Scotland – Should Devolution occur?

As for many an Anglo-Scot with family both sides of the border, this decision is not as simple as many would have us believe.

Ultimately, the win-win situation for Scotland would be if the vote is extremely close but devolution is rejected. This would enable high-profile Scottish social reforms to have the security of being underwritten by the Union.

My reasoning? First, and most basically, money: the new Scotland is unlikely to get all the revenues from the oil and gas reserves which Mr Salmond expects. International Boundary laws stipulate that the angle of a boundary heading out to sea continues the angle which forms the terrestrial boundary. At Berwick-upon-Tweed the river angles north-east. By this logic a certain amount of the lucrative seabed resources off the Scottish coast will potentially belong to England.

How would a devolved Scotland fairly define what is Scotland? Edinburgh and Glasgow had little or no remit above the Highland Line before the 17th Century so maybe the clan areas should be reinstated as autonomous areas?

Extending this thought, how far will devolution go? If Scotland votes for Independence, there are a number of areas that would also like to be independent, for example, the Shetland Isles. These islands were not always part of Scotland: the closest city to the Shetland Isles is not Aberdeen but the larger city of Bergen in Norway. Indeed, the Norwegian flag is noticeable in some areas on the Mainland (The name for the main island). If the Shetland Isles also voted for Independence, they could take a further substantial part of Scotland’s oil and gas reserves with them and with only 23,000 population, they would be very wealthy per capita. How could a new devolved parliament say ‘no’ to a referendum on devolution for such places without appearing very hypocritical?

With the oft-repeated ‘fiscal advantages’ of Scottish devolution based on the ownership of unconfirmed volumes of oil and gas, substantially reduced, it could be very difficult for Scotland to maintain its current level of spending on social welfare and housing, a rate considerably higher per capita than the rest of the UK.

Mr Salmond is against private landed estates in general as he believes predominantly in public ownership. How will this square with the large number of historic private estates that not only provide vital employment in rural areas but also contribute significantly to the economy through the tourism generated by the associated Shoots? Would the wealthy still be allowed across the border with their guns or would Northumberland Grouse be most at risk on the Glorious 12th. It would be tragic to see further depopulation and decline in the Highlands.

Scotland has its own house buying process and property law which is not based on the same original foundation as that originating from William the Conqueror in England and Wales. The Scottish Government is already in control of this process and this part of the property system will not change.

Whatever happens, the economic uncertainty of the consequences of separation will not be good for the remaining part of Britain for a couple of years until a new equilibrium point is reached: witness the change in the Pound and the stock markets as the vote draws close and the polls have become closer. Markets do not like uncertainty and react.

For a new Scotland outside both the UK and the EU these uncertainties will not be a smaller part changing of an economic whole which will stabilise relatively swiftly over a year or so as will be more likely for the remainder of the UK. The whole country will be new.

The freedom of movement of employment outside of Scotland may be restricted. The free movement of people will be restricted. There will not necessarily be an automatic right to cross the new border which will limit ease of access and create an additional communication obstacle between families and the former partner countries.

The long term economy of a new Scotland will be significantly affected by the currency. The remaining UK could not stop Scotland using the pound whatever has been reported. Economic policy and interest rates would, however, be set by the Bank of England or the UK government without Scotland in mind which would make Scotland suffer economically in the long term with exchange rates and interest rates and potentially destroy any competitive advantage in the wider world economy that a new Scotland may think it may have.

If Scotland was allowed in a few years to join the EU it would have to adopt the Euro as a currency. Note how Ireland has faired with the Euro.

A new Scotland would also lose out on a number of economic advantages such as the higher proportion of UK wide public sector jobs that are also situated in Scotland. This would provide a net loss of employment in Scotland even after allowing for the extra services and facilities that would need to be created and staffed internally from within the new country. If the state sector continued to employ a higher percentage of the workforce, this would soon create a further major deficit to contend with. A number of other jobs would also be at risk although ostensibly private sector. Thousands at Faslane and on Clydeside would no longer have the security of being the prime Naval bases which would be to the long term advantage of Plymouth, Portsmouth and Barrow in Furness

Ultimately, the ‘Devolution Max’ concept that Scotland should decide upon what affects the Scots within Scotland seems to have become accepted as a concept with most commentators suspecting this enables our Scottish cousins to have their cake and eat it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *