Arcadia Scotland

Dr. Hamish Thompson, Arcadia's Resident Director in Scotland, gives an overview of the background, implementation and consequences of the historic referendum on independence which took place in Scotland in September 2014.

Scotland has had a long and turbulent history with England. However, after a period of settled integration after a bumpy first  century as part of the United Kingdom since the union of the English and Scottish parliaments in 1707, a devolved Scottish Parliament with limited, but not insubstantial, powers was voted for by the Scottish people in 1997 and the members of the new parliament were voted for and a devolved parliament was established in 1999.

Within this Scottish Parliament there are a variety of parties and political platforms that partly mirror the traditional UK parties.  The main political divisions are currently a Scottish National Party whose platform is independence for Scotland, Labour that reflects a more left leaning US style Democratic party, Conservatives, that reflect a fiscal US style Republicanism, The Green Party that reflects a socialist environmental platform, and the Liberal Democrats that reflect a fairly soft US style Libertarian party. Recent victories of the Scottish National Party in the Scottish Parliament allowed the possibility of the Scottish Parliament requesting a referendum on full independence. An act was passed and the London based UK Parliament accepted that the result of this referendum would be binding. The question to be asked was:

"Should Scotland be an independent country?"

Given the prior history of relations between Scotland and England, it was clear to everyone in Scotland the significance of this vote. It was arguably only until the polls began to show that the result might be close that England and the world took notice. The Scottish Parliamentary vote in 1707 for its own dissolution was hardly a mandate of the Scottish people.  Their decision was very much coerced by the English parliament with an additional offer of a considerable financial incentive for the limited number of not particularly representative parliamentarians concerned with their recent debts accumulated by a disastrous attempt at empire building in Panama. This 1707 vote could in no sense be said to reflect the wishes of a population in the modern sense of a democracy. The 2014 referendum was the first time in UK history that a people who clearly identified themselves with Scottish nationhood would be asked in a modern democratic sense whether they wanted to be part of a United Kingdom of nations, or a new and fully independent nation. It was also agreed that the vote would be extended to 16 and 17 year olds dramatically pulling the youth of Scotland into the political life of Scotland.

In the run up to the vote 90% of eligible Scottish voters registered and 85% of Scots voted on Sept 18^th 2014. The campaign for No tapped into economic concerns involving an English threat to not allow for a currency union (reminiscent of the Alien Act of 1705 that was passed in the English Parliament to coerce the old Scottish Parliament to vote itself out of existence in 1707) where it was implied that the Scots would become in some sense ‘Alien’ in England as a price of independence. The leader of the Yes campaign described this approach as ‘project fear.’ At the last minute, all three of the main party political leaders that were all supporting No in England, in a rather reactive manner to rapidly closing opinion polls, promised a dramatic increase in powers for the Scottish Parliament, which is now known as the ‘vow’ if the Scots were to vote No. The Yes campaign tried to tap into aspirational hopes of new nationhood for a small country of 5.3 million inhabitants with a lot of potential including vast renewable energy sources and hydro-carbon resources in the North Sea. Internationalist concerns would be alleviated by a close relationship with Scotland integrated into the Europe Union. The No campaign denied that it would be easy for Scotland to set up a close relationship with Europe membership and that oil prices are a volatile and uncertain resource to pin ones economic future. It remains a somewhat lively question as to how well the media represented the debate. Watch here for a challenging video arguing for a considerable bias in the paper press media representation of the debate. In the eventual vote of 55% for No and 45% to Yes, it tended to be the elderly and the more economically secure who voted for ‘better together.’ The younger demographic voted for Yes. So what now for the Scottish Parliament?

In a recent opinion poll, 52% of Scots say that they would vote Yes if the referendum were to be held again.  This suggests some No voter regret, however, this is easier to say in an opinion poll rather than a vote that would actually result in such fundamental constitutional change. The existing mainstream parties that supported No, especially Labour, that were part of such a negative campaign are also taking a big hit in recent Scottish opinion polls due partly to their perceived campaigning against Scottish interests and their temporary partnership with parties that are generally very unpopular in Scotland. The Yes parties, including the Green Party, are going through a very large membership increase. Scotland is a truly politically energized nation from 16 year olds and up.  16 and 17 year olds may well be allowed to vote in future Scottish elections as part of the new electoral powers that may be devolved to Scotland as a result of the last minute 'vow'.

The leader of the Scottish National Party and the Yes campaign and First Minister of Scotland Alex Salmond resigned as leader of the party immediately after the referendum.  He has been replaced by Nicola Sturgeon as leader of the Scottish National Party and First Minister of Scotland.  Scotland’s First Minister is only the second woman to lead a national parliament in the UK after Margaret Thatcher. She has also very recently appointed 50% of her cabinet as women.  This ranks Scotland in the top 4 parliaments of the world in terms of female political leadership - the Westminster UK Parliament is currently ranked 56^th for female leadership.

A cross party commission has been set up to try to decide what new powers will be delivered to the Scottish Parliament by that last minute ‘vow’ made by the political leadership of the UK Westminster Parliament.  If these new devolved powers are not substantial, the Scots will be watching and none too happy. A secondary issue is a possible future UK referendum, depending on the result of the UK election, to allow for a vote that might remove the UK from the European Union. Scotland is more in favour of European integration, so if a decision to pull the UK out of Europe was to occur, the Scots would probably start revisiting the constitutional question of UK union. Another referendum might perhaps occur a little sooner than anticipated.

UPDATE: The commission has issued its report on recommended new powers for the Scottish Parliament. For BBC comment on report. Has the 'vow' been kept? For example there is headline grabbing income tax raising powers for Scotland, but any income generated is offset by the current funding formula whereby a block grant of money is delivered from Westminster.

"The Scottish Government will receive all Income Tax paid by Scottish taxpayers on their non-savings and non-dividend income with a corresponding adjustment in the block grant received from the UK Government."

So if the recommendations are implemented by Westminster, Scotland could redistribute how the income tax (about 20% of money raised) revenue for Scotland is generated from the Scottish people, but it could not alter the amount of money generated for the Scottish Parliament. The UK would still administer all aspects of income tax raising, and the Scottish Parliament would then have to pay additional costs for any of the administration of a variable rate. 70% of all other taxes would be set by Westminster and 85% of all social security spending would be set by Westminster. The small print matters!