Why support Independence ?

By Ian Stewart

Let's consider a simple and straightforward question . . . Would you be prepared to give your next door neighbour the deeds to your house and sign over all your income, pensions, bank accounts, insurances and any other assets to him and trust him to pay your all of your bills and then give you sufficient pocket money to do the other things you want to do ?

Probably not ! But, basically, that is the relationship that we in Scotland currently have with our 'neighbour' to the South.

One of the fundamental defects of the current devolution settlement is the lack of accountability to the Scottish electorate for the way in which the money that is spent on their behalf is raised.

As most people know, the vast bulk of the Scottish budget comes in the form of a block grant from Westminster which is allocated using the controversial (and much discredited) 'Barnett Formula'. What many don't appreciate is that this system provides no real incentive for a Scottish Government, or any other body in receipt of funding by this method, to introduce policies which encourage economic growth and deliver real value for the money.

When asked, the majority of Scots will say they would like the power to raise taxes and then spend the income raised for the benefit of Scotland and her people. Crivvens, we can't have that ! It sounds like the foundation of a state, or even the re-emergence of a nation !

So why do this majority continue to vote for the 'pro-Unionist' parties ? The only answer would appear to be that they don't want, for whatever reasons, to 'break up Britain'. But, if one were to liken the 1707 Acts of Union to a marriage agreement, is it a good and stable relationship ?

Perhaps, arguably, at one time it was. But, after 300 years, it would appear that it has become somewhat jaded and soured, with one 'partner' constantly overlooking, over-ruling and ignoring the needs, the desires and the aspirations of the other.

The three 'Leader's Debates' (or should that read the 'Three Leader's Debates') ? which were broadcast on TV prior to the 2010 General Election is a good example of this attitude. As in previous UK pre-electioneering, those matters which are devolved to, or peculiar to, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland received scant attention in the scramble for the votes of the residents of 'Middle England', a mythical area which appears to lie well South of the actual 'Centre of England' which is the village of Meriden, on the outskirts of Coventry in the West Midlands.

All three 'debates' took take place in England, in front of a locally chosen, and therefore English, audience. Matters such as health care and education were discussed by Messrs. Brown, Cameron and Clegg despite these being devolved responsibilities in both Scotland and Wales. A point which was made by Alex Salmond in advance of the first broadcast.
SNP - 15th April 2010 (If you need an .flv player, Download One Here)

He subsequently called it, 'three machine politicians with nothing to say to three countries'.

And, following the transmission of the first debate, the journalist Kenneth Roy wrote, 'From a Scottish point of view, the most significant thing about the debate was how detached we [Scotland] are becoming from the truly incredible country down south.'

Very few Scots will try to deny that Scotland suffers from major social and economic issues. But there is a body of opinion which says that the only way we can fully address these is by, first of all, addressing the constitutional deficit inherent within the Union.

Do we need, or want, a government which is more reflective of the social and economic needs of the people living and working in Scotland or one which supports the continued existence of the United Kingdom at the expense of the needs of the Scottish people ?

Which is of the greater importance, the people's needs or preservation of the system ?

Well, we've seen the latter option in action. Following enactment of the Scotland Act (1998) and the first elections to the Scottish Parliament on 6th May 1999, the Scottish Labour Party, led by the late Donald Dewar, won 56 seats out of 129, ahead of their main opponents, the SNP with 27 seats. Not having an overall majority, Labour immediately formed a 'partnership government' with the Liberal Democrats. As a result, the 'Scottish Executive' invariably appeared to follow the London Labour party line irrespective of whether that was in the best interest of Scots.

More telling perhaps is the number of occasions on which Sewel motions were passed. Correctly termed a Legislative Consent Motion, this is a parliamentary procedure whereby it is agreed that the UK Parliament may pass legislation on a devolved issue over which the Scottish Parliament has regular legislative authority.

Writing in the Times on 16th January 2005, the journalist, Allan Massie said :

'Using the Sewell motion means that legislation goes through more or less on the nod, without scrutiny in the Scottish parliament. According to the Scottish parliament's press office, Sewell motions have been passed 54 times since 1999. In effect, MSPs have on 54 occasions passed the message to Westminster . . . 'You deal with this; we can't be bothered'.

'Nobody would deny that there are occasions when there might be little point in the Scottish parliament spending time scrutinising and then passing what might be no more than mirror legislation. At other times, however, ministers have introduced a Sewell motion to avoid having themselves to make difficult decisions that might prove unpopular'.

'Yet the frequent use of the Sewell motions flies in the face of the arguments used to persuade us to vote for devolution. Such motions also offer the executive a too easy means of evading difficult questions. It follows that their use should be rare, not regular or frequent'.

What it is really about however, is countering the continual statements from the London Parties whereby they attempt to persuade the Scots that, as a nation, they are economically unviable. Before the rise of the SNP, Westminster had managed, over a period of many years, to engrain this falsehood into the minds of the many non-politically interested Scots.

That is a myth which has to be refuted !

In 2007/08 the spending disparities between the nations of the UK were issued as follows :
* Northern Ireland received £5,684 per head : 21% above the UK average spend per head
* Scotland received £5,676 per head : 21% above the UK average spend per head
* Wales received £5,050 per head : 8% above the UK average spend per head
* England received £4,523 per head : 3% below the UK average spend per head
Figures which would initially appear to reinforce the 'subsidy junkies' accusations.

BUT, the Barnett formula does not govern the distribution of spending within England.
If the figures for the English regions are included in the analysis, a different picture of how public spending is distributed across the UK emerges and it can be clearly seen that the area which gains the greatest benefit from the public purse is actually London. 'Quelle surprise !'

Nation or Region	Figure per head	Deviation from Average
London	£5,985	+28%
Northern Ireland	£5,684	+21%
Scotland	£5,676	+21%
Wales	£5,050	+8%
North East	£4,960	+6%
North West	£4,927	+5%
UK Average	£4,679	0%
England	£4,523	-3%
Yorkshire and Humber	£4,477	-4%
West Midlands	£4,430	-5%
East Midlands	£4,086	-13%
South West	£3,947	-16%
South East	£3,874	-17%
East of England	£3,820	-18%