Some thoughts and a lot of facts concerning the State of the Nation
For the benefit, mainly, of those outside the UK who may be bewildered about what’s going on. Or for those among my local acquaintance who don’t know my stance yet and were perhaps wondering. I have tried hard to avoid hyperbole and sarcasm, so the text is less entertaining than it could be, but more accurate. Links to all sources at the end.
The Scottish Independence Referendum returned a No vote at a rate of 55/45% with a turn-out of 85%. The first step is to accept this result as real and to clamp down on conspiracy theories about rigged voting. The second is to consider the result in more detail and in context. The third is to ask how to move on from here.
So, step the first: conspiracy theories, apart from being bogus, distract energy from genuine issues, plus they make the Yes side look like fools and bad losers. Let us refrain from spreading them.
Step the second will be a lot longer. Who voted what and why? Once you consider that the No campaign was backed by the full force of the British political apparatus, by the combined might of Conservative, Labour and Lib Dems,1) by the banks, big business and mainstream media and by other European nations with their own agenda, once you also consider that enormous premises and dire threats were made by the No campaign, 45% is beginning to look quite an impressive result. 45% voted for Scottish independence in spite of economic uncertainties, in spite of predictions that virtually all businesses and jobs would be lost, the economy break down, the Scottish NHS collapse, prices soar, in spite also of all the assurances that Scotland is cherished and respected south of the Border. Of those 45%, three quarters gave as a reason their disaffection with Westminster. 45% decided that just about anything would be better than the devil that you know.
Of the No voters, about a quarter said they identified positively with the union. One quarter said they believed Scotland would get more devolved powers without taking the risks of leaving the union. Half voted No due to economic/financial concerns. Let’s look at these three sections in turn.
The first quarter are the people who really believe in the UK. If they are satisfied with the union, if they are convinced that Britain is the best she can be at this time and best suited for building the future, then they were absolutely right to vote no. It is unlikely that they will ever change their minds on this issue. These genuine supporters of the UK make up about 13% (a quarter of 55% of 85%) of the Scottish electorate - a figure that should have Westminster worried.
The second quarter are the people who want enhanced devolution within the UK, aka the Best of Both Worlds. This is a sensible proposition, since devolved government within a larger nation is a successful and efficient model in other countries, for example Germany. Enhanced devolution was the third option that the SNP wanted to put on the ballot papers, even though they must have known that it would cost them a fair chunk of the potential Yes vote. If this third option had been available, I am pretty certain it would have won. However, David Cameron did not permit this option to appear on the ballot paper. It was to be an all-or-nothing question. Further devolved powers for Scotland were not mentioned until a couple of weeks before the referendum, when a poll put the Yes campaign in the lead. A few days later, the leaders of Conservative, Labour and Lib Dem published their Pledge that promised Scotland greatly increased powers in case of a No vote. They were not specific about what those powers would be, but they were specific about the time scale. The motion was to be made in Westminster on 19th of September but wasn’t. The legislation is to come through in 2015 with the drafts to be out in January. Since Friday morning, Westminster politicians have been quarrelling about whether or not the further devolution should be linked to a number of conditions, among them a reduction in Scottish MPs power and the introduction of devolution in England - this was not the deal they promised us. The whole thing is really a power game between Cameron and Milliband over control of Westminster. Federalism is good, but it doesn’t look like we’ll be getting it. A quarter of No voters voted in favour of a sensible devolved government. It will be interesting to see how they will respond by the end of 2015 when they fully realise that they have been conned.
Half of the No voters were motivated by concerns about economic/financial issues and EU membership. With regard to the latter, they might rethink their decision after the 2017 Brexit referendum.
I am turning at this point to some sources that come as close to being unbiased on this issue as one can hope to find: The United Nations, the CIA World Fact Book and the EU.
According to the CIA World Fact book, the UK is the 9th largest economy in the world, however, it lists - oddly - the EU in second position, so really that should be 8th. The United Nations publish a yearly Human Development Index in which they measure standard of living with such parameters as life expectancy, infant mortality, literacy rate, doctors per 1000 citizens etc. Given that the Westminster politicians are telling us, and many people believe it, that we are better together in a nation that pools and fairly shares its resources, we should expect the UK to be in a somewhat higher position on the HDI than our economic power indicates, so maybe 5th or 6th? Do you want to guess? In fact, the UK is in 14th position. On the inequality-adjusted HDI, it loses 4 points, ending up in 18th position. Once inequality is taken into consideration, only one of the world’s ten largest economies appears among the top ten best countries with regard to public services and standard of living, and that is Germany. In other words: There are seventeen nations in the world who are poorer than Britain but look after their people better. The number one of these is Norway - the 47th largest economy. Iceland, a nation of some 300 000 people with the 149th largest economy in the world, is in 8th position. The nations that top the inequality-adjusted HDI are small players in the global economy, nations like Ireland, Denmark, the Netherlands, Switzerland, New Zealand. China, the second largest economy, is number 91 in the standard HDI, there were no figures available that allowed for inequality-adjustment. All this is conclusive evidence that economic power does neither guarantee good public services, nor is it a necessary requirement.
It is also conclusive evidence that Britain has not used her wealth to serve her people - and for this the EU provides us with even more staggering facts. A 2014 inequality report by Eurostat shows that in the context of our neighbours within the EU (Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Belgium, France, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Austria, i.e. countries that are comparable to us) Britain is home to nine of the ten poorest regions. Britain is also home to the richest region by far in the whole of Europe: Inner London. Inner London beats the next contenders Luxembourg and Brussels by a comfortable margin of about 30%. The poorest regions in the UK are on a par with the poorest regions in Portugal, Italy, Spain, Croatia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and the Czech Republic. The average British GDP per capita is only just above the EU average, with all our neighbours (see list above) doing better. The British gap between the richest and the poorest is twice as big as in the next most unequal nation, Belgium. Britain’s richest are more than twice as rich as Germany’s richest, and Britain’s poorest are twice as poor. Britain is, without the shadow of a doubt, the most unequal nation in Europe by a long, long shot. The notion that in Britain we pool our resources and then share them fairly is evidently a massive lie.
The map accompanying these statistics is interesting as well. It shows London the Rich surrounded by the comfortably-off home counties and then the poor regions spread all over the rest of the UK, with the exception of - Scotland. This could either mean that Holyrood has done a good job in protecting us from Westminster’s austerity measures, or that Scotland is nowhere near as poor as Westminster would have us believe, or that Westminster favours and subsidises us as much as the home counties. Which of these do you find the most likely?
Half the No voters were worried about jobs, taxes, public services etc. One cannot blame them for being worried, but one might wish that they had consulted impartial sources. It would have been almost impossible for an independent Scotland to be worse off than the “Better Together Building a Better London” UK.
Finally, what of the 15% of the electorate who didn’t vote? Ipsos MORI suggest that they consisted in the majority of people who had intended to vote Yes but in the end didn’t vote at all. One can only guess why. In fact, I can’t even guess.
Yesterday afternoon the papers reported that since last Friday the SNP had grown in membership from 25000 to 40000, the Scottish Green Party from 2000 to 5000 and the Scottish Socialist Party from 1000 to 2000. The pro-union parties did not report a rise in membership.
39% of Lib Dems and 37% of Labour voted Yes, even though their party leadership emphatically supported No. Over 70% of teenagers voted Yes. All but one age group under 55 voted Yes. Over 70% of the over 65s voted No.
What all this suggests is that if the British political establishment thinks the question is settled once and for all, they are kidding themselves. The Yes voters are unlikely to change their minds, because the reasons for voting Yes are not going away. Of those who voted No, many share the values of fairness and equality that were expressed in the Yes campaign. Of those who voted No, some agree with Scottish independence in principle but didn’t believe we were ready for it yet. Of those who voted No, up to three quarters might yet change their minds if they see Westminster failing to deliver their promises.
So, step the third: as a country, how do we move on from here? I think we should
Sources:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/20/scottish-independence-lord-ashcroft-poll
http://www.cityam.com/1411353022/polling-scotland-s-referendum-why-it-all-eventually-came-down-turnout
http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/table-3-inequality-adjusted-human-development-index
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ic.html
http://inequalitybriefing.org/brief/briefing-43-the-poorest-regions-of-the-uk-are-the-poorest-in-northern-
The Scottish Independence Referendum returned a No vote at a rate of 55/45% with a turn-out of 85%. The first step is to accept this result as real and to clamp down on conspiracy theories about rigged voting. The second is to consider the result in more detail and in context. The third is to ask how to move on from here.
So, step the first: conspiracy theories, apart from being bogus, distract energy from genuine issues, plus they make the Yes side look like fools and bad losers. Let us refrain from spreading them.
Step the second will be a lot longer. Who voted what and why? Once you consider that the No campaign was backed by the full force of the British political apparatus, by the combined might of Conservative, Labour and Lib Dems,1) by the banks, big business and mainstream media and by other European nations with their own agenda, once you also consider that enormous premises and dire threats were made by the No campaign, 45% is beginning to look quite an impressive result. 45% voted for Scottish independence in spite of economic uncertainties, in spite of predictions that virtually all businesses and jobs would be lost, the economy break down, the Scottish NHS collapse, prices soar, in spite also of all the assurances that Scotland is cherished and respected south of the Border. Of those 45%, three quarters gave as a reason their disaffection with Westminster. 45% decided that just about anything would be better than the devil that you know.
Of the No voters, about a quarter said they identified positively with the union. One quarter said they believed Scotland would get more devolved powers without taking the risks of leaving the union. Half voted No due to economic/financial concerns. Let’s look at these three sections in turn.
The first quarter are the people who really believe in the UK. If they are satisfied with the union, if they are convinced that Britain is the best she can be at this time and best suited for building the future, then they were absolutely right to vote no. It is unlikely that they will ever change their minds on this issue. These genuine supporters of the UK make up about 13% (a quarter of 55% of 85%) of the Scottish electorate - a figure that should have Westminster worried.
The second quarter are the people who want enhanced devolution within the UK, aka the Best of Both Worlds. This is a sensible proposition, since devolved government within a larger nation is a successful and efficient model in other countries, for example Germany. Enhanced devolution was the third option that the SNP wanted to put on the ballot papers, even though they must have known that it would cost them a fair chunk of the potential Yes vote. If this third option had been available, I am pretty certain it would have won. However, David Cameron did not permit this option to appear on the ballot paper. It was to be an all-or-nothing question. Further devolved powers for Scotland were not mentioned until a couple of weeks before the referendum, when a poll put the Yes campaign in the lead. A few days later, the leaders of Conservative, Labour and Lib Dem published their Pledge that promised Scotland greatly increased powers in case of a No vote. They were not specific about what those powers would be, but they were specific about the time scale. The motion was to be made in Westminster on 19th of September but wasn’t. The legislation is to come through in 2015 with the drafts to be out in January. Since Friday morning, Westminster politicians have been quarrelling about whether or not the further devolution should be linked to a number of conditions, among them a reduction in Scottish MPs power and the introduction of devolution in England - this was not the deal they promised us. The whole thing is really a power game between Cameron and Milliband over control of Westminster. Federalism is good, but it doesn’t look like we’ll be getting it. A quarter of No voters voted in favour of a sensible devolved government. It will be interesting to see how they will respond by the end of 2015 when they fully realise that they have been conned.
Half of the No voters were motivated by concerns about economic/financial issues and EU membership. With regard to the latter, they might rethink their decision after the 2017 Brexit referendum.
I am turning at this point to some sources that come as close to being unbiased on this issue as one can hope to find: The United Nations, the CIA World Fact Book and the EU.
According to the CIA World Fact book, the UK is the 9th largest economy in the world, however, it lists - oddly - the EU in second position, so really that should be 8th. The United Nations publish a yearly Human Development Index in which they measure standard of living with such parameters as life expectancy, infant mortality, literacy rate, doctors per 1000 citizens etc. Given that the Westminster politicians are telling us, and many people believe it, that we are better together in a nation that pools and fairly shares its resources, we should expect the UK to be in a somewhat higher position on the HDI than our economic power indicates, so maybe 5th or 6th? Do you want to guess? In fact, the UK is in 14th position. On the inequality-adjusted HDI, it loses 4 points, ending up in 18th position. Once inequality is taken into consideration, only one of the world’s ten largest economies appears among the top ten best countries with regard to public services and standard of living, and that is Germany. In other words: There are seventeen nations in the world who are poorer than Britain but look after their people better. The number one of these is Norway - the 47th largest economy. Iceland, a nation of some 300 000 people with the 149th largest economy in the world, is in 8th position. The nations that top the inequality-adjusted HDI are small players in the global economy, nations like Ireland, Denmark, the Netherlands, Switzerland, New Zealand. China, the second largest economy, is number 91 in the standard HDI, there were no figures available that allowed for inequality-adjustment. All this is conclusive evidence that economic power does neither guarantee good public services, nor is it a necessary requirement.
It is also conclusive evidence that Britain has not used her wealth to serve her people - and for this the EU provides us with even more staggering facts. A 2014 inequality report by Eurostat shows that in the context of our neighbours within the EU (Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Belgium, France, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Austria, i.e. countries that are comparable to us) Britain is home to nine of the ten poorest regions. Britain is also home to the richest region by far in the whole of Europe: Inner London. Inner London beats the next contenders Luxembourg and Brussels by a comfortable margin of about 30%. The poorest regions in the UK are on a par with the poorest regions in Portugal, Italy, Spain, Croatia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and the Czech Republic. The average British GDP per capita is only just above the EU average, with all our neighbours (see list above) doing better. The British gap between the richest and the poorest is twice as big as in the next most unequal nation, Belgium. Britain’s richest are more than twice as rich as Germany’s richest, and Britain’s poorest are twice as poor. Britain is, without the shadow of a doubt, the most unequal nation in Europe by a long, long shot. The notion that in Britain we pool our resources and then share them fairly is evidently a massive lie.
The map accompanying these statistics is interesting as well. It shows London the Rich surrounded by the comfortably-off home counties and then the poor regions spread all over the rest of the UK, with the exception of - Scotland. This could either mean that Holyrood has done a good job in protecting us from Westminster’s austerity measures, or that Scotland is nowhere near as poor as Westminster would have us believe, or that Westminster favours and subsidises us as much as the home counties. Which of these do you find the most likely?
Half the No voters were worried about jobs, taxes, public services etc. One cannot blame them for being worried, but one might wish that they had consulted impartial sources. It would have been almost impossible for an independent Scotland to be worse off than the “Better Together Building a Better London” UK.
Finally, what of the 15% of the electorate who didn’t vote? Ipsos MORI suggest that they consisted in the majority of people who had intended to vote Yes but in the end didn’t vote at all. One can only guess why. In fact, I can’t even guess.
Yesterday afternoon the papers reported that since last Friday the SNP had grown in membership from 25000 to 40000, the Scottish Green Party from 2000 to 5000 and the Scottish Socialist Party from 1000 to 2000. The pro-union parties did not report a rise in membership.
39% of Lib Dems and 37% of Labour voted Yes, even though their party leadership emphatically supported No. Over 70% of teenagers voted Yes. All but one age group under 55 voted Yes. Over 70% of the over 65s voted No.
What all this suggests is that if the British political establishment thinks the question is settled once and for all, they are kidding themselves. The Yes voters are unlikely to change their minds, because the reasons for voting Yes are not going away. Of those who voted No, many share the values of fairness and equality that were expressed in the Yes campaign. Of those who voted No, some agree with Scottish independence in principle but didn’t believe we were ready for it yet. Of those who voted No, up to three quarters might yet change their minds if they see Westminster failing to deliver their promises.
So, step the third: as a country, how do we move on from here? I think we should
Be very proud of the enthusiasm with which so many people in Scotland have embraced the political process.
Be especially proud of how well our young people have acquitted themselves in public debates.
Respectfully acknowledge that the vast majority of those who cast their votes last Thursday did this after careful consideration.
Embrace the notion that political debate among the general population is a good thing and that it is better to exchange arguments passionately than to choke quietly on our anger.
Never forget that however divided we may be on the question of independence, there is no reason why we cannot be friends.
Keep our eyes firmly set on the vision we have for a fairer and more sustainable society and express this on every political platform we can find.
Reject the argument that such a society is not possible - most other European nations are much closer to this vision than we are.
Look towards our neighbours in the EU to learn how things can be done better.
Hold the Westminster politicians accountable for their promises to Scotland and demand that they deliver their Pledge to timetable, no strings attached.
Work in solidarity with those who desire more fairness in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and indeed all over the world.
Encourage people, especially our youngsters and others who have voted for the first time last week, to remain engaged in the political process.
Press for constitutional reform in the UK and raise awareness of the archaic nature of many of its institutions.
Liberally share impartial information and clamp down on bogus claims, regardless of who makes them and for which cause.
Make it absolutely clear that we do not require austerity measures, but a fairer sharing of those pooled resources.
Cast votes not on the basis of what campaigners say will happen afterwards, but on the basis of what has happened so far.
Never forget about one fundamental, objective truth: There is nothing, absolutely nothing more important than preserving the only inhabitable planet we know.
It was also supported by UKIP, the Orange Order and the brown fringe, but I am certain that the overwhelming majority of No voters would want nothing to do with these.
Sources:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/20/scottish-independence-lord-ashcroft-poll
http://www.cityam.com/1411353022/polling-scotland-s-referendum-why-it-all-eventually-came-down-turnout
http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/table-3-inequality-adjusted-human-development-index
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ic.html
http://inequalitybriefing.org/brief/briefing-43-the-poorest-regions-of-the-uk-are-the-poorest-in-northern-