So, Scotland is to be having a referendum amongst the population to decide if the general population is favourable to splitting with the rest of the UK and being a separate, entirely independent country in our own right. The rumouring that I have been hearing is that most people are generally against it - nobody really believes that it will go ahead. An article from the Scotsman claims that 39% of the population are for Independance and the rest against
I will say this - As of now, I hope that we don't achieve full independence. (See below for details)
For one, I have yet to see anything that looks like reliable, independent (pardon the pun), objective analysis of the risks and rewards. I would have expected proponents of the idea to have their economics and politics journals of repute in hand, practically straining to show you the cold hard facts that prove them right, or at least on a very accessible government website that clearly states why precisely, observably why, it is nothing short of pure common sense that drives us to this measure. I would expect to see debates amongst academicians. I would expect to see presentation of research. I would expect to see the peer-reviewed conclusions of eminent economists from several countries, not just Scotland, so we may rely a little more that they are unbiased.
Because it's not like moving house, and it's not just a case of building fence. We'd be doing some major reconstruction of our politics, laws, economy and society, so it makes sense to have a very damned good reason to do it. Surely, if it were so simple a matter of Better Off vs. Not Better Off, the evidence for that would be the very first thing you'd hear about - because if the facts were in your favour, then having an informed population would be of enormous benefit to a party, so the accurate dissemination of information would be critical to your position. Or are we seriously expected to believe that we're being done a favour and not told about it? Can you imagine the politician who had done some minor good deed and then refrained from crowing about it whenever his position gets slightly wobbly? Can you imagine that anyone, let alone someone in need of an accolade, wouldn't tell us all about how they are saving us from the brutal yoke, and show us the damned evidence?
In the Jabberwocky poem by Lewis Carroll, the hero remembers to take the head of the Jabberwocky as proof of his deed. I can't help but feel that we're being presented with a story of how an independent Scotland will be slain Jabberwocky, with no suggestion of a head to prove it.
Secondly, I'm not sure I like some of the propaganda-looking things that are associated with this referendum. Trying to get the voting age lowered to 16? Really? I'm not saying that 16-year olds shouldn't have a vote, but isn't it convenient that a campaign fought on stirring up the embers of resentment to Thatcher, embroidering it with some romantic crap from Walter Scott and his sugar-coating of William Wallace and then pumping it out supported by a supposed significance with the Battle of Bannockburn? Where was this concern for the voting rights of the young and easily impressed on every other issue ever?
That said, it may not be all bad. It seems that at least we would have a larger voice in European Parliament. As a region of the UK, we are accorded 6 MEPs, which is approximately consistent with Luxembourg (Scotland's population is just about 6 million, Luxembourg's about 0.5 million). Apparently, were we to achieve independence, then we would be accorded a number of MEPs in accordance with countries more our size, like Denmark, who have 13. (link, section 4. opposition)
Would we be able to hold our own against the bigger fish in the pond, and resist their demands, or are we really better off as part of the UK I frankly don't know, but I don't think that it's a decision that anyone should take lightly, or on the basis of patriotic fervour, or any non-rational reason.
I will say this - As of now, I hope that we don't achieve full independence. (See below for details)
For one, I have yet to see anything that looks like reliable, independent (pardon the pun), objective analysis of the risks and rewards. I would have expected proponents of the idea to have their economics and politics journals of repute in hand, practically straining to show you the cold hard facts that prove them right, or at least on a very accessible government website that clearly states why precisely, observably why, it is nothing short of pure common sense that drives us to this measure. I would expect to see debates amongst academicians. I would expect to see presentation of research. I would expect to see the peer-reviewed conclusions of eminent economists from several countries, not just Scotland, so we may rely a little more that they are unbiased.
Because it's not like moving house, and it's not just a case of building fence. We'd be doing some major reconstruction of our politics, laws, economy and society, so it makes sense to have a very damned good reason to do it. Surely, if it were so simple a matter of Better Off vs. Not Better Off, the evidence for that would be the very first thing you'd hear about - because if the facts were in your favour, then having an informed population would be of enormous benefit to a party, so the accurate dissemination of information would be critical to your position. Or are we seriously expected to believe that we're being done a favour and not told about it? Can you imagine the politician who had done some minor good deed and then refrained from crowing about it whenever his position gets slightly wobbly? Can you imagine that anyone, let alone someone in need of an accolade, wouldn't tell us all about how they are saving us from the brutal yoke, and show us the damned evidence?
In the Jabberwocky poem by Lewis Carroll, the hero remembers to take the head of the Jabberwocky as proof of his deed. I can't help but feel that we're being presented with a story of how an independent Scotland will be slain Jabberwocky, with no suggestion of a head to prove it.
Secondly, I'm not sure I like some of the propaganda-looking things that are associated with this referendum. Trying to get the voting age lowered to 16? Really? I'm not saying that 16-year olds shouldn't have a vote, but isn't it convenient that a campaign fought on stirring up the embers of resentment to Thatcher, embroidering it with some romantic crap from Walter Scott and his sugar-coating of William Wallace and then pumping it out supported by a supposed significance with the Battle of Bannockburn? Where was this concern for the voting rights of the young and easily impressed on every other issue ever?
That said, it may not be all bad. It seems that at least we would have a larger voice in European Parliament. As a region of the UK, we are accorded 6 MEPs, which is approximately consistent with Luxembourg (Scotland's population is just about 6 million, Luxembourg's about 0.5 million). Apparently, were we to achieve independence, then we would be accorded a number of MEPs in accordance with countries more our size, like Denmark, who have 13. (link, section 4. opposition)
Would we be able to hold our own against the bigger fish in the pond, and resist their demands, or are we really better off as part of the UK I frankly don't know, but I don't think that it's a decision that anyone should take lightly, or on the basis of patriotic fervour, or any non-rational reason.
No comments:
Post a Comment