OK, so I thought I'd toss my own coin into the Scottish Independence debate - should it or shouldn't it go it alone? Not being a Scotsman, you might think I'm not best placed to say - you might even say I don't have a right. But sitting on the other half of this artificial (and metaphorical) fence on this merry island I figured my opinions are worth as much salt as anybody else's. You might also notice that I've written nationalists in the title of this piece without a capital 'n'. That's because I'm not referring to nationalism purely as a political ideology, or in terms of those who think that a Scottish 'Scotland' should only encompass Scottish people, Scottish thinking, and in short, all that's Scottish. Scotland is more than that.
So where do I sit on the Independence debate? I think it's quite clear from the above that I'm firmly against - and not for the reasons a lot of people probably think. I don't just want a slice of Scotland's oil revenue (in fact I don't want any - that's all Scotland's as far a I'm concerned). Neither do I want Scotland to have it all - as eventually it's going to run out, and in an independent Scotland, they might well be hard pressed to find an alternative source of income that could turn the country into an economic powerhouse without rivalling England in terms of business interests and locating potential markets. Again, that's beside the point, and presumes that the success of a nation rests solely on it's economic progress and internal growth, something I think couldn't be further from the truth.
Let's get something straight. I'm not against independence, and I'm not against an independent Scotland - I think independence can be a good thing. But history has shown us that independence can lead to more discord and enmity than we need in the modern world if we're to face the problems both in front of and behind us. I'm against an independent Scotland in the sense that Scotland (or at least Alex Salmond) seems to want it. It is a poorly disguised political move (in my opinion) to manipulate the Scottish populace into thinking he wants to do some good for his country. It's not about giving Scotland more cultural autonomy, or giving more power to local communities - chances are that even after independence, Scottish 'democracy' would remain centralised in Edinburgh, in the Scottish Parliament.
Of course, what's wrong with the Scottish Parliament I hear you say? Well, nothing. It's a necessary and functional part of Scotland's political machinery. However, a centralised body of power (that isn't even really central) can only do so much for the many and varied communities of Northern Scotland, the Highlands, or even the west coast. For me, independence is about far more than just making a political statement. It's about recognising the needs of all communities, now and in the future, whilst working in cohesion with other groups and peoples that can best recognise the needs of a contemporary nation that wants to stand on it's own two feet in the modern world, as well as playing a suitable role in the international system.
None of which will come if Scotland becomes independent. Sure it will still play a part, but independence is a move designed to cater for the political masses and turn the country ever more in upon itself, becoming more and more insular. Do I think Scotland should have more power to determine it's own political affairs? Yes, definitely. But I don't think that will be gained by Scotland turning independent on September 18. And it's on this basis that I would advise all those with an interest in Scotland's future to vote no.
No comments:
Post a Comment