Seas between us broad have roared

We two have paddled in the stream,

from morning sun till dine,

But seas between us broad have roared

since auld lang syne."

Robert Burns

Having witnessed the latest examples of the incontinence and hypocrisy of Nicola Sturgeon’s ever opportunist approach to COVID impositions and the latest independence sound bites from the wider voices of the Scottish National Party, I find forced to mind something I usually keep well submerged from consideration – the SNP’s well of grievance against the English State and mono focus on the issue of Scottish independence - and myself wondering what would be gained by the braking of the bonds of union between the English and Scottish States.

So, interest aroused, here I go.

Three questions;

1. What is the truth of Scotland’s union with England?

2. What can the SNP deliver that will be to the financial and everyday advantage of the Scottish population?

3. Independence achieved or not – who wins?

My guess is that your answer to these questions, like mine, will at least in part be coloured by your nationality, domicile and your grasp of the geography, history and economics; both past and present of the States within the British Islands.

It seems (at least to me) that such a grasp of, or maybe just an acknowledgement of, the realities that flow from these factors of geography, history and economics have had, are having , and will have on all the players in this politico drama, is lacking from the narrative of the SNP one act play.

Theirs is a narrative and position that to me, and I am sure many others able to take a dispassionate view, looks to be built on a set of grievances over what appears in large part, if not wholly, factitious “special oppressions“ Scotland is stated to have suffered, is suffering and /or, will suffer in future, due to impositions by the English dominated Westminster Parliament of the United Kingdom.

If you are English, Welsh, Scottish (or Northern Irish) it’s likely the idea of Union and Westminster Government rings different bells. The nuances that differentiate between the geographic areas, the states and regions that together form the United Kingdom and Great Britain together with the views and experiences of the people that populate those States and Regions start to matter, often greatly, when those nuances start to impact debate and the geographic and political status and the shared and often uncomfortable histories between the nations of Great Britain (GB) and the United Kingdom (UK) and their populations come to the fore.

So, a quick and openly admitted simplistic look at the history of how we arrive at today’s political geography of the British Isles and the boundaries of the UK and GB is appropriate.

Great Britain is a name born from the politics of long past years and the fact is that today the nuance of its creation and value is largely lost.

In terms of their union the joining of Scotland and England was brought about by a reverse union of the Crowns of England and Scotland by the King of Scotland, James V1, who on the death of Elizabeth 1 of England took the throne of England in a bloodless accession to become both James V1 of Scotland and James 1 of England and the first of the Stuart line to hold the English Crown.

The Scottish King took the English Throne by peaceful accession

England did not conquer Scotland

The coronation of King James in England left England and Scotland, as two quite distinct kingdoms each with its own crown. But with those two crowns worn by one King in a "Regal Union". This two crowns, one king arrangement was a dynastic accident, and did not outlive the Stuart dynasty which in 1688 was broken by revolution across the kingdoms of Scotland, England, and Ireland with James VII of Scotland (James II of England and Ireland) being deposed from the throne as his Catholic faith had made his position untenable to the English dominated Protestant establishment. Supporters of the Catholic Stuarts as the true line of succession became known as Jacobites , and would be a thorn in the side of the British establishment with the period between the late 1680s and first decade of the 1700s seeing warfare across the lands and grievance and agony for Scotland.

It was not until 1707 that the Parliaments of England and Scotland merged in Westminster - a merger that was given impetus and aided (forced?) by events in Scotland: - the fiscal and political havoc wrought on Scotland by the failure of the Darian adventure.

This merger formalised by the 1707 Act of Union gave birth to the “Kingdom of Great Britain”. Regardless of this union and no doubt in part as the result of the feelings of discontent, subrogation and oppression that events had baked into the Jacobite narative of history, England and Scotland each retain the boundries and major features of quite separate counties.

To this day each holds its own;

• Legal currency in circulation (but post the Act of Union sharing a single Treasury in England controlling both issues and taxation) ,

• State Religion with the “British” Monarch sworn to maintain the Church of Scotland as Queen of Scotland and the Church of England as Queen of England,

• Separate and, as many have found to their cost, quite different legal systems and

• Distinct education system.

All these rights and differentiations date back over centuries and owe nothing to the efforts of the Scottish National Party

So, Scotland’s identity [of Nationhood] has never been diminished and has survived the centuries within the structures of Great Britain in remarkably good condition. Indeed, there are still many people today both Scottish and English, who consider Queen Elizabeth to be Elizabeth 1 of Scotland and Elizabeth 11 of England and Wales (as Elizabeth 1 of England was never Queen of Scotland).

Turning back to the questions posed:

The answer to question 1 seems simple – full statehood. Separation from the British Crown and all Parliamentary controls of Westminster and, all the remaining elements of Great Britain so as to enjoy total independence of State with the ability to control all aspects of Law, Money, and Statehood.

The answer to question 2 is equally simple - on the evidence of their decade in power it would seem to be " nothing much". The SNP have presided over backward steps in most of the areas they control consider these examples as listed by The Scotsman ;

1. The target for 95 per cent of A&E patients to either be seen, transferred or discharged within four hours has not been met for over two years.

2. The gap in premature mortality rates between deprived areas and affluent areas has increased to its highest point since 2008.

3. Scotland has the highest drug death rate in the EU.

4. Students from down south have a better chance of being offered a university place in Scotland than those based in Scotland.

5. Police stations are leaking and crumbling across the country.

6. The number of children in homeless households has risen by six per cent.

7. The gap between the Scottish employment rate and that of the UK, which is performing better, has reached two percentage points for the first time in nearly two decades.

8. The SNP has cut council budgets by seven per cent in real terms between 2013/2014 and 2019/2020, yet there has only been a 2 per cent cut in Scottish Government funding over the same period.

9. It is likely to fall dramatically short of its target to improve education in the country’s deprived schools.

But in counterpart to this failure to successfully deliver as a government we have the indisputable evidence of the SNPs success at the ballot box over the last decade; hence it is plausible that they can achieve their stated goal of a second referendum on independence.

Such success opens a set of sub questions that are not simple for them to answer, these all flow from a single enquiry:

At what cost?

Here is a selection of easily identified issues that flow from the "at what cost" enquiry to which I see no clear and robust answers offerd by the SNP. All must be answered fully and clearly when addressing the issues that an independent Scotland would have to price in and resolve. All of these, and more beyond them, must surely be fully addressed with detailed answers that can be tested and weighed before any independence referendum can take place.

1. How would the assets and liabilities of the UK be shared between an independent Scotland and the rump GB?

2. Do the SNP really expect to walk away with a clean sheet?

3. How could the newly formed State manage to service its established and transferred debt burdens: pensions, health service, armed forces etc and invest in and deliver the growth prospectus offered?

If you take away those corporation’s currently domiciled by register in Scotland who would be forced by the inability of the economic balance sheet of a fully independent Scotland to carry them (example NatWest Bank) or, who would decamp for pure trade reasons to a larger pond, Scotland is in economic and population terms much the same size as the Yorkshire & Humberside region of England.

Yorkshire & Humber has suffered much the same closures of its coal, iron and steel industrial bases, the same disregard by Westminster of the social impacts of those closures and “necessary economic adjustments” and much the same under investments in its regeneration of those lost communities and its road and rail infrastructures. In economic terms it has much the same well of grievances to draw from as the SNP have in Scotland. But, could a Yorkshire & Humber Regional Authority realistically look to its voters and based on simple hard facts and economic reality argue that the situation would be improved and greater posperity delivered by the region seeking independence from the rest of England?

Stripped of the romance of nationhood and judged on factual economic arguments can the SNP do so in Scotland?

A few more questions to answer;

1. The Scottish economy and employment landscape rely very heavily on the largess of the UK Treasury’s continued use of the Barnett Formula to weight government funding to Scotland’s favour, tolerance of the SNP Governments fiscal latitudes and, the historic over allocation by the Westminster Government of GB public sector employment to Scotland. Currently public sector employment represents over 21% of all jobs in Scotland; many if not most of these jobs hold no direct relevance to the maintenance of state provisions within Scotland - they service the rest of GB and so it is logical that employment would migrate south on independence. How is this employment to be replaced? Will Scotland become a near shore low cost back office, a la India or the Phillippines, to England?

2. The SNP is anti-nuclear; most defence jobs would shift south and most military facilities close. How is the economic benefit these facilities and employments represent replaced?

3. The SNP seems to have written fossil fuels out of its future. This would seem to remove one of the major fiscal planks of the SNP’s 2014 referendum prospectus and replaced it with the blue sky future of “Renewables”. The problem being that “Renewables” are cash negative in terms of State subsidy necessary for their development and operation rather than taxation revenue generating as argued in 2014 for North Sea production – a further and very large fiscal hole to fill?

Then there is the basic issue of money in circulation - the SNP would need a currency. What would it be?

Scotland could still use Sterling but doing so would leave all critical leavers of control of policy in Westminster and Scotland in much the same place in terms of fiscal control of interest rates, exchange rates and currency volatility as such states as Ecuador, Zimbabwe Panama, Cambodia, and the Bahamas who are all examples of States who use an exterior states currency, in these examples the US dollar, as their domestic exchange without any say in its exchange rate valuation or management - a situation that even if no other negative is acknowledged rather denudes independent Statehood

The alternatives?

• A new currency - the Scottish Pound? Unlikely in the short term.

• The Euro? Again must be unlikely in the short term and in all events is begging of the next question; will the SNP apply to regain EU membership? Together with adoption of the Euro this is surly a step that would invert the central logic of the whole independence argument as in most of their named areas of grievance the SNP would simply swap Westminster for Brussels. In all events rejointing the EU certainly appears to be a long and stony road to travel that requires huge fiscal restraint to meet the entry criteria and a successful adoption of the Euro. Brexit and the resulting ongoing Northern Irish border situation would indicate that EU re-entry would complicate trade with the residual GB. An independent Scotland by geographic fact would still be in Britain (the Islands of) with one land border, that with England, across which over 60% of its trade currently passes and no doubt would need to continue to do so begging the next question;

• Where stands the EU in this debate? Would the same challenges of tariffs and frictional border controls as impact the current UK State’s borders and commercial flow of goods with the EU also appear on the new UK - Scotland boarder? There is no reason why it should, but there was no reason for the Irish / UK border to become totemic to the wider EU who frankly will never be impacted by its existance be it hard or soft or indeed vanish completely. In a wider perspective the EU is far from cash rich. With the departure of the UK who was the second largest contributor, after Germany, to the EU budget. Only nine of the 27 member states actually make positive budget contributions. So, would Scotland’s entry be at positive or negative cost to the Scottish taxpayer or the other EU member states? Which would be happy with being the contributor(s) to fund Scotland’s entry – especially in light of the tragedy unfolding within Ukraine on the EU’s eastern boundaries and the growing frictions with Russia and so the Unions esculating energy and security costs?

So, all taken to account what do I see as the outcome of the SNP's independence efforts?

A continuing agitation for, if in truth a reducing possibility of, a second referendum within the next Parliament. If a referendum comes to pass I see it most likely to lead to;

• a common sense result once fact is correctly weighed and balanced against emotion – the Union survives but the Scottish Assembly gains further devolved powers on domestic issues and taxation that sets the ground for;

• a resurgence of the labour vote as the SNP’s position and its actual competence and achievements over the decade it has held power are treated with the disinfectant of illumination in the referendum debate with the result that;

• Nicola Sturgeon and others at the top table of the SNP pen their biographies , bank the proceeds and disappear into a comfortable and extremely well paid positions in the maze of international quangos

and if the SNP are successful in their aims and Scotland leaves the UK?

• Much pain aguish and misery for all sides over a protracted period measured in years

• International diminution of the UK

• As with "success" - Nicola Sturgeon and others at the top table of the SNP pen their biographies , bank the proceeds and disappear into a comfortable and extremely well paid positions in the maze of international quangos before they have to face the realities of their "success"

So whats the answer to the third question posed; Independence achieved or not – who wins?

Place your bets – as with most gambles only the house (here the executive players within the SNP) can win. The simple fact is that they and their disciples within the SNP have no facility to acknowledge losing.

To close as I started, I offer more words of Robert Burns - words that seem to give an eloquent expression of the SNP's position;

Time cannot aid me, my griefs are immortal,

Nor Hope dare a comfort bestow:

Come then, enamour'd and fond of my anguish,

Enjoyment I'll seek in my woe.

A fitting anthem regardless of outcome as I fear that woe is all they can offer and all they can reap?