Thrive E-Book

Lesley Riddoch

• Herausgeber: Luath Press
• Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 416

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2023

Beschreibung

Why won't Scots simmer down? Why batter on about independence when folk voted no a decade back? After all. Scotland is not as populated as Yorkshire, nor as wealthy as London. But it's also not as Conservative, nor as suspicious of Europeans, as keen on Brexit or as willing to flog off public assets to the ruling party's pals. Scotland is a former state with its own laws, education, universities, languages, welfare system, history and hang-ups. A progressive North Atlantic nation steered by a Westminster government that's totally preoccupied with regaining lost imperial status.  Put simply – with or without Nicola Sturgeon at the helm – Scotland is another country. A social democracy stuck in a Conservative state. And that's why 50% of Scots are determined to find a way out. In this book, Blossom author Lesley Riddoch sets out an impassioned case for independence, weaving academic evidence with the story, and international comparison with anecdote, to explain why Scotland is ready to step forward as the world's newest state and how the British Isles can work better when Scotland is governed by the folk who call it home.  Let's cast aside preconceptions. Whichever way you voted in 2014 – if you were able – the world has changed, Europe has changed and the UK has changed – though not in a good way. Scots need the freedom to change too.

Leseprobe

LESLEY RIDDOCH is an award-winning broadcaster, writer, journalist, independence campaigner, podcaster and land reform activist. She writes weekly columns for The National and is a contributor to The Guardian, BBC Question Time, Scotland Tonight and Any Questions. She is founder and Director of Nordic Horizons, a policy group that brings Nordic experts to the Scottish Parliament and produces a popular weekly podcast. Lesley has presented You and Yours on BBC Radio 4, The Midnight Hour on BBC2 and The People’s Parliament and Powerhouse on Channel 4, and has been a columnist for the Herald and Scotsman newspapers. She founded the Scottish feminist magazine Harpies and Quines, won two Sony awards for her daily Radio Scotland show and edited The Scotswoman – a 1995 edition of The Scotsman written by its female staff. She was a trustee of the Isle of Eigg Trust that pioneered the successful community buyout in 1997. She has presented and co-produced films about the Faroes, Iceland, Estonia and Norway. Lesley was awarded a PhD, the Fletcher of Saltoun Award for her contribution to Scotland’s civic life and Independence Campaigner of the Year award in 2020. She lives near the sea in north Fife.

Luath Press is an independently owned and managed book publishing company based in Scotland and is not aligned to any political party or grouping.

By the same author:

Riddoch on the Outer Hebrides, Luath Press, 2007

Blossom: What Scotland Needs to Flourish, Luath Press, 2013

Wee White Blossom: What Post-Referendum Scotland Needs to Flourish, Luath Press, 2015

McSmörgåsbord: What post-Brexit Scotland can learn from the Nordics, Luath Press, 2017

Huts, a Place Beyond: How to End Our Exile from Nature, Luath Press, 2020

First published 2023

ISBN: 978-1-80425-100-3

The author’s right to be identified as author of this book under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 has been asserted.

Typeset in 10.5 point Sabon LT

© Lesley Riddoch 2023

Contents

Acknowledgements

Preface

INTRODUCTION

The new case for Scottish independence

New England and Auld Europe

Scotland’s settled will

Does indy mean SNP rule forever?

PART ONE – THE DEEP DIVE

Change is hard

Is Scotland a pup?

Scotland’s sterility – sheer falsehood

Judging countries by their anthems

Duncan Ban MacIntyre to the rescue

So, what are we like?

Not violent people

New Scots, solidarity and Van Man

Will independence open Pandora’s Box?

Have the best left?

The mighty muscle of community buyouts

Strontian – the school builders

Eigg – the pioneers

Lochgelly – the mining town reborn

Special ‘ordinary’ people

Different, but different enough?

The Catalan parallel

For, as long as a hundred of us…

New Commonwealth republics

It’s the hope that kills you

The kid goat’s leap

PART TWO – THE STATE OF THE KINGDOM

Belief in Westminster – abandoned

Scotland and England – two different countries

Let’s hear it for Mark Drakeford

The Brexit effect

Why Scots dumped Euro-scepticism

A union of equals

Is England irredeemably Conservative?

Monarchy v republic

PART THREE – THE STATE OF THE NATION

Why Scotland is colder than Iceland

Energy, indy and economic success

Negotiation not domination

Kicking our fossil fuel habit

Investing not waiting

Nuclear love-ins at Westminster

So why do countries become independent anyway?

PART FOUR – THE COOL, COOL NEIGHBOURS

The Irish Effect

Losing a colonial master – finding a continent

Our friends in the North

Not the United States of Scandinavia

The pioneering Peasants’ Parliament

The cooperative Finns

Losing colonies – gaining focus

Where beer costs an arm and a leg

Can Scotland catch up?

POSTSCRIPT

Ten years after indy

Acknowledgments

I’m grateful to Tom Bee for cutting through a flurry of indecision about the best name for this volume in typical, Gordian-knot-cutting style and designing this breezy, cheery cover with Amy Turnbull, and to Luath publisher, Gavin MacDougall for his constant, patient encouragement. Thanks to Professor Alan Riach for his kind permission to quote from Praise of Ben Dorain. The Scottish Independence Foundation financed a month without journalistic work in January 2023 to let me focus on writing and the Herald and the National have kindly given permission to use extracts from columns. Finally, I’m almost grateful to Nicola Sturgeon for resigning when she did, so I had the chance to consider whether her departure terminally damages the case for independence.

The answer, with all respect to her legacy is, no.

Scotland has bigger fish to fry.

Preface

Independence.

For those who crave it, for those who dread it and for those utterly bored by the whole debate – we are living together through deeply frustrating times.

In late 2022, the Supreme Court dismayed the half of Scotland that favours independence by announcing ‘the world’s most powerfully devolved parliament’ cannot consult its own people in a lawful referendum. But the half of Scotland against independence was dealt an equally forceful blow – Yessers showed no signs of giving up, even though their democratic path was blocked. So it’s deadlock, Groundhog Day and – if you chuck in the sudden departure of Nicola Sturgeon and the fractious contest to replace her – the winter of 2022/23 has produced the perfect, political storm. And a big departure from Scotland’s own status quo.

Most Scots under the age of 30 can’t recall a Scottish Parliament without one of Britain’s two most formidable politicians at the helm – Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon. He saw an ‘Executive’ become a ‘Government’, pioneered a massive expansion of wind energy using only devolved planning powers, ‘broke’ the proportional voting system to win an absolute majority in 2011, extracted the Edinburgh Agreement from David Cameron and nearly won the 2014 indyref. She saw a divided country through the indyref’s aftermath, developed Scotland’s own welfare state to mitigate cruel Whitehall benefit sanctions, reached out to Europeans after the sudden shock of Brexit and reassured people with well-researched, empathetically delivered, daily briefings during the Covid pandemic – in stark contrast to the largely absent, un-briefed, King of the crony contracts and VIP ‘fast lanes’, Boris Johnson.

Salmond and Sturgeon have been massive political figures, recognisable across the world and despite their fierce falling out, history and public opinion may view them as sharing a legacy – together they normalised independence for Scotland over 16 short years, even though neither actually delivered it.

Scottish Labour has had 10 leaders since the Scottish Parliament resumed in 1999.

The SNP has had five. So the recent SNP leadership contest saw a generational change – none of the candidates vying to become the fifth SNP leader had even left school when Alex Salmond took over in 1990. Yip, that includes the (still young to me) Ash Regan.

A leadership election was always going to be a shock to the system for SNP members and a chance for long stifled, though perfectly natural differences about independence strategy, domestic policy and party democracy to surface. Still, the campaign was surprisingly bruising and left winner Humza Yousaf elected by a slender majority, but making history as Scotland’s first Muslim leader.

So, Scotland’s political world suddenly feels very unsettled.

In many ways, that’s a good thing. It lets things be said that have needed saying – and hearing – by the SNP leadership. Things like the need to build a distinctive wellbeing economy – as championed by the policy group Believe in Scotland with more long-term planning effort than just slapping new headings on old press releases. And things like getting the corporate sector out of Scotland’s public institutions, as advocated by Common Weal whose challenging slogan, ‘appoint no-one, elect everyone’ suddenly has renewed resonance.

Some Yessers fear that without such truly fresh thinking, Scotland will be forever Britain’s ‘mini me’ and lack of tangible progress to reduce inequality and improve governance will hobble the drive for independence.

And yet, all of this is also just weather – albeit a particularly gusty version of the airborne turbulence for which Scotland is famed. The climate still suggests independence will happen, thanks to strong, sustained support amongst voters under the age of 50. And even if some of them grow cautious with age and others grow disillusioned – there’s still a majority for change, someday soon.

But why hasn’t the dial shifted further and faster towards breaking free from a United Kingdom that’s never been more discredited, disorientated and economically deflated? What is it that gets so many people to the edge of the diving board, only to hesitate, shiver and climb back down again?

Is it the absence of a totally watertight, unanimously backed economic case – if such can ever exist in an uncertain world? Or does the demand for certainty mask deeper performance anxieties that must be tackled whether Scotland moves towards independence? This book tries to shine some light on longstanding myths about Scotland which dampen confidence and enthusiasm, and to survey what’s changed since 2014 for the nation of Scotland, the kingdom of Britain and the small, successful neighbours whose examples beckon us onwards.

So this isn’t a book about the history, prospects or failures of the SNP, a collection of Frequently Asked Questions about independence or facts and figures about Scotland’s strengths in life sciences, creative industries, chemical sciences, food and drink, higher education and renewables. Excellent books and online resources exist on all these subjects and there’s no point duplicating them. Similarly, Thrive is a companion volume to Blossom, first published ten years ago, which described the origins of disempowerment in Scotland and the distinctive aspects of culture, language, history and housing that have kept solidarity and nationhood alive. So, I’m hoping not to repeat those arguments either. Well, not much.

I’m well aware that relating some less-told stories about Scotland invites the charge of creating a selective history that underplays uncomfortable home truths. I’m hoping for Scotland’s last Not Proven verdict on that one. Accounts of Scottish failings and inadequacies are so oft retold and exaggerated as to require little repetition, while other very real sticking points remain undiscussed – along with remedies deployed by more equal and successful northern neighbours. Scots hyper know the received wisdom about Scotland and its downsides. So, Thrive is an attempted corrective, which will doubtless be read in conjunction with the gloomy, contrary opinions produced by a sceptical mainstream world. Having said that, it’s not my intention to pretend Scotland or Scots are a cut above. We are an ordinary country with our own strengths, assets, problems and demons. Indeed, the mark of readiness to proceed is an unsentimental, clear-eyed recognition of our own national character – flawed but entirely good enough to construct a new, independent country. Just like all the other ones.

Introduction

The new case for Scottish independence

What is it?

It’s not which currency Scotland would adopt, if or how quickly we would rejoin the EU or whether the SNP would fade away or rule forever. Important questions that all we talk about. But not the case for independence.

It’s not whether the Gender Recognition Reform Act, late delivery of Hebridean ferries, success or failure in shrinking the attainment gap, running the NHS or mitigating poverty reflect well or badly on the current Scottish government. These are relevant debates – but the SNP’s performance as a Scottish government isn’t the same as the case for independence, which pre-dates the SNP’s ascendancy and the Scottish Parliament itself.

It’s not the identity or personality of the First Minister – though Nicola Sturgeon’s time at the top was eventful and her resignation unsettling – a condition compounded by the resignation, arrest and release of her husband as Chief Executive.

It’s not even evidence that Westminster is a busted flush, Brexit is a disaster and Scotland-sized countries out-perform the UK. All these statements are true. But they do not – by themselves – make the case for independence. Just as a recipe – by itself – doth not a clootie dumpling make. (Google it.)

It’s not the vexed issue of borders and how much hardware, delays or queues would or wouldn’t exist when Scotland’s back in the EU and England’s still stubbornly outside, watching its economy fall apart, on its lonesome. There’s no question that managing a Schengen border would take energy on both sides and a level of ‘can do’ that’s generally in short supply at Westminster. But happily, the Irish border is trialling a solution. Yet even this sizeable and important discussion is not the case for independence. It’s just a new arrangement. And any problems that arise can be overcome. Since the day Alex Salmond kicked off the first independence referendum campaign in 2012, the most important decision facing Scots has seen a media and professional class focus on the problems of independence.

We rarely hear them weighed against the problems of the status quo or the advantages of independence. Why not?

Imagine a set of constitutional scales with indy difficulties on one side and advantages on the other. That’s the kind of debate I always imagined we’d have – eventually. The kind you construct yourself when facing a big decision – a list of pluses, minuses and then a long ponder.

But instead, the plus side of the scales is totally empty whilst the minus side is overflowing – and that’s no fair reflection of reality. Yet the more Yessers dutifully engage with real and imagined concerns, the more PROBLEM becomes wedded to the very IDEA of independence. Which may well be the intention. The most succinct, well-researched responses only subtract a few grammes from this consciously constructed, minor mountain of negativity. They don’t expand the positive argument or fix the underlying imbalance in the one-sided independence debate.

I suspect no-one really backs or rejects independence because of currency, borders or deficits. These are secondary issues which beg a big, fat primary question. Can independence improve Scotland?

Consider. Scotland is trying to decide whether to move home, based on the probable cost of the removals van. It’s crazy. If a move is deemed necessary, then a vehicle will be found. But instead of tackling the big, important question of the move, we are getting stuck on particulars of the van hire. And, if there’s ANY disagreement about the speed of EU accession or which currency to use, Scottish independence is deemed impossible. That’s a strange logic. Like sticking with oil and gas indefinitely because renewable energy has storage issues.

In fact, it’s even stranger.

The need to make big choices about currency is regarded as terminal for independence, whereas big choices about energy storage are just challenges for clever Scots to fix. Why the difference?

Well, no government or political party has chosen to weaponise the difficulties that inevitably lie ahead as we transform a fossil-fuel-powered world into a sustainable one. Yip, big difficulties do exist. Nope, they aren’t getting talked about. Because not even Tories fancy sounding like climate-change deniers these days.

The things we worry about, talk about, the facts and figures that lodge stubbornly in our brains, the expenditure that looks unjustifiable, the problems that seem insurmountable are all the things raised day-in, day-out by status quo-supporting papers, media and vested interests. It’s a carefully crafted Selection Box of worry.

Thus, the cost of the 2014 indyref was £15.85m. That’s either outrageously wasteful or a real bargain. £15.85 is twice the cost of enlarging the main door into the House of Lords (£15.85m v £7m) and one hundredth of the price-tag for restoring the whole Palace of Westminster (£14bn).

Now, I’m not saying the crumbling Commons is a satisfactory place for MPS or staff to work. I am saying a successful exercise in popular democracy (85 per cent turnout) conducted for twice the price of a door into the world’s second largest unelected chamber sounds like a pretty good deal to me. Value and waste depend on how the argument’s framed.

So, this book takes a wee tilt at frames which generate a pervasive gloom and negativity before any rational argument about independence has even begun. We’ll also hook up with our collective inner child – the one that desperately wants to believe some option for the future is relatively problem-free, and that confident-sounding entitled people really do know best – even when our collective inner adult knows that just ain’t so.

But God love that tired, scared, demoralised inner child.

Who would be any kind of bairn in this fractious world and broken, loadsamoney UK? The presumption is that bad times, corruption and utter incompetence hasten change. And up to a point, they do. But petrified passengers often hesitate to abandon a sinking ship – and exhausted voters may also shun better directions that involve disruption, anxiety and choice between competing risks. The new path always looks daunting, and folk always fear the new boss will strongly resemble the old one. These worries form a deep-seated block to independence which cannot be countered by a stunning new take on the Scottish Pound. It’s a bit like worrying about the quality of seed, when the ground is already waterlogged. So first things first.

Until Scots decide themselves that muddling along isn’t enough, they will ignore pamphlets, leaflets articles and experts. They will deny the existence of problems with the status quo. It’s the reason intelligent people present too late with health problems.

I quite understand why many folk cross the road or leave by the rear exit (looking at you Boris) when independence comes their way. It’s relentlessly portrayed as an expensive, disruptive, fuss over nothing, that interests no-one save the bampots and diehards. If one alternative portrayal of independence existed, as the only truly safe bet for our children’s future, its associated problems might seem like the problems facing renewables. Challenges to be overcome.

In short, let’s hear the blinking case for independence. And just for once, let’s hear the case for the union – if someone actually wants to make it. Then, finally, we can properly gauge the risks and advantages of one possible future against the other. Because risk exists in every constitutional scenario and is never totally eliminated by any ‘foolproof’ plan. During the last campaign, Better Together demanded complete certainty from the Yes campaign – a call echoed so strongly by a hostile media that hard-to-keep guarantees about the shape of a new country were made by SNP leaders.

I understand why.

In a world where big false promises written on the sides of buses get you an 80-seat Commons majority or four years in the White House, it’s hard to sell shades of grey.

But we’ve watched the ‘oven-ready’ trade deals of Brexit fail to materialise. We’ve watched President Trump fail to make America great again and President Putin’s ‘special operation’ in Ukraine grind to a halt. Those who live by certainty tend to (politically) die by it too.

Yet certainty thrives in uncertain times. What are the odds-on Rishi Sunak still being Prime Minister by the time this book is published? I was going to ask about Nadim (tax dodger) Zahawi, but a mere week after this sentence began, he was toast. Meanwhile, what about you? Will you retire at 64, 66, 68 or never?

Life is becoming increasingly random and uncertain – especially for folk without heating this crisis-strewn winter. But the more old certainties dwindle, the more we crave them. No wonder politicians choose undeliverable promises over coming clean with the electorate, every time – even though madness lies therein and disillusioned voters end up wishing a plague on all party political houses.

The truth is we don’t live our lives by certainty but by probability and trust. Yet this reality-defying demand – that the future be 100 per cent predictable – is applied to just one side of the constitutional debate. That doesn’t mean a detailed prospectus isn’t needed. Just that its absence right now may not be a bigger obstacle for independence than this impossible-to-satisfy thirst for absolute certainty.

Let’s drop the independence bar to the same height louped by every other proposition for Scotland’s future, including the status quo, and consider briefly here – and at length later on – what’s highly probable after a Yes vote.

EU membership – yes, we will doubtless rejoin though I’d fully suspect the ‘halfway house’ trade group EFTA to start a bidding war. Why not? Scots have been good EU members for 40 years, we subscribe to the green, progressive, cooperative tilt of European politics, possess vast renewable energy resources, friendly people, and a vital geopolitical location. In short, we are a bit of a catch. And, fears of a Spanish veto – always exaggerated – have retreated still further since Brexit.

Border – yes, there will be one, but as IT arrangements around the Irish border will soon demonstrate, future trade everywhere will be managed more by technology and less by physical searches or wadges of paperwork. As for having to change money, most personal transactions in any country these days are by card not cash. Thanks to Brexit and the sea that divides us from mainland Europe, citizens of the British Isles don’t cross international borders often enough to see how easy that is – even borders shared with grumpy ex-partners. In truth, despite negative headlines, the average border is very quiet. Ironically, it’s the problematic British/EU border that gives national boundaries a bad name. Brexit aimed to keep all forms of immigration down – from asylum seekers in small boats crossing the Channel to seasonal workers and skilled migrants. The terrible irony is that desperate ‘boat people’ keep coming, whilst the workers who once staffed every sector from the NHS to hospitality are moving freely within the EU instead. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister of Luxemburg has summed up Britain’s situation: ‘They were in with a load of opt-outs. Now they are out, and want a load of opt-ins.’

Quite. Brexit has failed and public opinion has shifted – even in Brexit-mad England. Two large opinion polls suggest Leave voters, searching in vain for the ‘sunlit uplands’, have changed their minds, with 54 per cent now saying it was wrong to leave, and that was early 2023, before day-long queues to cross the Channel developed again at Dover. Who could have guessed that ending free movement for Europeans might also end free movement for Brits?

So where does that leave us politically? It may be impossible for the Tories and pre-election Labour to state the bleedin’ obvious. But a U-turn is likely in the medium term, regaining single market access if not full membership. Such a volte face is too embarrassing to contemplate right now, since Britain will forfeit all the opt-outs negotiated upon entry in 1973, but gain nothing in return except self-inflicted economic and reputational damage. Even partial re-entry though will help create a smoother iScotland/rUK border experience.

Which might prompt some to ask, why bother about independence? Well, the scary thing is that a governing party, electorate and craven opposition south of the border combined with ease to stoke a ‘culture war’ against Europe, simply to avoid facing the fact that Britain’s problems are caused by Britain and its near-ideological unwillingness to embrace empathy, equality and honest self-examination. Even if the weather eases up under a new Labour government, the underlying trend will continue. Scotland beware.

So, will independence be disruptive – yes. The better question is whether it will be more disruptive and damaging in the medium to long run than the ‘erratic’ and damaging behaviour of the UK.

The London School of Economics predicted in 2021 that independence would cut incomes by 4.5-6.7 per cent. That is scary looking but also unknowable and should be set against losses incurred continuing on our present path.

The same LSE report estimated Brexit losses to be 2 per cent of GDP per capita, while the Office of Budget Responsibility put them at 4 per cent. Last year, 49 days of Liz Truss left the economy 2 per cent smaller than it was before her disastrous budget. Then an energy crisis triggered by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine caused unprepared, gas-dependent countries like Britain (energy is reserved to Westminster) to treble energy bills. Right now, food price inflation is 17.6 per cent – the highest since 1977 – and workers are £11,000 worse off per year due to 15 years of wage stagnation. According to the Resolution Foundation, the gap between British and German household income was £500 per annum in 2008 – and £4,000 today.

If that’s stability, I’m a trampoline.

So, there is disruption either way and the basic question remains. Life is full of choppy water. Are they best navigated by Holyrood or Westminster?

Meanwhile, back to the big questions.

Trade will also continue in an independent Scotland, which already outperforms all the other UK nations in international exports and has done since records began which means Brexit hit Scotland relatively harder than the rest of the UK, and that’s prompted former No voters in the farming, food and drink, business and fishing sectors to ponder how access to the vital EU market will be restored without independence. As Gordon MacIntyre Kemp points out in Scotland the Brief:

Scotland’s exporting success is nothing to do with being part of the UK – it’s our reputation for quality, natural resources and brand image that spans energy expertise, whisky, beef, salmon and seafood.

And that won’t change.

Nor will demand for vital goods currently subsumed within the UK’s internal market – like energy. There is no way England will not want energy supplies from Scotland post-independence. Otherwise, the lights will simply go out. Meanwhile an iScotland will have to develop new routes and trading partners, just as Ireland has done since Brexit to achieve the highest growth rate in the EU today. Stephen Kinsella, associate professor of economics at Limerick University says Scotland will likely experience a ‘short shock’ after leaving the UK, but quickly adjust to change:

In 1920, the UK made up 95 per cent of exports from Ireland – it’s 12 per cent now. Looking at the north of Ireland [compared to] the south – it’s an economic experiment in the costs and benefits of colonialism over a century, and there’s no doubt which group has fared better.

Much more on this later.

Currency – yes, there will be one. No nation became independent in order to have a new currency. None failed to jump ship for the want of one. And none facing difficulty, went back to the currency they had left. Why would Scotland be different?

Deficits – I cite my guys, you cite yours. Does any argument completely satisfy? Deficits have accumulated on Westminster’s watch – they won’t disappear in an independent Scotland and they exist in almost every economy. Why the mere whiff of indebtedness seems to immobilise Scots is a good question worth asking. But for a discussion of THE ACTUAL NUMBERS read Professor Richard Murphy.

Economic viability then?

C’mon.

With plentiful supplies of the world’s major assets – water and renewable energy – plus whisky, tourism, life sciences, music and friendly people, Scotland is unquestionably ‘investable’. To squander these natural assets, Scots would have to be a different species to every small country around. And we’re not.

In summary – currency, borders, deficits and economic viability are important. And fear of the unknown is a big factor. But let’s put the big rocks in first – and these are still not the big rocks.

If Scots voted No in 2014 because we were frightened of losing the pound – a currency that has since tanked courtesy of HMG – we were a world first. If we voted No for fear of losing the developed world’s worst pension – ditto. If we worried about losing the high governance standards of Britain, we weren’t paying attention – and to be fair, hadn’t yet witnessed the effects of Brexit and crony Covid contracts which together sent the UK plummeting down World Bank governance rankings. In 2020 the UK was 19th, behind all the Nordic nations. Scotland can do better.

What about losing our nuclear weapons at a time of heightened threat from Russia? Expert opinion agrees there is nowhere else in Britain to put the Trident submarines based on the Clyde. But the war in Ukraine means those nuclear warheads don’t just create local jobs, they made the west of Scotland a prime target for attack. Modelling suggests the detonation of a 100 kiloton nuclear bomb in Glasgow city centre would deliver potentially fatal doses of radiation and third degree burns to anyone within a 50 kilometre radius. Over 73,000 people could be killed and twice that number injured. In short, there’s a reason places like Milford Haven, Falmouth and Devonport don’t want Trident. They don’t want to become Britain’s biggest nuclear target.

Back in the pre-Holyrood 1960s, Scotland could not object. That will change if we become an independent state and can finally do what nuclear Britain will not – move in the opposite direction to de-escalate the nuclear arms race, because advances in peacekeeping and disarmament often happen directly after wars and every nuclear state is struggling to feed and clothe its own people. After WW1, the League of Nations – set up to solve international disputes peacefully – morphed into the United Nations.

After Cold War hostilities produced the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, a partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty was signed, prohibiting test detonations in the atmosphere, space and underwater. Six years later, a non-proliferation treaty forced the Soviet Union and United States to reduce their nuclear arsenals. The end of Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine could provide another opportunity for progress with more states signing up to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons 2021 (TPNW) which prompted billions to be disinvested from nuclear weapons by the Bank of Ireland, Allied Irish Bank and financial institutions in the 85 other signatory states.

But not Scottish banks, since Westminster plans instead to spend billions on a new system of nuclear weapons for the Clyde, opposed by 70 per cent of Scots.

The future for the planet can be very different. Why would an independent Scotland not want to be working within that progressive vanguard?

What about losing the monarchy? The latest poll suggests 55 per cent of Scots would be quite happy with that outcome, but it’s odd (and characteristically British) that big constitutional issues are considered piecemeal. We need a written constitution like every other normal independent country and a cross-section of the population drafting it. If such a Citizens Assembly suggests a president within a whole, new, written (at last) constitution, which is endorsed in a referendum by the people – then we’ll have a president. Andy Murray, you have been warned. Joke. Mebbe.

What about folk who work across the British Isles and fear tighter borders and even Visa restrictions? If Britain didn’t close borders when the Irish Free State seceded in 1923, why would it shut Scotland out today? Yip, just six months after that monumental blow to British authority, common sense somehow prevailed with the creation of the Common Travel Area (CTA) between Britain, Ireland, Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man.

Today,

Irish and British citizens can move freely within the CTA with access to employment, healthcare, all levels of education, and social benefits on the same basis as citizens of the other State, as well as the right to vote in local and national parliamentary elections.

Why on earth would an independent Scotland be treated any differently?

It’s the same story across the North Sea where the Nordic Passport Union (modelled on the CTA) began in 1953, four decades before Schengen, and lets citizens of Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Iceland and the Faroes live and work in one another’s countries without passport checks, residence or work permits. The UK actually created the gold standard in close neighbour cooperation. That will continue.

What about watching the BBC?

Well, wherever you live these days, what’s stopping you? Subscription channel viewing is the new normal, especially for under 24s, 90 per cent of whom head straight for Netflix or a streaming service and watch traditional broadcast TV for just one hour daily – a fall of two-thirds since 2014, according to media regulator Ofcom.

That suggests the broadcasting issue might look quite different next time around. Once again, Ireland’s experience is instructive – BBC channels are widely available in Ireland though there’s no access to the iPlayer. But money not given to Aunty in licence fees funds RTÉ’s TV and radio stations. Are they any good? Well, in 2016, RTÉ TV broadcast all of Ireland’s 20 most popular programmes and 19 of its 20 most popular sports programmes. Doubtless, using that model in an independent Scotland might let fans watch our own national men’s team beat Spain again (you’ve got to dream) on state TV.

Last time around, the SNP proposed a Scottish Broadcasting Corporation (SBC). A new indy government might want to negotiate a continuing supply of SBC programming to the BBC in exchange for iPlayer access. But meantime, BBC hit series are watched across the world, and again – why would an independent Scotland be any different?

The excellent drama Happy Valley was seen so widely across the US that actor James Norton recently said, ‘random Americans come up to me on the street and talk to me about Hebden Bridge. They watch it with subtitles on, but they love it.’

Indeed, I’ve sat with friends in Norway lapping up Downton Abbey on the Norwegian state broadcaster NRK. They can watch a vivid portrayal of class inequality – we have to stew in it.

I for one would cheerfully swap the BBC’s endless fixation with all things Tudor, inter-war and upper class for lavish SBC productions of Scottish classics like Robert Louis Stevenson’s Kidnapped. This was last adapted for British TV in 1978 by a co-production between Harlech TV in Wales and Germany’s Tele München – not the BBC. Meanwhile, the best model for iScotland is the Danish Broadcasting Corporation (DR), funded from income tax and responsible for hit series The Killing, Borgen and The Bridge. In 2014, there were two or three Danish TV series in production at any one time. In 2019, there were 20, plus 25 films being shot on location in Denmark, prompting the country’s drama school to double its student numbers. In short, the world wants more Danish TV than Denmark can handle, thanks to the streaming boom. Ditto the other Nordic countries. An SBC won’t get there overnight, but Outlander – viewed in 40 countries – demonstrates the world’s fascination with Scotland. What a day it will be when it’s a Danish-style SBC that feeds that interest – not better funded, more confident foreign broadcasters.

New England and Auld Europe

Is it disloyal abandon England? Well, most folk south of the border would actually be waving us off. A 2021 poll of English voters for the Telegraph found only a fifth strongly oppose Scottish independence and most young English folk aged 18–34 believe Scotland would thrive as an independent country. England is ready for change and Scotland won’t be disappearing – but reappearing. Meanwhile many English folk believe Scottish independence is the constitutional cataclysm needed to weaken establishment control south of the border and revive the English liberal/Remain-voting left. Singer and campaigner Billy Bragg argues that Scotland’s departure from the union would encourage a new constitutional settlement, with PR elections and a reformed upper house to represent English regions; ‘I’d certainly vote for a new England.’

In 2021, two European academics based in Oxford (Andrea Pisauro and Janina Jetter) went a step further, creating Europe for Scotland (EfS). They drafted a letter asking the EU Commission to confirm that Scotland can easily rejoin the EU and it’s been signed by 15,000 British and European citizens, including English musician and Bowie collaborator Brian Eno:

Those of us who think the project of a united Europe is critically important want to see it grow, not shrink, so I applaud Scottish desire to be reunited with Europe.

And novelist/screenwriter Ian McEwan:

It falls to Scotland to take responsibility for its own future. Should it decide on independence, it will thrive within the EU as other small nations do. Leading figures in Brussels have promised ‘the door will remain open.’ Now is the time for them to hang out the welcome sign.

And British historian/Kings College professor, David Edgerton:

Scotland should have the right to choose between the English Union and the European Union – between dictat and democracy.

And Italian professor Alberto Alemanno:

The EU must stand by the Scots who, like any other people of Europe, should be entitled to choose their future in the European Union. If it’s no longer an option to be part of both the UK and the EU, it is not Scotland’s fault.

And German professor Ulrike Guerot:

Scotland historically and culturally belongs to Europe, independently of the state formation it currently belongs to. This is why I signed this European solidarity appeal for Scotland.

These leading members of European civic society get it.

They realise Scotland is not British but essentially European.

Amazing. It’s not just that prominent European figures harbour a secret sympathy for Scotland. It’s that they’ve put their heids o’er the parapet, risked pelters or non-comprehension by their ain folk – and taken a stand for us. Not directly on the question of independence but on Scotland’s right to EU membership.

Now, none of these esteemed signatories is daft.

Clearly there’s no way for Scots to rejoin the EU except as an independent country. But folk from other countries won’t tell us what to do.

They’ve helped clear a path – if we choose to take it – by urging EU officials to provide an accession assurance to Scotland before indyref2 so there’s none of the confusion, mixed messages and blatant lies that surrounded the vote in 2014. These folk see a plucky, single-minded, gallus little nation when we too often see bickering, division, stuck polls and uncertainty.

So c’mon. All countries have off days, disappointments and moments of disorientation. That doesn’t define them any more than guddles define us. Scotland is evolving into the social democracy England will struggle to become and it’s clear independence is an option that will not wither or die. Notably, political parties in Scotland didn’t ditch Yes – the losing argument in 2014 – as British parties dumped England’s Remain minority in 2016. That constancy is a beacon for the left in England. And there’s a far better future for all our countries working together as voluntary independent members in a beefed up Council of the Isles than in the present, unequal, involuntary union of the UK. Jings, in time we could have as much respectful cooperation and joint working as the Nordic Council.

Finally, there’s the hardy perennial – we already voted on independence in 2014.

Yip, that’s true. But underlying issues have not been resolved in the intervening decade. There were downright lies about EU membership in 2016, a continuing slump for Scotland’s economy because of England’s Brexit, the SNP has won eight straight elections on an indyref2 mandate and the agreement for a Northern Ireland border poll allows a rerun every seven years. We are in a different political space today and cannot move on without a second referendum.

Alex Salmond did describe the 2014 vote as ‘once in a generation’. That was political rhetoric not a personal promise, which he was in no more of a position to make than Gordon Brown’s unfulfilled pledge of ‘something close to federalism’ after a No vote. Sovereignty in Scotland rests with the people, not any political leader. Besides, if Salmond is taken at his word about the ‘one-off’ indyref, Boris Johnson should have been found ‘dead in a ditch’ in October 2019 when Brexit failed to materialise, as promised. Strange that one extravagant claim was dismissed as ‘just Boris’ whilst Salmond’s was promptly etched on a tablet of stone. In any case, the Tories don’t deny the right of Scots to have another referendum. They simply argue now is not the time. Be real. Now will never be the time because the next independence vote will likely be won.

Enough already. The classic worries have answers which are just as satisfactory or wobbly as those supporting the status quo. Why is that never enough?

Perhaps Scots will never take the plunge. Perhaps though, these hard-to-dispel worries serve as a proxy for something else. Something less tangible. Something softer. Something given little house-room in political debate. Something rarely discussed outside music, poetry and the arts. Something vital.

How we feel about ourselves. How fully we trust one another. Whether we consider ourselves capable of heavy lifting – on our own account, at our own direction, at our own speed and in our own name. That’s different to venting impotent rage at Tory governments. Since most of us didn’t vote for them, it often feels the damage they do isn’t really our fault.

A vote for independence is different. Riskier. More uncomfortable. It represents the end of innocence, diversion, excuses, dodged responsibility and any remaining vestiges of victimhood. It means aiming higher, owning aspirations, getting out of the back seat and steering the car. It invites expectation, judgement, responsibility and the absolute certainty of making mistakes along the way. And all of that weighs heavily on those Not to the Manor Born.

Along with something even harder for ‘no-nonsense’ Scots to discuss in public – the feeling of rip-roaring excitement that reverberated around Scotland in early September 2014, when a new country was almost born.

For a few weeks with Yes in front, a different future beckoned − a new start for Scotland, generating creativity and optimism, attracting like-minded folk from across Britain, Europe and the world and reactivating our own reserves of ingenuity. All triggered by the fabulous possibility we might spend the next 50 years creating a new child-centred, green economy, instead of mitigating the woeful, hurtful, immobilising, hope-denying crap that pours out of Westminster.

Aye it was optimism.

Aye it was David and Goliath.

Aye, the powerful emotions on display in 2014 might appear naïve and even embarrassing in hindsight. After all, only the brave or slightly unhinged are openly upbeat in a country that’s mastered the dark arts of studied detachment and gallows humour. So, we have hunkered down, curbed our enthusiasm, called in the accountants (no offence) and watched this precious, exciting idea of a new country get bogged down in problems, details and ‘what iffery’.

Yet memory and hope endure, and those powerful yet rarely expressed feelings explain why half the nation still backs independence.

So, why should Scotland quit the straitjacket of the UK?

Because like love, children or the biggest promotion possible, it would demand our all. A capacity greater than anything we currently understand or expect from ourselves. Because an independent Scotland would thrive, not just tick over. Because age-old social ideas about fairness, community and solidarity would finally be applied to the business of government. Because we could win the Eurovision Song Contest.

Be daft. Be serious. Act as if we own the place. Fail, learn, trust and succeed. And that’s it really. No land of milk and honey, no righting old wrongs and no taking all night.

Folk need inspiration to progress but it can feel foolish, even childish to dwell on such precious motivating life forces, faced with the corruption, duplicity, sharp practice and ‘tough love’ that’s become normalised by decades of Tory governance.

Consider. At the time of writing, women in England are being fined by NHS England for claiming free prescriptions during pregnancy. Yes, they were entitled. But only if a midwife did the paperwork correctly. Since many overworked midwives failed to tick the right box, hundreds of pounds must now be repaid or young mums will be taken to court. No exceptions.

Scotland abolished prescription charges for everyone 12 years ago and the world didn’t end. With independence we can build on that better direction – without looking constantly over our collective shoulder. That demands optimism. And contagious stories of inspiration. Out loud. In the open. Repeatedly. So, folk can engage emotionally and dare to dream.

Yip. The D-word.

Dreaming is tough to do in public – not because Scotland is an inspiration-free zone, but because hopes, stories and anecdotes aren’t deployed by politicians or a soundbite-seeking media. ‘Floaty’ emotional responses are regarded with deep suspicion in our brisk, modern Scottish world. We aren’t asked to be upbeat, positive or hopeful in public very often. Indeed, we are home to a world first – the only double positive that’s actually a negative. Aye right.

So, expressing optimism in Scotland is hard. And when it’s done half-heartedly, you’d rather hear nails dragged down a blackboard. Far easier to avoid the whole unsettling experience and watch Humza Yousaf pick his way through First Minister’s Questions instead.

Better still, stifle hope completely (that awkward wee bugger) by insisting an independent country will inevitably mirror the current strengths and weaknesses – actually let’s just make that weaknesses – of the Scottish Government. Now, if Holyrood was making a total mess of things compared to Westminster this might be a useful exercise. But – whatever the eye-catching errors, negative headlines and fair criticism – it generally isn’t.

Scotland has lower levels of child poverty, shorter NHS waiting times, more affordable homes, fewer rough sleepers, better supported carers, less student debt and public procurement that operates without VIP fast lanes or crony contracts. Scotland has cut climate emissions further, boosted renewables, electrified rail lines, rolled out free childcare, led the world with minimum unit pricing for alcohol and free period products and free school meals for all children in primary years one to five, while England’s offer, ‘explained’ in a 21-page booklet, is so complex that an Eligibility Checking System (ECS) has been launched to help. Which probably costs the same as just giving all primary kids free lunches.

All of this is why, a February 2023 report by the tough-talking Institute of Fiscal Studies concluded Scotland’s tax and benefits system is more progressive than anywhere else in the UK. And it’s probably why three in five Scots said Nicola Sturgeon made Scotland a better place, in a poll conducted two days after her resignation.

It’s also why two-thirds of Scots sampled in the Social Attitudes Survey said they could trust Scottish ministers to work in their best interests in November 2022, amidst a ferries’ fiasco and controversy over Gender Recognition Reform. Only a third of that figure said the same about Westminster. 63 per cent said Holyrood gives ordinary people a say in how Scotland is run. 57 per cent said the UK Government can’t be trusted to make fair decisions.

So even dragging their collective feet or causing controversy, Holyrood Ministers aren’t held in the low regard Scots reserve for Westminster. Voters seem quite capable of distinguishing between turbulent weather and a foul political climate. But there’s more. Performance within a constrained devolution settlement is no predictor of outcomes in a truly independent country. Then we must stop resting on our laurels about outperforming an unreconstructed rUK and tackle our under-performance compared to like-sized, progressive, resource-rich, small northern neighbours.

Independence will give Scotland the chance to turn away from failing British defaults and adopt or adapt systems developed over centuries by better functioning Nordic and Low Country neighbours. They’re ready to help if we’re not too proud to ask. That’s a far more promising policy future than constantly letting out the seams on jaickets made to fit someone else.

But there’s still one bigger point to make.

Scotland’s settled will

The twists, turns and tribulations of Nicola Sturgeon and Humza Yousaf have made headlines across Europe, but it’s not just leaders or governments that mark democratic milestones. More important is the growing political consensus within Scotland itself.

Ardrishaig-raised Labour leader John Smith – quoted by Humza Yousaf in his acceptance speech – first used the idea of a ‘settled will’ 30 years ago to describe the steam gathering behind devolution. But once that was achieved, that settled will didn’t disappear. It matured, deepened and stands revealed today in Scotland’s collective belief in the power of fairness, society and democracy. Actually, that belief is probably more powerful than backing for any constitutional outcome. The question has become – which arrangement best protects, enhances and enables it.

The answer’s been made easier by successive sell-yer-granny-style Conservative governments at Westminster. In contrast and by comparison, Scots can see their kind of country very clearly. They vote for it at every election and are infuriated when Scottish outcomes are ‘only’ equal to the UK average. The outline of the new Scottish state flickers into life with each collective flinch at a postponed CalMac ferry or burst of anti-migrant rhetoric from Suella Braverman.

It’s important, though controversial, to note that this precious settled will even includes Scottish Tories. Of course, it’s entertaining to highlight tensions between Douglas Ross and his frothing ‘die-in-a-ditch’ English counterparts. But the Scottish Conservatives’ alignment with the rest of the Scottish Parliament on issues like EU membership, Scottish Child Payments, proportional voting and Personal Care, is proof positive that the Scottish political spectrum is not the palette of blue you’ll find down south. Back in 2001, the Herald reported:

Henry McLeish continued to play cat and mouse with opposition MSPS yesterday as the SNP and Tories suspected a U-turn on his multi-million-pound plans for free care for the elderly.

No, you didn’t misread that.

Twenty years ago, Scottish Tories were trying to make sure Scotland leapt beyond miserly British norms by demanding that Scottish Labour stick to its free personal care reforms. Labour Ministers south of the border so opposed Scottish Labour’s initiative that the DSS, headed by Alistair Darling, tried to scupper his colleagues’ proposal by withholding £23m. Jings, with friends like these… Presumably the Scottish Tories hoped free personal care would tear Labour apart. It didn’t, but the initiative alerted voters to the bigger progress that could be made without the dead hand of Westminster interference. Even now, despite huffing and puffing, Scottish Tories are more like Nordic welfare-state-supporting Conservatives than the hard-right, state-dissolving maniacs at Westminster.

And that’s because they keep better company – progressive Scots not Braverman, Patel and Jacob Rees-Mogg, a man so patriotic he pays almost no tax, moved his business to Ireland, holds an Irish passport and is registered for tax in the Cayman Islands.