll
or survey predicting the outcome. These have consistently showed a very slight tendency towards a 'No' vote.
'Should Scotland be an independent country?' is certainly a big question for Scotland and the rest of the UK, with the potential to influence future independence claims in the rest of the EU and beyond. Of course, few people would even have asked such a question it if it were not for Alex Salmond, the leader of the Scottish National Party (SNP) and the First Minister of the devolved (semi-semi-autonomous) Scottish Parliament. He has near single-handedly taken the issue of Scottish independence from the political fringes 25 years ago into a massive swell of grass-roots support today.
It's certainly a big question and you can see where Salmond is coming from. 'Scotland' has a lot of oil reserves - Tick! - and the political stance of Scotland is more left-leaning than that of England and Wales. An independent Scotland, he claims, would be able to govern itself in a way that is more in line with most people's values. Smaller countries are also generally easier to manage than large ones. Apparently, Salmond's economic model is high-tax Denmark, which enjoys some of the highest standards of living and income equality in the world. It is repeatedly found to be the world's happiest country. These are certainly nice carrots to dangle in front of the Scottish electorate.
However, smaller countries are also more at risk from political and economic fallout from elsewhere. The recession in the Republic of Ireland, a relatively small EU member that has a relationship to the UK similar to the one Salmond desires, was one of the worst across the EU. The picture in Scotland during that time was also fairly bleak, but who would really have swapped that situation for an EU bailout? Also, without the rest of the UK, how will Scotland handle itself in international relations, defend itself against potential threats and what currency will it even use?
Salmond's assertion that Scotland could just carry on using the British Pound Sterling was slapped down quickly and repeatedly by the UK Government across all media. It took up a depressing amount of time in the first TV debate and no sensible 'Plan B' has been forthcoming. Another of Salmond's assertions, that Scotland could continue to be a member of the EU because it was already part of one before the independence vote, have met with similar reactions from Brussels and other members. Spain, for example, will do all in its power to stop Scotland becoming a model for Catalonia, which also has a strong and separate identity from the rest of Spain. The barriers to Scotland's EU entry would be high.
So in conclusion: 'Should Scotland be an independent country?' I think that the answer to that question is, 'Yes - Why not?' However, it is not the right question. One of many better questions that could have been asked is:
'Is it possible, politically, socially and economically, to separate the UK into two parts, set up a new government in one part (without first consulting the other parts that will inevitably be affected, possibly adversely) in the face of advice from numerous major international political and economic bodies and potentially sowing the seeds of national resentment for generations to come, when our time might be better spent on collaborative efforts to work towards better governance for all UK/EU/World citizens, especially when there are many issues that should be demanding more of our collective attention like global climate change, rising terrorism and economic inequality driving horrific poverty and mass migration?'
In short, the Scottish independence question has been a major distraction from what should be more important aims. It has been a 'brilliant' chance to point fingers over the political fence and at least Salmond will get his answer. However, a trend towards division is not what is needed in the modern world, especially when examples of ingrained and increasing animosity (Gaza, Ukraine, ISIS) are reported to us daily. By the time this issue goes to press, we will know the answer on Scottish independence. However, another question to ask, whatever the result, is, 'Did the question ever need to be asked?'
