A Matter of Pride – Or, Why I Didn’t Vote For The SNP
Posted by lizdavies on May 5th, 2007
I’m too young to remember much about the referendum on a Scottish Parliament – I do remember that it didn’t really dominate discussion in my household. We were living in California at the time, although my parents were voting by proxy, and while I’m sure it came up at the dinner table every so often, it failed to have much of an impact on me.
This time last week I was eagerly awaiting the arrival of my postal ballot (it was meant to come on Friday; there was, inevitably, a delay) to cast what was my first-ever vote in an election. Sure, it was a nice feeling that my vote might have made a difference. But a worrying one that that difference might not have been enough. How right I was.
I know nobody speaking to me would imagine that I was a Scottish nationalist – born and raised (for the most part) in Glasgow, but product of two English parents and with a mongrel accent mix of Scottish, American and English that defies most people in placing where I come from. This is true; I’m most decidedly not. But that doesn’t mean that I don’t care about what’s best for Scotland.
The results are in, and they are, frankly, shocking. But not as shocking as they could have been. Setting aside the furore over the 100,000 spoiled ballots for just now – although I have to point out, the ballot papers were not confusing, and I say this as somebody easily confused – it is worth remembering that although the SNP did win one more seat than Labour, 81 seats do not belong to the SNP. In short – 79 people did not vote for independence (2 of those 81 seats belong to the Green Party, who also stand for an independent Scotland), and a fraction of SNP supporters may not be, after all, for independence themselves (although I rather doubt this). So, should the SNP manage to form a government, and should there be a referendum on independence – and my personal view there is, God help us – there is a distinct possibility that they would be humiliated by a majority ‘no’ vote.
But that, in fact, is not the main problem with this election result. Scottish nationalism can be positive – my school Pipe Band never fails to stir something within me and there’s no doubt that I enjoy feeling smug about the superiority of my Advanced Higher education – but its overwhelming expression is something dark and ugly. Witness this conversation with my hairdresser back in Glasgow – on discovering I went to university in England she said, “In England? I could never do that. I hate the English.” Could somebody please tell me who this group “the English” is? Scottish nationalism, rather than being a celebration of the advantages of being Scottish, often borders on the xenophobic, to the point that having a south-of-the-Border accent on certain occasions can actually be dangerous to your health.
People often argue it’s based on a turbulent history of oppression by the English. Leaving aside the fact that the very events people bring up time and time again happened eons ago, ask a random person on Sauchiehall Street (or ‘the average punter’, as my Modern Studies teacher liked to term it) when the Battle of Bannockburn was, or what happened at the Battle of Flodden, and my guess is they wouldn’t be able to tell you. I’d bet that you’d get a similar answer even if you asked a typical SNP voter. Yes, it is frustrating when you go abroad and, like James McAvoy’s character in The Last King of Scotland, constantly have to point out to people that you’re Scottish (or British), not English. Or when you notice the nationality of sports figures wax and wane depending on their success. But none of this is an excuse for the rampant anti-English sentiment that so often characterises Scottish nationalism.
And then there’s the economic question. Put simply, Scotland costs a hell of a lot of money to run – it gets more money from the treasury (via the Barnet Formula) than any other area of the UK. If I was a rational English or Welsh voter, I’d want Scotland out of the Union too. Given my propensity to bring up The West Wing, I suppose there’s a good quote in here – “Your state of Florida got $12.6 billion in federal money last year – from Nebraskans, and Virginians, and New Yorkers, and Alaskans, with their Eskimo poetry. 12.6 out of a state budget of $50 billion, and I’m supposed to be using this time for a question, so here it is: Can we have it back, please?”
People rightly get annoyed about this, but there is a reason behind it – Scotland is an area with a lot of deprivation and a lot of poor health; and a lot of spread-out deprivation and poor health at that. I have yet to hear a convincing argument from the SNP as to how an independent Scotland would actually manage to keep itself solvent and its population alive.
The Economist also put an interesting spanner in the works of the SNP’s plan for “Scotland in Europe” a couple of weeks ago, by challenging its claim that an independent Scotland would automatically be admitted to the EU. No, it said, after talking to EU legal advisors. The rump of the UK would stay a member, but Scotland would have to apply and meet all the requirements for any new member. And it is far from certain, said The Economist, that the other EU countries would want Scotland in the other kind of Union – Spain, for example, might see it as encouraging their own Basque independence movement. Given that Scotland already receives a huge amount of money from the EU – and yet overall support for the EU in Scotland is only 1 percentage point higher than it is in England – this does present a problem.
Of course, all of this is dealing in hypotheticals at the moment, and I’m praying it’ll stay that way. The likelihood is that the increased SNP vote is simply a reflection of dissatisfaction with the Labour Party in general – in Scotland that would never be shown in increased support for the Conservatives, and the Lib Dems ran such an ineffective campaign that I’m not surprised they suffered (and I say this as a fully paid-up Scottish Lib Dem member, who will be emailing Nicol Stephen today to tell him that if they go into coalition with the SNP that’s her membership gone). But contemplating independence and giving legitimacy to such a view is too far, and too dangerous, a reaction to take.
Filed under: culture, history, identity, scotland, ukpolitics on May 5th, 2007
Completely agree with the last paragraph. If the SNP stay out for long enough for Labour to purge the memory of Blair and regain some popularity, the Union should be safe…
The oil thing is a big deal though, which the guardian article appears to dismiss without serious thought- certainly Scottish state expenditure is a large of proportion of GDP, but North Sea oil could still do a great deal to rectify that. I’m not even sure that oil would be counted in the hypothetical GDP of Scotland- receipts from it go straight to the Treasury from the oil companies in question, the oil itself is not always even landed- it may go from Sullom Voe straight to export. I can understand resentment at Scottish oil revenues allowing England to weather Thatcher’s economic policies, which hit Scotland hardest, but that stuff should mostly be in the past. Oil still matters though, and it could shield Scotland from impoverishment…
Is an attempt to blunt Scottish nationalism the real reason for renewing Trident?
[...] Owen Sanderson: Completely agree with the last paragraph. If the SNP stay ou… [...]
While I agree with you Liz that a lot of people in Scotland are disillusioned with Labour (How is it possible that Labour could lose Glasgow Govan???), they could have gone Lib Dem or Green, not SNP. I think you underestimate the amount of quiet nationalism that is behind those SNP votes. There is certainly some unthinking nationalism such as that of your hairdresser, but especially in the north, it is not a superficial or recent phenomenon. It could also be seen as a vote of confidence for devolution (rather than independence) in that it has increased people’s pride in Scotland as a country.
I’m going to blog about the electoral shambles very soon… wait for it…
As an ardent englishman from South Yorkshire, I cannot wait for Scotland to leave the union. Why? the average scot is quite frankly unaffordable. The average tax take per person in South Yorkshire is significantly less than that in Scotland. i.e. on average, the Scots are far better off than us ex-miners. Nevertheless, the average government spend per person in Scotland is over 4 times as much as it is in South Yorks. No wonder such things as free higher education. properly tarmaced roads with a museum at every corner are available north of the border. It is being paid for from the taxes of families who can only dream of such things as a university education in Sheffield Barnsley and Doncaster.
Scotland’s secession would lead to an immediate improvement in the lot of people in deprived areas of England. As for Scotland’s much vaunted advanced higher education, if it is so good, why do their universities have to offer four year courses instead of England’s three?
Scotland’s universities have 4 year courses because Advanced Highers are a relatively recent phenomenon – they’ve only been around 3 or 4 years (which makes it very difficult to do past papers, let me tell you). Most Scottish students in the past went to university a year earlier than English students did – and a lot still do. Plenty of my year left school after fifth year for university. If they stay on for sixth year and do plan on staying in Scotland, many just do more Highers in fifth year rather than any Advanced Highers so that everything is still at the same level. If you’ve studied Advanced Highers (and this is true of many English students with A-Levels), it’s possible to go straight into second year of a Scottish university.
So the 4-year degrees in Scotland have absolutely nothing to do with the existence (and value) of Advanced Highers.
So your solution to reforming the Barnett formula is breaking up the Union? Seems somewhat extreme…….and surely the £10 billion of annual oil company taxation and £34 billion annual contribution to the balance of payments is worth something?
Reform of the Barnett formula is not an option as long as Labour is in power at Westminster. They rely too much on Scottish votes. Once the Tories are back in power, they will fear the break-up of the union even more than Labour, and may well be tempted to dip their fingers even further into my pocket to pay for pet schemes north of the border. With the recent growth in popularity of the SNP, particularly with the Royal Bank of Scotland, the genie may now be well and truly out of the bottle, Barnett formula or no.
We are also well aware that the taxation of large companies such as big oil is mostly a paper figure, as they are able to set most of this against other deals with governments of all shades of opinion.
“We are also well aware that the taxation of large companies such as big oil is mostly a paper figure, as they are able to set most of this against other deals with governments of all shades of opinion.”
What do you mean ‘other deals’? I guess there probably are some underhand dealings, but fact is, the Treasury does get that 10 billion, which an independent Scotland would get were such a thing to exist.
“particularly with the Royal Bank of Scotland”
This is a bit cryptic…
Yes the £10 billion does come in, but equally, other large compensating sums go out, or are not collected in the first place. For example the claims against tax for the depreciation of assets. As for the RBS, their chairman thinks scottish independence is a good idea.
I would also add that the break-up of large companies and even countries seems to have been a trend over recent years. Time may be up for the union.
Well, sure, there are ways to claim against tax, but the oil companies don’t just pay corporation tax, there is also a supplementary tax of a further 10% above normal corporation tax. Also, I don’t know if this still applies, but the early manifestations of petroleum taxation ring-fenced UK operations in taxation terms, so loss-making or depreciated assets could not be set against tax in the UK. Whatever. The point is, there is serious money available off the Scottish coast, and an independent Scotland could have a big big slice.
The RBS is just a bank though, despite the name- surely it really doesn’t matter what the chairman thinks?
I agree that there is a hard-headed Scots-cost-more argument for Scottish independence, but I don’t think this is the key issue. I don’t think you can dismiss the possibility of reform of the Barnett formula, particularly since devolution with tax-varying powers provides a ready justification. I know there is a strong electoral incentive for Labour at least to maintain Scottish support, but I’m not sure that the Barnett formula is key- money flowing into Scotland doesn’t seem to correlate with Scottish support for the Union. Furthermore, reforming the Barnett formula shouldn’t carry much risk from the SNP, as independence means abolishing it altogether.