There is of course nothing offensive in describing Scottish
nationalism as a threat to the UK. Indeed, the UK has never come closer to
destruction than in September 2014. If Germany had succeeded in invading the UK
in 1940 the UK would still most likely have continued to exist just as France
did, but if the SNP ever won a vote on independence the UK would be gone for
ever in the same way that there is no longer a country called Prussia or
Yugoslavia.
But there are different kinds of threats to a country and
the SNP ought not to be compared to the threat of war or terrorism, because it
is a peaceful democratic party and so are those who vote for it.
Scotland prior to the merger with England may have
decided matters violently and certainly did not have any sort of democracy, but
then England prior to the merger tended to decide political matters with civil
wars and by chopping people’s heads off. Both together developed our present
system of free and fair elections, and the SNP is part of this.
There has been no political violence in Scotland. The SNP
does not have an armed wing. Scottish nationalists are as law abiding and
peaceful as anyone else.
Despite passions on both sides sometimes going too
far, no one has been murdered and few indeed have even been assaulted. There
have been nasty words, but few if any nasty deeds.
The threat of insurrection or revolution coming from
the SNP is just talk after a few too many frustrations and a few too many
drinks. If Scottish independence were ever to happen it would happen democratically.
But all of these things are part of the reason that
Scottish independence is not happening. It would have strategically been better
if the SNP had had an armed wing carrying out attacks in England. If it had
done so for thirty years it would have won independence even if the people of
Scotland did not want it. Such a campaign however could not have been sustained
because there is almost no one in Scotland who would want to take part in it
and almost no one who would support it.
The SNP rightly relied on democracy, but peak
independence support in 2014 was 10% short and when it briefly breached 50% at
the General Election of 2015 it was too late. It is clear now that the moment
has passed, and that Scottish nationalism is no threat at all. There is no need
for Rish Sunak to speak luridly about it. This merely shows once more how
little he understands Britain.
There have been three serious secession movements in
the First World West, Quebec, Catalonia and Scotland. In Canada there were two
independence referendums and Quebec came close on the second occasion, but
since then support for independence has declined.
There was no referendum in Catalonia, but rather a unilateral
declaration of independence and revolt. Spain dealt with the issue with typical
brutality and jailed some Catalan nationalists, but recent elections show that
support for independence in Catalonia has declined to the extent that the unity
of Spain is no longer threatened. Scotland completes the pattern.
This is not accidental. While there were waves of
secession in Eastern Europe in the 1990s and while the occasional new country
pops up in the Third World, it is quite clearly not straightforward to achieve
independence in modern Western Europe, North America, Australia, New Zealand or
Japan. If it were someone would have achieved it.
Both Catalonia and Quebec have much better claims to
independence than Scotland. Many people in both speak a genuinely different
language and are culturally dissimilar to the rest of Spain and Canada in a way
Scotland simply is not. Catalonia had the advantage of being wealthier than most
of the rest of Spain, while Scotland depends on a subsidy from the UK Treasury.
There are in Western Europe any number of formerly
independent countries. There are linguistic divides in countries like Belgium.
There are rivalries, hatreds and separate identities. Some Corsicans want to be
independent from France, some Venetians want to leave Italy, but none of these
things is going to happen, because for a First World market economy it just isn’t
worth it.
Quebec found that Canada wasn’t interested in helping
it achieve independence and the United States wouldn’t welcome it either.
Catalonia discovered that the EU wasn’t interested in helping it achieve independence
and that leaving Spain would involve leaving the EU with who knows what
consequences for its borders and currency.
Scottish independence appeals to a certain kind of
Scot theoretically, but not actually. The SNP always has to unrealistically
sugar coat the pill of leaving by pretending that everything would go on as
before only we’d be independent and have more money. But this has never been
convincing while the SNP government continues to accept 25% per person higher
public spending thanks to a grant from London.
The dislocation of breaking up a First World market
economy is such that no rational voter would try it. The loss of Scotland would
damage the former UK at least as much as the damage it would do to Scotland.
Who would want to lend to either? But this loss of confidence would make the
brief Liz Truss Prime Ministership look like a ripple compared to a storm. Who
knows what would happen to the UK economy if the UK broke up? It’s all very
well saying Scotland could be like Denmark, it’s just as likely that it could
become Nouvelle-Calédonie and the former UK might end up not much better.
In Redgauntlet Scott imagines a third Jacobite rebellion
in 1765 with an aging and less Bonnie Prince Charlie allowed by the British to
depart in peace because his rebellion had failed so pathetically that Jacobitism
was no longer a threat. This is where we now are with Scottish nationalism. The
Bonnie Prince might have won a kingdom if he had continued to march from Derby
to London, but years later he is as bald and old as John Swinney and it is
ludicrous to call him threat.
If you liked this article, then cross my PayPal with silver and soon there will be a new one. See below.
