“We want you to stay” that was the message David Cameron urged the rest of the country to get across to the people of Scotland in his February speech at Olympic Park. But the sentiment carried fails to be justified by a mounting array of actions which have been called nothing short of “bullying”.
The September referendum will be a historical moment regardless of the outcome, and yet the outcome is really what this is all about.
The 1707 Treaty of Union which saw Scotland formally unite with England creating what is now known as “Great Britain” had many advantages. At the time, Scotland was a struggling agricultural society which benefited immensely from the increased trade links it received by being formally allied to a rich and expanding empire. The next 150 years brought wealth and prominence to Scotland both economically and culturally beginning with the Scottish Enlightenment. The union enabled Scotland to grow strong, strong enough to seek independence 307 years later.
But with the date of possible departure drawing nearer and the polls showing rising support for the Yes camp, Westminster, to use David Cameron’s recent phraseology, is showing anything but love towards its “family” member.
One of the contentious and undoubtedly crucial issues in the debate concerns the future of the currency. Will Scotland be able to keep the pound? If not what are the possible options? To the first, by all recent indication the answer looks like a categorical no. To the second, the answer is less certain. According to Alex Salmond, a veto against a currency union is nothing but “bluff and bluster” used for intimidation to sway opinion in favour of a No vote. Once independence goes through though, it will be a whole different story.
Perhaps so, but for now questions over the currency, and the future economic welfare of Scotland, dominate and divide opinion.
Hugh and Susanne Livingstone, owners of the St Andrews Health Foods store since 1998 are against an independent Scotland. Mr Livingstone when asked to comment on the upcoming referendum stated his fears about the currency, arguing that losing the pound would create “a lot of uncertainty” and that “the sheer expense of setting up the structure” in the event of a win would “create division”. Interestingly, he also believes that the idea that Scots will finally have a firm say over their future is misleading. “You don’t think you’ll be dictated to by the new politicians” he says rhetorically.
The scepticism over Scotland’s future as an independent nation is something that is proving a bit of an Achilles’ heel. Big plans and nationalistic fervour may initially awaken some dormant form of idealism but when it comes to voting, practical realities impede risk-taking.
So far large and small businesses have been the most vociferous in the debate. It takes courage to step away from a market of 63 million people with all its opportunities. And yet maybe courage is what is needed here if higher ideals are taken into consideration.
Sometimes, a good test of familial affection is to do something that you know will provoke disagreement because it will be against what the family wishes. Well, arguably Scotland has done that and the results are self-evident.
Consistent threats from Britain’s main political parties to reject a currency union in the even of independence, have resulted in SNP deputy first minister, Nicola Sturgeon to conclude that this is a means to “gang up and bully the people of Scotland”. Adding, that it raises a fundamental question, namely, “why would anyone want to stay part of a union where we are treated with such contempt?”
So there it is. Despite weighty issues concerning EU membership, the possibility of increased taxation, the fact that an overreliance on North Sea oil could backfire; what is proving equally salient in the debate is the perception that Britain’s affection seems to be conditional.
Maybe this is understandable. Unification has allowed Scotland to become one of the world’s wealthiest countries ranking above the UK. In a certain light wanting to leave may look like ingratitude, but only in a certain light. The other explanation is that the 1707 union was always going to be a temporary affair, forced by need rather than genuine desire for integration. And now the time has come for Westminster to stop treating Scotland like Anna Karenina and start showing some of that family support, which may yet prevail come 18 September.
DISCLAIMER: The articles on our website are not endorsed by, or the opinions of Shout Out UK (SOUK), but exclusively the views of the author.
