Identity Politics

We are told that in the aftermath of the European Referendum Nicola Sturgeon, the Scottish First Minister, felt deprived of part of her identity. This, it seems, caused her to think about how 'No' voters in Scotland might feel if ever those favouring independence gained a majority.

Perhaps it would be a good idea to think on this again before stirring up another dose of the tribalism that attended the first Scottish Referendum. In many cases this internecine hostility has yet to subside, at least partly because the demagoguery employed by the 'Yes' campaign was so shameless.

A second concern is clearly illustrated by the aftermath of both the Scottish and the EU Referenda; the losers won't give up. Just as nationalists will not accept the decision of the Scottish majority, so Remainers will not accept that the UK is leaving the EU. Some are conducting more or less open guerrilla warfare, for example claiming that parliament (with its large Remain majority) must be able to supervise the withdrawal negotiations or re-interpreting the referendum to claim that the vote did not require the UK to leave the Single Market. Ms Sturgeon claims that the UK majority cannot impose its will on the Scottish majority who voted to remain.

Withdrawal would be far easier and more likely to achieve prosperity if it enjoyed wholehearted public support; anyone can see that. But of course it does not. Remoaners even continue to allege that Leavers were too stupid to understand what they were voting for and hence their votes should not be respected.

I suspect that any majority which might in future be obtained for Scottish independence will never be overwhelming. How would the nationalists respond to almost half the population resisting the result of such a referendum?

I may have lived more than half my life in Scotland but I am British. I shall remain British. My British citizenship is integral to my identity. I shall not be deprived of it by any law passed in Edinburgh.  

A Braw Song For Burns Night

I am delighted to report the publication of my latest story by Recompose magazine, edition #2 'Ritualistic Pompadour'.

This is a modern Scottish tale, developing a theme I first came up with as a piece of homework during my time with Falkirk Writers Circle.

Although it's my sixth professional rate sale, being less than 1,000 words it counts as a Flash piece (like two of the others) and so I still hang on to my eligibility for the Writers of the Future competition, at least for now. I've eight Honorable Mentions and a Silver HM, but the final still proves elusive. Maybe Quarter 4 of Volume 33, which ends this month - you never know your luck.

Anyway I hope people will flock to buy the latest Recompose. Because you do all want struggling authors to eat, don't you?

No More Referenda

As a general rule I am not an enthusiast for referenda. Experience shows them to be socially divisive blunt instruments, reducing complex shades of grey to simple black and white and arousing passions that are not easy to quell after the event. General elections give almost every voter some sort of stake in the outcome; few are left utterly without representation. By contrast a referendum is winner takes all, however small the majority.

The EU Referendum eventually became necessary because all the major political parties of the UK supported membership and for forty years opponents had no opportunity to vote against a process that steadily and deliberately eroded the sovereignty of their country. I suspect that a large majority of voters would still support membership of the sort of Common Market that we were told we were joining in 1973.

Inevitably the ordinary citizen, who has his own life to live, is not as expert in political matters as someone whose speciality is politics. The failing of our modern system of representative democracy has been the emergence of a class of professional politicians with no experience of the normal world in which their constituents live.

How else can you explain the geographical division of English voting between London's Remainers and the rest of England's leavers, or three quarters of parliament being Remainers when the country as a whole votes Leave?

Given that almost all the political, commercial and financial elite spent months predicting chaos if the plebs were stupid enough to vote to leave, it is a tribute to the resilience of the UK's economic system that the immediate aftermath of the Referendum was not greater instability than in fact occurred.

Just as in the Scottish Referendum, the losers are immediately enthusiastic for a re-run. Economically speaking, nothing could be worse. Prolongation of uncertainty is a self-inflicted wound which the country can do without.

Let us look for the opportunities of the future rather than hankering after a vanished past.

The Economic Consequences of A 'Neverendum'

Just a few months ago we were assured that the Scottish Referendum would settle the independence question for a generation. Now it seems that far from accepting the result of the vote, Yes campaigners cannot wait to try again. There are three reasons why this 'neverendum' is a bad idea.

1. Firstly, according to SNP budget plans for the first three years of independence the oil price was to be $110 per barrel. In fact the oil price is about $60 and expected government revenues would be a quarter of what was so recently predicted. We already faced an annual budget deficit and the requirement to try and borrow from the markets at the same time as we were throwing over responsibility for our share of UK National Debt in a fit of pique over not being admitted to a sterling currency union. The No vote turns out to have rescued us from immediate bankruptcy as a country. Hasn't anyone noticed?

2. The major Scottish financial institutions have all made contingency plans to decamp to London. They announced this during the Referendum campaign. Now that the idea is out in the open and it hasn't had the negative commercial impact that might have been expected, it will be much easier to contemplate actually doing it. Loss of such a large industry would inflict huge damage on the Scottish economy.

3. Evidence suggests that inward investment decisions that had been postponed awaiting a resolution of uncertainty caused by the Referendum have been postponed again since the uncertainty is still not resolved. This is great news for parts of Northumbria and Cumbria that can expect investment intended to supply Scottish markets as well as their own. It is less obvious why politicians with Scotland's best interests at heart should wish to prolong this damaging uncertainty indefinitely.

It would be a good idea if Scottish politicians remembered that in the middle of all this constitutional argy-bargy there is a little matter of running the country to be considered.