Scottish politics - independence and (a degree of) English arrogance.

Foreword: In the following, my use of the term ‘Scots’ relates to all who live in Scotland - not just those with some genetic link to the country and it’s brutal history..
 
While writing my post about the island of Luing it dawned on me that I’d not posted anything about politics recently - and this was particularly remiss of me given the recent Holyrood elections. I think this happened because I had found myself hooked into a social media site called Quora. I don’t know how I joined this site as I didn’t ask to - I just suddenly, one day, started receiving emails from it. This site works by contributors posing questions with others then providing answers - or, more accurately, providing answers which suited their opinion and point of view. Most of the emails I was getting were questions about Scottish independence - and, as far as I’m concerned, most of the questions were clearly phrased to elicit anti-independence answers (although a few were more supportive). I found myself unable to ignore some of the nonsense I was reading and dealing with this replaced posting my views and observations about this topic into this blog.
While there were several Scots who contributed to the site, most appeared (from what they wrote) to be English. Some of the Scots did argue for Scottish independence while most others seemed to be what can only be described as staunch unionists. That’s fine: I have no objection to those holding the view that Scotland remaining in the UK is the best option - I just disagree with them. What I do object to are the lies and distortion that too many of them always resorted to. There was one chap, who shall remain nameless, who was particularly guilty of this. He claimed he was very intelligent and was always able to defeat any ‘nationalist’ in debate. He continually accused the SNP and Nicola Sturgeon of being racist - when the opposite is clearly the case. He accused Sturgeon of being evil and (during the stooshie with Salmond) of lying to the Scottish parliament - even before James Hamilton’s findings into her conduct had been published. He attacked the waving of the Saltire, and any other symbol of Scotland, as racist - but, at the same time, the waving of the Union Flag, and the use of any UK symbols, as acceptable (as well as being against Scottish independence, he also seemed to be a staunch Brexiteer). He, for me, displayed a very similar outlook to many supporters of independence but, instead of Scotland and Scottish symbols, his allegiance was to the UK and the union flag. I have no objection to that - I just found it interesting that he was unable to see that his way of thinking was no different from how many independence supporters, whom he relentlessly attacked, also thought. What most upset me about what this chap wrote was that he started calling all independence supporters “blood and soil nationalists”. This is an offensive phrase particularly associated with the Nazi party and it’s racist policies. I eventually called him out on this and pointed out the above and demanded an apology. I also pointed out that bundling all independence supporters into the same ‘bag’ was the type of thing that racists do (Oh, look! There’s a terrorist and he’s a Muslim - so all Muslins must be terrorists). This chap’s modus operandi was to make his point (often backed up with detailed statistics and graphs, etc, which were clearly taken from some source like the Better Together campaign or Scotland In Union) and then simply insult anyone who disagreed with him as cretins, morons, uneducated, stupid and racist. I figure that any independence supporters he ‘defeated’ in debate had simply realised that debating with him was a waste of time, would only end with him insulting them, so decided to walk away. I never received an apology for his use of that Nazi associated phrase - but he did stop using it. I don’t know if that was because of my response to him or not - but I’ll take it as a small victory. I would also suggest that most intelligent people would not claim to be intelligent - and most would not need to resort to throwing insults about like confetti. This chap, however, was by no means the only Scot who denigrated Scotland’s worth and what could be achieved if we only made the effort to try - he was just the most extreme.

I now wish to delve into what I gleaned from the English contributors to this site and the thread about Scottish independence. My intent, here, is to look (mainly) at the attitudes I found, rather than the politics of the issue. At a rough guess, I would say that about one in ten clearly expressed racist, anti-Scottish views. Another one in ten expressed views that indicated regret, but no anti-Scottish sentiment, should Scotland decide to leave the UK - and about four fifths expressed views which I can only describe arrogant, patronising and insulting.
A few weeks ago, both the IFS and the Institute For Government (IFG), neither strong supporters of Scottish independence, published reports on the Scottish economy. Both highlighted the current deficit the Scottish economy was running with - but both also intimated that Scotland was a wealthy country, with many assets, which could be a successful, independent nation - as long as a future Scottish government followed a different economic model from that followed by the UK government. Note that I did not read those reports myself but that I took the above from articles written about these reports from responsible, fair minded sources (ignoring the one printed in The National).
The arrogance I talk of stems from the frequently stated view that Scotland needed England - that Scotland would be an economic ‘basket case’ without England. The impression I got was that England was seen as the centre of the universe and that Scotland would be nothing without England. The patronising and insulting aspects arise if both the IFS and IFG reports are correct (and I, for one, am more than happy to accept that both are) as only a lack of Scottish intelligence and competence would prevent Scotland from achieving the success that both reports indicated could be achieved. Many also suggested that the Scottish electorate were stupid by continuing to vote for the SNP - a party which, in their view, could only lead Scotland to disaster. Putting all of the above together and we get the arrogant, patronising view I described along with the insulting view that Scotland would be unable to succeed without England holding it’s hand.
I also believe that this arrogance is what drives the racist, anti-Scottish ten percent already mentioned. It seems to me that this minority see Scotland’s increasing demand for independence as a personal insult - and this because they are only able to consider the debate as it relates to England. Their arrogance simply makes it impossible for them to see that not everything is about England. The vast majority of independence supporting Scots do not wish to insult or damage England (or rUK) in any way - we simply seek to develop, and live in a country that has a very different political outlook from, it would seem, what most in England want (that is, a left of centre, social democratic country as opposed to a right wing, totally capitalist one). The drive for independence is about Scotland and has nothing to do with England. There is no desire to change England. We are happy for England to follow the direction it wants to - but, at the same time, we want Scotland to be able to follow the direction it wants to. It strikes me that this minority think like a dumped partner who, instead of being able to recognise their own failures in the relationship, and due to their arrogance, strike out in anger against the partner who has decided to end the relationship as it is and move on.
It is also my impression that much of the UK vote to leave the EU arose out of this arrogance. While the free movement of people was a major issue I also feel that many, especially in England, felt that the UK deserved better than having to adhere to EU regulations - that, somehow, the UK should not be restricted in the same way that other EU nations are. This, for me, displays nothing but arrogance and the belief that the UK, and particularly England, deserve better.
I should make it clear that I also voted to leave the EU - but that was because I objected to the increasingly right wing direction (business interests before citizen’s interests) the EU seemed to be heading in and nothing to do with the free movement of people or any arrogant idea that the UK or Scotland deserved better than having to adhere to EU regulations (while others did). I also felt that the EU was attempting to create a unitary state, reducing the powers of the individual member countries as it did so, and I did not support this idea (at this stage, anyway).
Some may feel that the views I have expressed above are racist and anti-English. I would claim that this is not the case. Arrogance is not always a fault (although it can be) and there are instances when arrogance can be beneficial. Arrogance can grow out of confidence - and any football supporter sees this when their team is playing well, gains confidence from this and then struts arrogantly around the pitch hammering all opposition sides (until, eventually, another side gives them a hammering - but, while winning, this arrogance works in their favour). Arrogance can, however, prevent those displaying such an outlook from even considering the views of others (due to the fact that they think of themselves as always correct). This is what I take from the English view of Scottish independence (or, at least, from many of those contributing to this Quora thread). They seem incapable of even considering why so many in Scotland are unhappy with how the UK operates compared to what the majority of Scots want. England, and English views, must be correct - and that means Scottish complaints must be wrong. That alone is going to make it very difficult for mutual understanding to be reached and any solution, outside of Scottish independence, being achieved.
I also need to make it clear that I am not suggesting that the percentage split used above can be extrapolated to the whole of England. In the first place, the ten, ten eighty split I employed was a guess arrived at by thinking about what I had read - I did not go back through all the contributions and place each into one category or another. In the second place, those reading this thread on this site, are a subset of the population who are particularly interested in this topic and it cannot be assumed that the general English population would split in the same way. At the same time, I see the opinions expressed by the Quora contributors as an indication of the views of many south of the border.

Finally, several opinions expressed by some of those from south of the border which need challenged.
1 - Many claimed that England was paying for all of Scotland’s freebies (free prescriptions, free university tuition, baby boxes - just to name a few). This, of course, is not the case. Scotland gets an annual grant from the UK treasury which it spends as it sees fit. The SNP led Scottish government, being left of centre and a social democratic one, spends it money in a left of centre way. If the Scottish government was a Tory one then it would still get the same money as the SNP government gets - it would just spend it in a different way (one that, no doubt, would be more helpful for the already wealthy). So, all of Scotland’s ‘freebies’ are not, in any way, paid for by England. It must also be made clear that Scotland contributes, via various taxes, towards the central fund that the UK treasury doles out to the devolved nations. There is the argument that Scotland currently gets back more than it puts in. There are arguments both for and against this but those will be dealt with later.

2 - At least one chap suggested that, after independence, Scotland would still be looking to rUK/England to come to it’s defence. This is just about the daftest point I read. The past seventy five years have been the most peaceful Europe has seen in centuries and a lot of that is because of the EEC/EU - which the UK, but particularly England, voted to leave. Who on Earth does this chap think is likely to attack Scotland which, apart from the rUK, would be surrounded by other EU or EFTA states - none of which are likely to go against EU policy of trade before war? Going by some of the comments in this Quora thread, the only country which we in Scotland might need defended from would be the rUK or England. If Scotland needs anything from England it would be several more football players with a great, great, great grandfather who might once have owned a kilt.
Scotland will have it’s own armed forces, not so much for defence but to contribute in any UN, NATO or EU peacekeeping missions. The idea that some English people have that Scotland would be unable to develop it’s own armed forces is simply, and once again, arrogant - and the idea that we’d be unable to match, say, Norway or Denmark in this regard is simply insulting. All other countries can build their own armed forces but, for some strange reason, Scotland would be incapable of doing so? I do not see either Norway or Denmark looking towards the UK for their defence and there is no reason why an independent Scotland would do so either and, as I said, for anyone south of the border to think otherwise is simply arrogance.

3 - Several suggested that after independence we’d have no-one (England) to blame for our woes. This is just another example of the arrogance described above. Let me make it quite clear: We (Scottish independence supporters) do not wish to blame anyone for anything. What we want is for Scotland to take charge of it’s own affairs and be able to actually start to deal with our many problems. If this was not the case then the SNP would only be seeking more money from the UK government and not seeking independence. It also has to be made clear that most of what are seen as complaints are actually the pointing out of the aspects of how we are governed which we believe we could do better handling ourselves - although complaints and gripes are sometimes justified.

4 - Several people suggested that the SNP led Scottish government was doing a ‘terrible’ job of running the Scottish economy. This is simply not the case. The Scottish government gets a fixed amount from the UK treasury every year. Using that money, along with some tax income and minimal borrowing, it legally has to balance it’s budget every year. It has always done so. The only complaint would be from Tories who are unhappy with the left of centre policies followed by the SNP - but that is up to the people of Scotland to vote for them or reject them. So far, over the past fourteen years, the people of Scotland have consistently voted for the SNP. The Scottish government could, of course, have spent more on dealing with some of the country’s longer term problems - but to do that it would have had to spend less on other things, like trying to mitigate against the Tory austerity cuts to citizens already struggling on low incomes and living in deprived housing estates. This, not the SNP, is the fault of an annual, fixed income from the UK, without the required level of borrowing, needed for investment, being allowed, and why independence is so badly needed. I am not saying the SNP has done a perfect job - it has not. Some policies were, for me, a mistake and some did not produce results in the way that was hoped and some should have been introduced but were not - but that is the fate of all governments. The SNP, for me, has at least tried, within restricted spending powers, to deal with as many of Scotland’s problems as it could.

5 - Many, since the recent Holyrood election, claimed that the SNP/Greens do not have a mandate for IndyRef2 - since, together, they only achieved 49% of the vote. This simply demonstrates the double standards of the unionists. Using the UK electoral system (FPTP) the Johnson led Tory government went ahead and took the UK out of the EU with only about 43% of the vote - so what they are saying is that what’s OK for the UK government is not OK for the Scottish government and the Greens, that, together, won a clear mandate under the much fairer (if complicated) Scottish electoral system. It also has to be kept in mind that all the SNP/Greens seek, at this stage, is a second independence referendum - they are not, at this stage, demanding independence immediately. What are the unionists so afraid of if they are convinced of their argument? It also has to be kept in mind that it is estimated that around 20% of Scottish Labour voters now support independence - but they just can’t bring themselves to vote for the SNP (the party that destroyed Labour in Scotland) - but that is not to say they would vote NO at a second independence referendum. There is, however, only one way to test this - and that’s by holding IndyRef2 (after the COVID pandemic has been suitably dealt with). There is, after all, no guarantee that YES would win this and, if it does not, then that would probably end the independence struggle for many years.
Others claimed that the 2014 referendum had settled the issue and that Salmond, Sturgeon and the SNP had promised that this was a once in a generation vote. Firstly, no such ‘promise’ was ever made. The SNP campaigned on this being the likely situation (in the hope of getting the YES supporters all out to vote) - but no such ‘promise’ was ever made. In addition to that it is up to the Scottish people to decide if they want a second referendum (or even independence) - not the SNP or any other political party. Secondly, during the 2014 referendum, the Better Together campaign made much of Scotland losing it’s place in the EU if it voted YES. This, as we all now know, turned out to be the exact opposite of what has happened. The current calls for IndyRef2 are as a direct result of being sold this (admittedly inadvertent) ‘dummy’. The call for IndyRef2 is, in the light of this ‘dummy’, demanded so that the Scottish people get the opportunity to decide if they still wish to remain in the UK or become independent nation with rejoining the EU a future option.  

6 - Many unionists, both north and south of the Scottish border, used the current Scottish deficit to back their views (and this relates back to the earlier point that Scotland might be getting back from the UK treasury more than it currently contributes). In doing so they fail to see two major flaws in their argument.
Firstly, this deficit is a direct result of the vandalism of the Scottish economy carried out by Westminster under Thatcher, followed by a total lack of investment after this. No devolved Scottish government, of any description, would have been able to deal with this given how the Scottish government is currently funded. Maybe this could have been dealt with to some extent but only, as stated above, by imposing increased austerity on the already poor. The unionists try to suggest that the problems with the Scottish economy are all down to poor management by the Scottish government but, as demonstrated above, this is simply not the case. I find it ironic that Westminster has vandalised the Scottish economy in such a way but the unionists then use that situation to argue against independence when actually the opposite is true and that only independence provides a means to correct that deficit. I am not saying that doing so will be quick and easy - it won’t be - but staying within the UK is only likely to see this deficit increase. My point here is that IF Scotland currently gets more back from the UK treasury than it contributes then that is only the result of Westminster policies since Thatcher. I also find it interesting that while so many south of the border are keen to claim that Scotland gets back more that it contributes also seem just as keen to forget the about the substantial oil revenues gained by the UK during the eighties and nineties - a period when Scotland, for certain, contributed far more than it received.
Secondly, all the unionists (using this argument) fail to see that looking at the current economic position, or what has happened over recent decades, is beside the point. The point is what an independent Scotland could achieve and how that current deficit could be turned around by following a different economic model (as indicated by both the recent IFS and IFG reports). The idea that an independent Scotland would be an economic ‘basket case’ (as some claim) is also an example of the arrogance and insult, mentioned above, as this implies that Scots, for some reason, would be unable to govern in a successful way similar to other countries of similar size and assets (like, for example, Denmark). Other small countries are able to successfully run their own affairs but Scotland, for some reason, would be unable to do so? If that is not insulting then I do not know what is. In addition to that, a recent Ernst & Young report showed that, in the last financial year, Scotland had attracted the highest level of UK inward investment, outside of London - and that it had done so for eight of the last ten years. That rather refutes the claim that the Scottish government is incompetent and would be unable to manage the economy of an independent Scotland.
In the interests of fairness I should state here that I know Thatcher’s vandalism was also visited upon Wales, Northern Ireland and areas of England, and without any subsequent investment in those areas, either. The difference is that Scotland, as a country, and not just a region of the UK, has the opportunity to escape from this mismanagement. I also know that Johnson’s Tory government has recently talked about ‘leveling up’ and investing billions in those deprived areas - but actions, not words, are what is needed. Given the cost of the COVID pandemic, I find it difficult to see where those billions will come from (and an independent Scotland will struggle in a similar way unless it followed, as the IFS and IFG reports suggested, a very different economic model to that followed by Westminster) - and in addition to that Scotland would have to wait for years, without any guarantee that those investments would actually be made. How long is Scotland supposed to wait for promises to materialise while living conditions and job opportunities, for example, continue to deteriorate?

7 - Several (English?) contributors also suggested that the rUK government would not be helpful towards an independent Scottish one and that Scotland would find itself at a severe disadvantage regarding trade with other countries. There would be cross border trade issues if Scotland was to rejoin the EU but these are hardly insurmountable (and it’s unlikely that Scotland would be able to rejoin the EU right away, anyway). It is my understanding that trade between Sweden, an EU member state, and Norway, an EFTA member state, flows fairly smoothly - and this because much of the customs work is carried out electronically away from the border. This view is also arrogant because it suggests that Scotland would be unable to agree trade deals with other nations - but rUK has, or will, manage to achieve this outside the EU without any problems. Why should the rUK manage to achieve this but Scotland be unable to? This, again, is nothing but arrogant and suggests that rUK/England can achieve where Scotland would be unable to. The strength of the UK economy might result in the UK agreeing better deals than an independent Scotland could - but even that is unlikely to result in the Scottish economy being a ‘basket case’.
Also, if the rUK government was to be unhelpful, with regard to trade between Scotland and rUK (or even in other ways like splitting the UK’s assets fairly) then this would suggest a petty minded outlook by those in power at Westminster - one that also only damaged rUK/England. While Scotland sends a lot of things south, rUK/England sells a lot to Scotland and any unwillingness to cooperate would only damage businesses south of the border as well as those in Scotland. If those at Westminster are so petty minded then, I would argue, it is all the more important that we escape from Westminster’s clutches as quickly as possible.     

8 - As well as the Scottish unionist, mentioned earlier, many of the English contributors to Quora claimed that Sturgeon and the SNP continually make racist and anti-English statements. This is simply not the case. I do accept that some independence supporters, the more extreme ones, do make anti-English statements but that accusation cannot be made against the SNP or Sturgeon. The SNP say that they figure Scotland needs to attract a million more people to come to live and work in Scotland - this to boost production from new businesses (they hope to attract) and revenue from the tax receipts (both to boost the Scottish economy). The SNP have made it quite clear that this includes anyone from anywhere in the world, including from England, and that race, religion, disability or sexual orientation will never be a factor in deciding who to accept. That is hardly a racist, or anti-English, policy stance and in addition to that, the SNP take swift action against any member making racist, including anti-English, statements. The SNP’s policy of rejoining the EU and, therefore, accepting the free movement of people, also suggests that it’s policies are anything but racist. I can only presume that those making such an accusation fail to understand that attacking a government is not the same as attacking the people of a country. For example: I object to the way the Israeli government treats the Palestinian people - but saying so does not mean I also attack all Jewish people. I know many Jews also object to how Israel oppresses the Palestinians. I also object to how the Iranian government operates - but I do not attack all Iranians for the way it’s government behaves. The SNP and Sturgeon attack how the UK government governs Scotland - but that is not the same as being anti-English or against the people of England.
   
     

Postscript: A couple of weeks after the recent Holyrood election, I fired off, all at the same time, about a dozen replies to those expressing the views above that I either objected to or just disagreed with (I had prepared them all in advance using my word processor) - and then I unsubscribed from Quora and used Gmail settings to block all further emails from the site. I will no longer be able to respond to all the anti-Scottish and arrogant stuff that I was reading - but I have recovered my sleep and my sanity. I think the moral here is that all social media sites are a danger to our health and that everyone should stop accessing them and reading blogs (maybe including this one)! The above is also my excuse for what I accept (even by my standard) as a poorly written, rambling post. I had fired off, over the past few months, so many responses to so many people, that I found I had lost the desire to substantially edit my first draft of this. I usually (believe it or not) go back over each paragraph several times in an attempt to phrase things in a better way and remove repetitions - but I just found myself unable to do so on this occasion. My apologises to anyone who has found and read this.