If there is a case for remaining in the Union, a hard-headed case based on economics and judgement about the future, it certainly hasn’t been made by those Westminster Tories, led by Cameron, trying the ‘British patriot’ game on us. Of course there is a British dimension in almost every Scot. There are relatives scattered all over England, there are cultural interests in common, sporting interests, old military connections. I am ex-Royal Navy, and still have a lingering affection for that very British institution and its white ensign, despite Nelson’s signal at Trafalgar, and owe it a great deal in respect of my personal development.
But these are in the realm of sentiment.
Sentiment does not a breakfast produce for any Scottish family. If, as Cameron would wish, Scots vote in the referendum with their hearts rather than their heads, then the nation will cut its economic throat – there is nothing ahead as part of the United Kingdom except going downwards, permanent heavy unemployment, and cuts, cuts, cuts that will rend our social fabric.
Here’s a sobering fact. The Budget cut another £10bn from public expenditure. For every £10 of cuts the Treasury aims to impose, we have only suffered one so far. There are a further nine to go. As Nick Brown the Labour MP pointed out in the Budget debate, as well as the additional £10bn cuts in this Budget, there will be an additional £8bn in 2015-16, and another additional £15bn in 2016-17.
The way unionists talk about the benefits of being part of a big G20 country, you would think we were living in a successful paradise. The brutal reality is that Osborne will have to borrow at least £120bn this coming year, and the total national debt already tops £1trn. In England the Government is stealthily privatising the health service because the economy cannot sustain the cost from the public purse; the Royal Navy is a laughing stock across the world, the only one with an aircraft carrier that has no aircraft, due to an inability to fund the service. The same deep cuts are imposed on the army and air force. Cuts in police spending mean, incredibly, private security companies carrying out some of their functions. If ever there was a prescription for rampant corruption in the forces of law and order it is that one. All around local government in England, the social support services for the community are crumbling. There is no public money for new roads. There is a clear pattern of decline.
The question for Scots, the hard-headed question, is whether we want to continue being part of that steep decline? When we are told about the benefits of the Union, just look at them. If we have been subsidised for all these years, with southern money apparently pouring all over us, how come we are in the state we are?
How is it that we have become the only nation to discover oil, lots and lots of it, and suffered the destruction of our manufacturing and engineering base, and experienced a rising level of poverty? Does it never cross the collective Scottish mind that on our own, we could do better than this? We didn’t want to destroy our steel industry, or destroy mining jobs without alternatives being produced. But destruction came. We didn’t create a ‘North Sea’ financial region so that the oil would not be credited to Scotland’s economy (unlike the fish caught in the same waters), so that we could be constantly paraded as ungrateful scroungers. But that ‘new’ region was created.
Lord Carrington, when Thatcher’s foreign secretary, was once asked why Norway was doing so well. He replied, it was a small country with an awful lot of oil. I once heard the head man at Shell, in the 1970s, angrily describe the Norwegians as “blue-eyed Arabs”, meaning they wanted the benefits for themselves. How have we Scots, in sticking to this Union, allowed ourselves to be robbed of a fortune? Sentiment?
Falling for black propaganda that the oil would soon run out, is volatile in price and therefore not to be relied upon for budgetary purposes?
Or accepting the ridiculous self-loathing argument that we are too small a country, with not enough talent to run our own affairs with success?
I have my differences with Alex Salmond, but he is a far more able politician than any that sits in the UK cabinet today. Alex Neil is among the best political economists in Europe.
Mike Russell may not be in the right post at education, but in sheer intellectual ability he is the equal of anyone. Nicola Sturgeon is the most competent government department minister in the whole of the UK. Derek Mackay is a great talent, yet to be fully discovered. Can’t run our own affairs? Don’t be daft.
There’s something else us sentiment-blinded Scots should acknowledge: that the United Kingdom is a fiction. It has always been the English state with Celtic appendages. I watched a history programme a couple of weeks ago, about Churchill and Roosevelt. There was Churchill on film talking about – not the UK – but England. Here is Churchill in January 1941 hoping that Harry Hopkins, Roosevelt’s special envoy, would fully understand “the exact state of England’s need…” Or take this official document of July 1941, from Churchill: “England has no interest in Syria except to win the war.” These are not slips of the tongue. They demonstrate a state of mind, that English state interests are paramount.
What else would we expect from a country ten times the size of ours in population? Of course, quite rightly, the political elite of the English state will put that state’s interest first. We Scots would do the same if the positions were reversed.
Thanks to the SNP victory last May, we can for once, decisively act in our interests. Have we the gumption to do so?
Jim Sillars is right to highlight the talent in the ranks of the SNP. But we should not lose sight of the fact that there is talent in the other parties also. Talent which is rarely allowed free rein to serve Scotland and its people. Talent which is all too often sacrificed to the imperative of preserving the union at any cost.
Great piece, Jim, couldn't have said it better myself. All good stuff – pity more people can't access it.
Jim Sillars quotes comments from the 1940s. Things have moved on somewhat since then and we now have devolution from the UK Parliament of varying degrees to Northern Ireland, Wales and of course Scotland. The parliament in Westminster remains the UK parliament and includes MPs from the devolved nations.
Jim Sillars states that "Of course, quite rightly, the political elite of the English state will put that state’s interest first". I beg to differ and suggest that only when England has a parliament of its own with equal powers to Holyrood will England have a parliament that puts its interests first.
"I beg to differ and suggest that only when England has a parliament of its own with equal powers to Holyrood will England have a parliament that puts its interests first."
Let us be clear. England already has its own Parliament. It is located in that county's capital city, London, in the Palace of Westminster. It is a parliament completely dominated by representatives of the English people. Theise MPs outnumber all other MPs by a margin of 5 to 1. ANY instrument of constitutional change England desires can be had with a vote and at the stroke of a pen – parliament is sovereign and is ruled by a straight majority.
All that is require is a parliamentary majority formed from this English cohort and England can have any settlement it likes, quite literally, tomorrow. To all intents and purposes Westminster IS THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT AND DOTH DAILY WORK, IN ENGLAND'S INTERESTS.
Do you really think those 533 MPs representing English constituencies are putting Scotland's interests first ahead of those of their own English constituencies? You think that's remotely likely?
Let us be clear. England does not have its own Parliament.
If you disagree, I suggest a quid pro quo…
1. create 30 additional seats in the SP to represent English constituencies.
2. Allow the First Minister and Finance Minister to be from these English MSPs (as we had with Brown and Darling). The First Minister would not be validated by an election: he would be there because he thinks it’s “his turn” and the Finance Minister would hold that position because he is the First Minister’s mate.
3. Both would have to swear an Oath to hold England’s interests “paramount”.
Don't worry because it would still be the Scottish Parliament and still work in Scotland's interests
(according to your theory)
Well argued (and well written) advocacy from Jim Sillars.
" . . the United Kingdom is a fiction. It has always been the English state with Celtic appendages."
Yup. The United Kingdom is naught but Greater England wherein Scotland is at best, a vassal state. The United Kingdom represents the vestigial remains of the English Empire. Certainly, the “Celtic fringe" played an important role in developing and maintaining that empire, but they did so after being subsumed by the dominant people and culture in these islands
We are seen as mere appendages to the real power, and the real country, England. We inhabit the pretendy countries, Scotland, N Ireland, and Wales, that occupy Greater England's periphery.
Alas, after 300 years of indoctrination, this message is internalized by many Scots. What other parliament would have a substantial minority of its members fighting tooth and nail for less powers and less say in its own affairs? Yet this is what we have witnessed at Holyrood, where the mass of the opposition will not countenance the notion of offering its citizenry the option of devo max FFA. No, they want no change now. . and well, perhaps devo jam tomorrow . . after the indy referendum . . maybe.
You Scottish have got the answer in your own hands haven't you?. You can vote for FULL independence in the referendum . Then you won't have to worry about being an appendage of England any more. You can be an independent state responsible for your own affairs without any interference from those nasty English!.
You have to go back 70 years to find an example where a politician uses England to describe Britain.
The political world today dictates that “Britain” should be used when describing “England”. Take this far more recent example from Gordon Brown…
"So there is, a golden thread which runs through British history – that runs from that long ago day in Runnymede in 1215; on to the Bill of Rights in 1689 where Britain became the first country to successfully assert the power of Parliament over the King"
Brown demonstrates a state of mind, that England no longer exists in a country of "nations and regions"
Instead of all this rhetoric from the SNP, why don't they just give the people of Scotland the referendum NOW and get this waste of tax payers money cleared. The only argumeny for separation is coming from a selfish minority. Why don't Speak with the business community of Scotland Mr Sillars and find out the true feeling of separation from the rest of the UK!!
Goid bless Great Britain and our Queen Elizabeth and long may it remain so.