We’re
approaching the end of the longest political campaign any of us can remember. I
suspect the result is already determined and that it would make no difference
if the referendum were next week or in two months. However, there are some
Scots who have yet to make up their minds and there is a lot of confusion
because the claims of both sides are so contradictory. Here’s what I think of
the main issues.
Polls
I follow
polls and I’m pleased when my side appears to do well and less pleased when my
side appears to do less well. However, I try my best not to be too bothered by
them either way. Anyway it’s best to campaign as if you were behind and never
to say “we’re way ahead”, “it’s over” and “we’re going to win easily.” Complacency
is the biggest danger to No, continuing to fight hard is the best chance for
Yes.
There’s a
systematic error in the polling. Someone is wrong. The No lead can’t be both
small (Survation) and large (Yougov). There’s
not much point debating something, which the facts will determine on September 19th.
But it’s best to campaign as if the lead were small and try to make it larger.
Economy
Scotland will
remain a relatively wealthy Western European economy whatever the result of the
referendum. Wealth comes from the activities of people and more or less the
same people will probably be here next year. Independence would neither be an
economic disaster nor would the streets be made of gold. An independent Scotland’s
extra share of oil revenue would be more or less cancelled out by the loss of economies
of scale and UK government funding (Barnett formula). Whether independent or
not, how Scotland fairs economically in the future depends on the sorts of
choices politicians make. The best choice politicians can make is to interfere
as little as possible in the market. I don’t believe however, that this is the
route that an independent Scotland would take at least initially and for this
reason economically independence might be damaging at least in the short term.
EU
International
relations are frequently carried out ambiguously. Diplomacy is often a matter
of trying to please both sides. It’s considered poor form to interfere too much
in a country’s internal affairs. However, when someone like Jean-Claude Juncker
says that he’s not planning to expand the EU beyond 28 countries, of course, he’s
also talking about Scotland. His office might deny that he is, because it would
be interfering, but these sorts of remarks are calculated. The EU does not want
secession to take off in Western Europe like it has in Eastern Europe. Changing
international boundaries is historically problematic and can lead to unforeseen,
unintended consequences. It is the opposite direction to the one Mr Juncker
wants Europe to go.
What matters
anyway is not whether Scotland is in the EU, but that we have the same EU
status as the UK. If they voted to leave (I think they won’t in the end), we
would have to go with them whether independent or not. Scotland is too
integrated into the UK economy to be able to be in the EU while the UK is not.
Pound
The lesson of
the Eurozone is that currency union without political and fiscal union does not
work. When countries become independent, even tiny ones like Latvia, the norm
is that they set up their own currencies. Using the pound without a currency
union would send Scotland’s financial sector down south, along with the
associated jobs and wealth and would mean that our savings lacked a lender of
last resort. The best option for an independent Scotland would be to set up its
own currency. This however would be damaging to Scotland’s trade and
integration into the UK economy.
Lots of
Scots did not appreciate George Osborne & co. saying that we could not keep
the pound after independence. Did they mean it? There’s no way of knowing until
and unless negotiations begin after a vote for independence. You take your pick
according to what you want to believe and which side of the debate you support.
These matters however, in the end are determined by self-interest and public
opinion. Anyone who thinks the other parts of the UK are going to vote for a
Eurozone style currency union with Scotland after rejecting it with the EU,
does not understand their fellow citizens.
Conduct
With a short
time to go it is more and more important that when campaigning we do nothing
that harms the image of the side we support. Don’t hate or insult the sort of
people you meet every day in shops, on the bus or at work. I find it best
simply to ignore any insulting language online. We’re all very passionate about
the issues and we’ve all said things that are unkind. That’s the nature of
politics. But there are lots of good people on both sides and it’s possible to have
reasonable, informed conversations with them. You often learn something too and
make friends.
Conclusion
Independence
is clearly possible. The issue is whether it is the best course of action for
Scotland. Many independence supporters want independence as an ideal in itself.
They want it come what may. The rest of us have to balance up the advantages
and disadvantages of what we think would happen. There is much that is
uncertain, especially with regard to the key issues of currency and the EU. How
someone is liable to vote may be influenced by their attitude to risk. Scotland
is a great place to live now. It’s a great place, at least in part, because we’ve
been in the UK for the last 300 years. No doubt Scotland would still be a great
place to live after independence, but that Scotland is another country where I
have never lived a new nation state with an international relationship with
places I have always thought of as part of my home.
