tag:theconversation.com,2011:/africa/topics/scotland-decides-14-9617/articlesScotland Decides 14 – The Conversation2015-10-18T11:56:17Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/493162015-10-18T11:56:17Z2015-10-18T11:56:17ZSturgeon’s ‘blame Westminster’ routine hides dismal SNP record as party of government<p>The Scottish National Party annual conference in Aberdeen just ended was the last big gathering of the party before elections for a new Scottish parliament next May. The SNP has been in power in Scotland since 2007 and the <a href="http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/poll-snp-course-landslide-victory-6061943">polls put them on course to win</a> a third straight term next spring. This is extraordinary. </p>
<p>The SNP exists for only one reason: to seek the break-up of Britain and independence for Scotland. It won the right to put that issue to the Scottish people in an historic referendum in September 2014, but Scots voted against independence by 55.3% to 44.7%, so Scotland remains – with England, Wales and Northern Ireland – one of the four constituent nations of the United Kingdom.</p>
<p>The SNP’s defeat in the referendum ought to have caused it traumatic shock. But the referendum losers have emerged victorious in the year since. The 45% who voted Yes to independence rallied to the SNP’s cause, whereas the 55% who voted No are otherwise divided between those on the left (who support Labour), those on the centre-right (who support the Conservatives) and those few who remain in the middle (who used to support the Liberal Democrats). </p>
<p>A vote of 45% per cent is enough only to come second in a two-horse race – but in the UK’s first-past-the-post electoral system it is enough for a landslide. Thus, in the May 2015 general election the SNP won an astonishing 56 of Scotland’s 59 seats in the House of Commons, reducing the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties to one Scottish seat each.</p>
<p>That the SNP has managed to consolidate the support of close to half the Scottish population is a remarkable feat. For years support for independence was stubbornly stuck at about 30%. That the referendum result was 55%/45% rather than 65%/35% owed a great deal to the Yes movement taking on the character of a mass protest movement. </p>
<p>Harnessing the same energy and, indeed, using much of the same rhetoric, as has fired Syriza in Greece and Podemos in Spain, the argument for independence became ever more stridently left-wing and anti-austerity as the <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/scotland-decides-14">referendum campaign</a> wore on. The “45” is really the conjoining of two groups: a “30” who are ideologically committed to independence and would vote for it come what may and a “15” many of whom had never previously voted for the SNP and who embraced “the idea of Yes” as an act of protest.</p>
<p>The SNP has managed to hang on not only to its natural 30% but to the full 45% by pulling off the trick of being, in fact, the party of power in Scotland while at the same time taking on the appearance of a party of opposition. The nationalists are expert in mining the rich seam of Scottish grievance politics, which holds that everything is someone else’s fault, pointing the finger of blame at the Tories, the English, or Westminster. Its tactic in the forthcoming Scottish parliamentary election will doubtless be more of the same, for <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2015/oct/15/snp-conference-politics-live#block-561f7c37e4b02ae764b2e1b1">all the bombast we have heard in Aberdeen this week</a> about the party being happy to stand on its record in government.</p>
<h2>Poor performance</h2>
<p>The SNP’s record in government is precisely the terrain the opposition parties in Scotland want to fight the election on, because that record is dismal. It is dismal, in large measure, because the SNP has spent so long on the blame game and on its constitutional obsession with independence that they have governed too little. The devolved arrangements in Scotland were created and are in the process of being further developed by unionists, not nationalists, seeking a way of giving Scots the home rule they crave without breaking up the state. </p>
<p>Plainly, it does not suit the SNP to use their devolved powers to the full. Rather, it suits them to play those powers down, as if the only way in which Scotland could enjoy real autonomy is if Scotland were to leave the UK to become an independent state. In the core devolved areas of health and education, SNP administrations have done as little as possible.</p>
<p>The result is that investment in health <a href="http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/7366">has declined relative to investment in England</a>, that hospital waiting times are growing longer, <a href="http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/13302422.Western_A_E_worst_in_Scotland__31__of_patients_wait_longer_than_FOUR_hours/">alarmingly so in accident and emergenc</a>y, that Scottish schools are struggling to maintain even the most basic standards in key skills such as numeracy, and that further education has been cut horrifically (with <a href="http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/scotland/scottish-student-numbers-down-140-000-in-five-years-1.177844">140,000 college places slashed</a> in Scotland in recent years). </p>
<p>None of these outcomes is the fault of Westminster: <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/first_time_voter/8589835.stm">health and education are fully devolved to Edinburgh</a>, and have been since the inception of devolution in 1999.</p>
<h2>Control freakery</h2>
<p>When the SNP government does exercise its powers, two tendencies are striking. For all its talk of progressive politics, the SNP is a markedly illiberal party in practice. Whether it be bureaucratic interference with family life, the <a href="http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/routine-arming-of-scottish-police-officers-backed-1-3585146">covert arming of police officer</a>s, or extensive use of coercive powers <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jul/24/un-human-rights-body-criticises-police-stop-search-powers-scotland">such as stop and search</a>, Scottish nationalism in power betrays that trend so often seen in national liberators: that the freedom of the nation matters much more than the freedom of the people who inhabit it. </p>
<p>A second tendency is a control-freakish centralisation. Power is hoarded in Edinburgh, not disbursed to the cities and regions of Scotland – there is no equivalent here of George Osborne’s “northern powerhouse” in Manchester and Sheffield. On the contrary, powers are removed from local communities and centralised in the capital. Take policing: when the SNP came to power in 2007 Scotland had eight police forces; <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/apr/01/police-scotland-stephen-house-chief-constable">now we have just the one</a>, accountable to a board appointed directly by Scottish ministers. </p>
<p>A similar move is underway with regard to Scotland’s universities, where SNP ministers are seeking to exert unprecedented controls. Wither academic freedom in Scotland? With <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/bbc-scotland-protests-scottish-independence-referendum-coverage-institutionally-biased-salmond-9732095.html">angry mobs descending on the BBC</a> when the broadcaster dares to run news stories critical of the SNP administration, political freedom in Scotland can feel precarious. SNP ministers may say they oppose any attempt to alter the UK’s human rights laws but, at the same time, the human rights of Scots are repeatedly jeopardised by SNP policy.</p>
<p>Very little of this is understood outside of Scotland. From elsewhere in the UK, the SNP leader, Scotland’s first minister Nicola Sturgeon, looks the consummate social democrat. Poised, elegant and polished – and passionate in her rhetoric and commitment to social justice – Sturgeon is indeed a great performer. But underneath the act lies an altogether different reality, of an illiberal and centralising government that would rather sit on its hands than use its powers to transform Scotland for the better.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/49316/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Adam Tomkins is a prospective parliamentary candidate for the Scottish Conservatives in May’s Scottish parliamentary election.</span></em></p>The Scottish Nationals’ emphasis on independence is an attempt to distract voters from the party’s woeful performance in office.Adam Tomkins, Professor - John Millar Chair of Public Law, University of GlasgowLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/322372014-09-26T15:59:10Z2014-09-26T15:59:10ZVideo: Michael Keating – it’s unlikely that Scots devolution timetable will be honoured<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/60182/original/3d3xfxcv-1411737664.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Politics specialist Keating reflects on Scotland's referendum</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Faculti </span></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>Political scientist Michael Keating, one of the stalwarts of our <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/scotland-decides-14">Scotland Decides ’14</a> referendum panel, offers a fascinating view of where the constitutional pieces will land after Scotland’s No vote. He discusses what it all means for Scotland, the UK and independence movements around the world.</em> </p>
<iframe src="https://facultimedia.com/embedded-facultimedia/?media_url=https://facultimedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/CONV4.mp4" height="280" width="100%" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0"></iframe>
<h2>Michael Keating says:</h2>
<p>The largest single number of people wanted something in between [independence and the status quo]. They wanted the question we weren’t allowed to answer, namely: “Do we want control of most domestic policy as opposed to foreign policy?” … There are two ways of getting there. One is by voting for keeping some kind of association with the United Kingdom, and the second is by negotiating through the United Kingdom to get more autonomy.</p>
<p>The whole society has been transformed. Scotland has been reinforced as a political community, as the point of reference for political debate, and relationships between Scotland and the UK have been changed.</p>
<p>We have opened up now a constitutional debate about the future of the United Kingdom, including English votes for English laws. The prospect of getting all of that tidied up by next spring I would say is approaching zero.</p>
<p>I have heard some Labour politicians saying: “This is just a protest vote, it will go away, [the Yes voters] will come back to us.” … Maybe they will but you should bear in mind that there are many people in poor areas in Scotland who voted for the first time or for the first time in many, many years, and… those people have turned out and voted against Labour in such critical places as Glasgow and North Lanarkshire… that must be worrying.</p>
<p>People didn’t really believe the promises of either side, they didn’t believe that if we became independent, taxes would not go up, and they didn’t believe that if we voted No, the money would keep flowing from England and they would pay our bills… The challenge is how do you get away from politicians making empty promises that can’t be delivered and really engage in a realistic way with what we can do with the resources that are available.</p>
<p>David Cameron is a hero in Catalonia. You have got all these leftist Catalans who think he’s wonderful!… The prospects of the Spanish political classes following the lead of the Edinburgh Agreement haven’t improved at all. They are still being extremely rigid about this.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/32237/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Keating does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Political scientist Michael Keating, one of the stalwarts of our Scotland Decides ’14 referendum panel, offers a fascinating view of where the constitutional pieces will land after Scotland’s No vote…Michael Keating, Chair in Scottish Politics, University of AberdeenLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/319242014-09-19T14:23:47Z2014-09-19T14:23:47ZGreat British break off averted, but can a new deal for the UK really be cooked up like this?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/59584/original/p4nvs4cn-1411131203.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Scotland gave the whole UK shortbread – and a constitutional headache.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://thefoodiegifthunter.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/british-isle-cookie-cutters.jpg">The Foodie Gift Hunter</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>An article of faith in the Scottish independence debate has – quite rightly – been that it was for Scotland, and only Scotland, to decide whether it should remain part of the UK. But it is equally clear, now that Scotland has rejected independence, that a broader debate is necessary. That debate will reverberate throughout the country, and its outcome may well have profound consequences for
the UK’s constitutional architecture. </p>
<p>That architecture is a product of the intensely pragmatic attitude to reform that is the defining characteristic of British constitutionalism. Wholesale reform is eschewed in favour of incremental change – many problems fail to be resolved until political pressure so dictates. </p>
<p>The devolution programme is a case in point. Power has been given to new institutions in Belfast, Cardiff and Edinburgh in quantities and forms that reflect the different levels of demands made. </p>
<p>England, meanwhile, was wholly excluded from devolution, the perception being that there was no appetite for it. As a result, England finds itself governed – by default – by UK institutions. There is no separate English Parliament, as there is for the UK’s other constituent parts, and so the UK legislature and executive assume a supplementary role as <em>de facto</em> English institutions. </p>
<p>For a long time, this anomaly was considered unproblematic, England’s relative size allowing it to punch its weight even without formal institutional representation. But the Scottish No vote changes all that, as the prime minister <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/19/scottish-referendum-david-cameron-devolution-revolution">made clear in his statement</a> following the referendum result.</p>
<h2>Lopsided system</h2>
<p>The independence debate has not only put the incredibly lopsided nature of the present system in the spotlight; it is likely to bring about a furthering of it. Prompted to act by an opinion poll suggesting a narrow lead for Yes, the leaders of the three main UK parties <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29219212">pledged the devolution of still-greater powers to Edinburgh</a>in the event of a No vote. </p>
<p>Yet as further authority shifts to the Scottish parliament – and, quite possibly, to its counterparts in Northern Ireland and Wales – England’s situation becomes increasingly unsustainable. The difficulty is not necessarily that England lacks governing institutions of its own. It’s that UK institutions acting on England’s behalf can be influenced by those who represent the interests of other parts of the UK. </p>
<p>The epitome of this phenomenon is the “<a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/scottish-independence/scottish-referendum-result-what-is-the-west-lothian-question-9743318.html">West Lothian question</a>”: MPs from outside England can shape laws affecting only England, even though equivalent laws affecting other parts of the country are immune from influence by English lawmakers. As further power is devolved from Westminster, the one-sided nature of the current system becomes yet more pronounced.</p>
<h2>An English solution?</h2>
<p>The prime minister today suggested that “English votes for English laws” – an approach <a href="http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21617033-even-if-scots-reject-independence-union-will-grow-looser-and-messier-unitedish-kingdom">rejected by the McKay Commission last year</a> – is the solution to this conundrum. This would effectively create a parliament within a parliament: a corpus of English MPs would deal with the majority of the business – that is, English business – conducted at Westminster, while MPs from elsewhere would participate only in matters affecting their part of the country or matters relating to the UK as a whole. </p>
<p>But within the Westminster model, the legislature serves not only as a lawmaking body but also as an “electoral college” whose party-political composition determines who forms the government. It is therefore easy to foresee circumstances in which a government with a majority across the UK would, in its guise as the <em>de facto</em> English government, be unable to command the support of the House of Commons. </p>
<p>Take, for example, Labour, which is traditionally strongly represented in Scotland. Were Labour’s Scottish MPs – of whom there are presently 41 – excluded from voting on matters concerning England, the likelihood of a Labour prime minister being able to enact his legislative programme would be diminished. </p>
<p>This, in turn, raises questions about the sustainability of the current model of government under reformed legislative arrangements. It is therefore illustrative of a still-broader point: that every <em>ad hoc</em> solution adopted pursuant to a piecemeal approach to constitutional reform risks creating a new, if unintended, difficulty. Indeed, it is precisely because seeking to answer the West Lothian question risks opening up a Pandora’s box of new issues that politicians have for so long sought to avoid its confrontation. </p>
<p>None of this is to suggest that the nettle should not now be grasped. Nor is it necessarily an argument in favour of the sort of grand constitutional redesign for which some are now calling. But it does suggest that we should at least pause for reflection. And it cautions against a rushed implementation of back-of-the-envelope proposals.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/31924/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Mark Elliott does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>An article of faith in the Scottish independence debate has – quite rightly – been that it was for Scotland, and only Scotland, to decide whether it should remain part of the UK. But it is equally clear…Mark Elliott, Reader in Public Law, University of CambridgeLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/319182014-09-19T12:05:23Z2014-09-19T12:05:23ZScottish vote gives UK a chance to repair itself – but it’s a big job<p>For years, Westminster politicians justified their neglect of constitutional issues by saying there are no votes in the constitution. In other words, voters are not really that interested in knowing how they are governed. But <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29271765">David Cameron’s statement</a> in the wake of Scotland’s No vote suggests that this rather condescending view is about to change.</p>
<p>The prime minister has promised a “balanced settlement” for the UK, in which the rights of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland will be “respected and enhanced”. This is a more measured and ambitious response than the panicky promises about Scottish “devo max” made just ahead of the referendum vote by the three Westminster parties as a last bid to save the union. But it still leaves many unanswered questions, the most immediate being whether Conservative MPs will back their leader. Nonetheless, Cameron’s proposal tries to respond to popular concerns and expectations.</p>
<h2>Democracy on the march</h2>
<p>The Scottish referendum campaign has shown what a powerful force democracy can be. At heart, the campaign for Scottish independence was about democratic representation. A staggering one million people who had never participated in politics before registered to vote and the eventual turnout on polling day hit an historic high of nearly 85%.</p>
<p>More importantly, the dynamism of the campaign (and in particular of the Yes campaign), promoted mostly by grass-roots organisations such as Women for Scotland, the Radical Independence Campaign, <a href="http://reidfoundation.org/common-weal/">Common Weal</a>, <a href="http://nationalcollective.com/yestival/">Yestival</a>, and [many others](http://blogs.channel4.com/paul-mason-blog/grassroots-groups-leading-indyref-debate/2263](http://blogs.channel4.com/paul-mason-blog/grassroots-groups-leading-indyref-debate/2263) showed that there is a real hunger for democratic engagement and participation.</p>
<h2>All eyes south</h2>
<p>And reactions in <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-29122402">Wales</a> and <a href="http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2014/09/more-devolution-for-scotland-wont-wash-unless-england-gets-self-government-too.html?utm_campaign=twitter&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitter">England</a> to the Scottish referendum campaign (and to the promises of devo max) suggest that dissatisfaction with the UK’s centralised system of government and the desire for a deeper form of democracy are not exclusive to Scotland.</p>
<p>But the referendum adventure has also shown that the country’s current constitutional settlement is in urgent need of repair. Beyond the problem of centralisation, the mechanics and principles of democratic representation will have to be revisited. The problem is that the panicky and still vague promises of devo max to Scotland (which were made without a process of democratic consultation) will render those problems even more acute. The transfer of new powers to Holyrood will create an even more lopsided House of Commons, where Scottish MPs are over-powered and under-worked compared with their English colleagues. The West Lothian question has to be answered once and for all.</p>
<p>The three main unionist parties are only too aware of this problem and agree that far-reaching constitutional reforms are needed. But that’s where consensus ends. There are profound disagreements between the Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats about the shape of constitutional reform that cannot be ironed out, as has been proposed, in just a few months.</p>
<h2>On the table</h2>
<p>A number of options will be put on the table. One option may involve devolution for England via the creation of regional assemblies with a decent set of powers. This solution, by far the most radical and fair, would pave the way for the transformation of Westminster into a federal parliament. But as the idea of British federalism is not for the faint-hearted, another possibility could be the devolution of fiscal and financial powers to English local councils and cities.</p>
<p>Another option could be preventing Scottish MPs from voting on English issues in the House of Commons. This solution is <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/09/17/scottish-independence-would-mean-change-for-how-scottish-mps-vote-in-westminster_n_5836202.html?utm_hp_ref=uk">popular</a> with Conservative MPs and Nick Clegg, but has so far been rejected by Labour. But more importantly, this option does not address the problem of an over-centralised system of government.</p>
<p>A fourth possibility is to make the House of Lords the mirror of British regionalism, whereby the seats in the upper chamber (elected by proportional representation) would represent the different regions of the United Kingdom. This solution is not problem-free, though. As <a href="https://www.ucl.ac.uk/spp/publications/unit-publications/50.pdf">Meg Russell argued</a>, the asymmetrical nature of British devolution would make designing a truly representational upper chamber a very difficult job.</p>
<p>Because none of these options offers a perfect solution to the West Lothian question, there is always the possibility of combining different ideas. There is room for some constitutional creativity when we design a post-referendum UK.</p>
<h2>Don’t rush</h2>
<p>The referendum has shown us that civic engagement increases when people can see that their vote counts. And since the current first-past-the-post-system fails to truly represent how people vote, what better time to revisit electoral reform? And why not codify the constitution while we’re at it?</p>
<p>But if Britain embarks on a process of far-reaching constitutional reforms it should not rush into it. The different issues at stake need to be carefully weighed and each proposal needs to be considered in terms of its impact over the political system.</p>
<p>In order to have legitimacy, the process also needs to go beyond the Westminster parties and must include civil society organisations, grass-root movements and ordinary citizens. After all, the British constitution is not the exclusive preserve of the Westminster elite. The constitution belongs to the British people and it’s about time that they began to own it.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/31918/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
For years, Westminster politicians justified their neglect of constitutional issues by saying there are no votes in the constitution. In other words, voters are not really that interested in knowing how…Eunice Goes, Associate Professor of Communications, Richmond American International UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/319142014-09-19T10:53:35Z2014-09-19T10:53:35ZEU breathes a sigh of relief as the Scottish nightmare fails to come true<p>For the European Union, the prospect of Scottish secession from the UK was a key component of the nightmare scenario of everything falling apart, inside and outside. After all, let’s not forget that there is another UK referendum on the cards – an EU membership vote, currently <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/11/david-cameron-european-union-referendum-pledge">pencilled in for 2017</a>.</p>
<p>The darkest fear was that a Scottish Yes vote would <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-scottish-referendum-could-push-english-politics-to-the-right-31651">tee up a British exit from the EU</a>, then spark a grave escalation of political conflict in Spain over Catalonia – and eventually leave Europe dominated by the likes of <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-french-front-national-is-still-an-extreme-right-wing-party-20983">Marine Le Pen</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/voters-havent-called-time-on-ukip-despite-some-poor-polls-16280">Nigel Farage</a> and a broad church of <a href="https://theconversation.com/hard-evidence-how-much-power-can-the-far-right-wield-in-european-parliament-27142">far-right populists</a>.</p>
<p>Various nightmares are already well underway just outside the EU, from Putin’s war in <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/ukraine">Ukraine</a> to <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/islamic-state">Islamic State</a> beheading hostages in the Levant. </p>
<p>The propagandists of the Kremlin would have relished the Schadenfreude of the British empire’s final humiliating collapse, alongside the renaissance of Putin’s Russian one, completing the revenge for the Crimean war. In short, to many in the EU, a Yes vote almost threatened to begin the end of what they consider “civilised” Europe. </p>
<p>And even at the most practical level of politics, if Cameron had lost Scotland, his premiership would have been over (despite his own insistence he <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2014/sep/17/scottish-independence-david-cameron-won-t-resign-pm-scotland-votes-yes-video">wouldn’t resign</a>). The Conservative party, with its overall Eurosceptic bent, would have elected a successor hellbent on drastic repatriation of powers, or even further opt-outs on a grand scale. Negotiations with the EU would have been unworkable and a referendum on Britain’s EU membership would have ended with a big majority voting to leave.</p>
<p>But in the end, the nightmares did not become real. The majority stuck to the UK with a bigger margin than anyone had dared expect: <a href="https://theconversation.com/map-how-scotland-voted-in-the-independence-referendum-31907">55.4% to 44.6%</a>.</p>
<h2>Making the case</h2>
<p>Brussels’ next thoughts are about how this will affect the UK’s relationship with the EU. The key tension is between emotion and calculation, heart and head. Across the EU, the worry remains that populist emotions will outvote the objective calculations of accountants and economists. </p>
<p>The Scottish vote will give heart to those who just want to keep up the work of getting EU policies right, or at least sorting out their major problems. And there’s plenty of cause for optimism: Britain’s ongoing <a href="https://www.gov.uk/review-of-the-balance-of-competences">balance of competence review</a> is increasingly showing that most EU policies are doing what they should do – and that the case for repatriation or secession does not hold water. </p>
<p>Whether that message will filter into the common sense of the British people by time of the speculative 2017 referendum remains to be seen. But hope springs eternal, and Scotland’s decision will have given EU supporters’ hopes a much-needed shot in the arm.</p>
<p>But on the emotional level too, the Scottish experience should help. The English got the shock of their lives when a poll <a href="https://theconversation.com/poll-says-yes-to-scottish-independence-or-does-it-17759">suggested a Yes majority for the first time</a>. Maybe the experience of nearly losing Scotland, and having to grapple with the potential emotional consequences, will make them think twice about leaping back into the unknown with another potentially explosive yes/no vote.</p>
<h2>How to do it</h2>
<p>Viewed from the continent, there were plenty of reasons to worry about the simplistic and inept management of the referendum, surprising coming from the mother of democracies. </p>
<p>By comparison, Belgium’s handling of its own separatist tendencies in Flanders has been much sounder: a continuing process of constitutional adjustment to the powers of the centre versus the regions, refining the system in a spirit of compromise, rather than forcing it into a binary choice of yes or no, in or out. </p>
<p>If you have to have a referendum, avoid bias in the question, offering alternative 1 versus alternative 2, rather than risking than the Yes that sounds so positive versus the very negative No. Or have three options, independence versus enhanced autonomy versus status quo, and then two rounds if necessary to find the majority. Or do as many democracies that have “constitutional majority” requirements do and demand a “super-majority” of, say, two-thirds for major constitutional change. </p>
<p>But Europe’s concern over all this is no longer warranted. The nightmare did not come true, and Brussels can return to its business – with its own <a href="https://theconversation.com/juncker-commission-line-up-shows-hes-a-man-with-a-plan-31590">renewed leadership</a> maybe even a bit encouraged to go about its burdensome and unpopular agenda with a bit more confidence.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/31914/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Emerson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>For the European Union, the prospect of Scottish secession from the UK was a key component of the nightmare scenario of everything falling apart, inside and outside. After all, let’s not forget that there…Michael Emerson, Associate Senior Research Fellow, Centre for European Policy StudiesLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/319162014-09-19T10:12:13Z2014-09-19T10:12:13ZPeople must remain engaged in debate over future of Britain<p>The vote, in the end, was <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-uk-survives-as-scotland-votes-no-to-independence-31904">decisive</a>, with the Better Together campaign winning with 55% of ballots cast. As a Glaswegian living in Southampton, I’ve watched from afar, saddened not to be in my home nation at this crucial juncture, while amazed at the remarkable political awakening that has taken place these last months. </p>
<p>As has been repeatedly said, the No outcome doesn’t mean a return to business as usual. In fact, debates over constitutional politics in the UK are only set to heat up, with questions raised over the spread of power across its constituent nations.</p>
<p>Although the result was decisive, it was not an overwhelming majority. Consider that when this process began, the average support for Scottish independence typically ran at around 30-35%. The Yes campaign succeeded in drawing a significant number of people to their cause and that is a massive achievement in such a short space of time, given the magnitude of the issue. </p>
<p>In particular, the Yes campaign won the majority of the votes in <a href="https://theconversation.com/map-how-scotland-voted-in-the-independence-referendum-31907">Glasgow, North Lanarkshire, West Dunbartonshire and Dundee City</a>, which are all Labour Party heartlands that have borne the brunt of deindustrialisation. Scottish Labour strategists looking ahead to the 2015 UK general election will already be wondering about the work they will have to do to maintain these strongholds, and whether those Labour voters who voted Yes will now be more willing to consider opting for the SNP next year. This is important, given how hard it is for any party to gain a Westminster majority.</p>
<h2>Question of devolution</h2>
<p>Immediately following the result, the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29271763">prime minister committed</a> to begin the process of devolving more power to Holyrood, and to exploring the structure of governance throughout the rest of the country. He has said that devolution across the UK will follow the same quick timetable, with a white paper due early next year. That will be a massive undertaking. </p>
<p>If this kind of devolution takes place, it will demonstrate the remarkable flexibility of the UK constitution, and its pragmatic malleability in the light of popular pressure for change. But the unanswered question at the heart of UK constitutional politics is the English Question: with so much devolution of power elsewhere in the UK (and more to come), is it right that England is still governed directly by Westminster, and is it right that MPs from non-English constituencies can vote in English-only matters in the House of Commons? </p>
<p>These questions have remained unanswered ever since devolution was rolled out in 1999 and the then Labour government’s plans for English regional devolution failed following the rejection of the proposals in the north-east referendum. The Conservative Party’s <a href="http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21574505-english-are-ever-more-anxious-about-scottish-devolution-fear-and-lothian">McKay Commission</a> had some interesting solutions to this question of English governance. But the fact remains that if there was an easy answer to the English/West Lothian Question, it would probably have already been identified and implemented. </p>
<p>It’s far from clear that David Cameron will be easily able to convince his party to pursue constitutional change across the board, because so much depends on the details of those changes, none of which have thus far been spelled out. Depending on the agreed package of constitutional change which is produced, there may be pressure for English referendums to approve them and to demonstrate that they command popular support.</p>
<h2>Democracy the winner</h2>
<p>The Scottish referendum was an astonishing exercise in democratic participation. Turnout stands at a <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11107463/Voter-turnout-for-Scottish-referendum-could-be-highest-of-any-British-election.html">staggering 85%</a>, and it’s clear that people have been engaged in this process who have not been involved in politics for a very long time, if ever. </p>
<p>At a time when politicians are maligned, and traditional forms of political participation are in decline, this referendum has shown that people take part when they believe that the process will bring a meaningful outcome for their lives and they are in control of that outcome. It remains to be seen whether the public will stay engaged throughout the months of political negotiation that lie ahead – now that the decision is back in the hands of the political elite. Crucially, the participation of 16-17 year olds in this referendum may now fuel demands for their inclusion in elections at other levels.</p>
<p>The months ahead will feature much constitutional wrangling and bargaining. Decisions about our constitutional future now lie, once more, in the hands of the professional political class. Those on both sides of the independence referendum debate must now wait to find out how their collective voices will be interpreted and what it will all mean for the political structure of the UK as a whole.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/31916/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alexandra Kelso does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The vote, in the end, was decisive, with the Better Together campaign winning with 55% of ballots cast. As a Glaswegian living in Southampton, I’ve watched from afar, saddened not to be in my home nation…Alexandra Kelso, Senior Lecturer in Politics, University of SouthamptonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/319082014-09-19T07:07:23Z2014-09-19T07:07:23ZScotland Decided: experts react to No vote<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/59547/original/55sbh2v5-1411107448.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Now, naw means no.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/lizsmith/15213093526/in/photolist-peY6sA-iZ7tpc-oZvMBy-oZuTor-nDBAFx-oUUzhX-oLeSWc-oZpzVu-oUoxbA-pckicE-iZa41u-iZ8jPW-peRVcs-oZoW4j-oRGPGa-9FYJ9V-bixR4F-pbk5FY-5EjTmj-bixRvK-bixSCe-oUkdtP-oPBtC5-bixSbH-oQRm5L-oZVmxh-oZUiDK-kLRERg-ph8t2n-mq9U8x-pcneUg-mq9Q7X-mq9Tg2-bnVCaD-pd8FtR-7TJdpF-bnVCFR-bnVDeR-djWwJr-2TSa51-bnVAFK-bnVzeR-bnVycP-bnVAei-bnVzG4-bnVwCR-bnVw9c-bnVBBT-bnVxb2-bnVyG2">Liz Smith</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In its independence referendum, Scotland voted to remain in the United Kingdom by 55-45%. Our panel looks at what happened, and where it leaves the UK and Scotland. </p>
<hr>
<p><strong>Neil Blain, Professor of Communications, University of Stirling</strong></p>
<p>The main problem was the currency. The doubt over the currency led to doubt about quite a few other things that were connected with it. One of the things it’s done is persuaded a lot of people that we are inextricably entangled with the union and can’t do without it. </p>
<p>But I do think it’s remarkable that Yes polled 45%, given the onslaught, particularly from a media that was almost entirely hostile and given the offer of more powers at the last minute. </p>
<p>If further powers for Edinburgh now become entangled with the question of devolution for England, the debate could go on until 2050. It’s important that Scottish politicians try to preserve the separate argument here, though if I’m hearing David Cameron correctly that’s going to be difficult. Whatever the make-up of the next Westminster parliament, I don’t see how it can be bound by any pledges which are made just now. </p>
<p>One of the signals I would be looking for in the next day or two is where the press stands. The Scottish media may get behind the pledges in a similar way to what happened in the 1990s. But at my more pessimistic, I still think we could be heading for the long grass. I would love to believe that nothing will be the same again, but another part of me says, “in your dreams”. There are a lot of people in the Labour and Conservative parties who for different reasons don’t want a federal England. If the Scottish question is closely associated with that, it would get in the way. </p>
<p><strong>Nicola McEwen, Senior Lecturer in Politics, University of Edinburgh</strong></p>
<p>Although the referendum produced a clear victory for the No campaign, the UK government and the UK parties may want to reflect on what is an historically significant level of support for independence. As much as 45% of the population did not give their consent to the union. That should make politicians sit up and take notice, and should ensure that the issue of Scotland’s constitutional future continues to be the subject of debate.</p>
<p>It’s perfectly possible for the UK government to fulfill the campaign promise to give Scotland more powers. But if that was to happen in the timescale set out in the campaign, it would likely mean a set of proposals that looked more like the Labour party devolution commission’s <a href="http://s.bsd.net/scotlab/default/page/file/26e0eb4bdf4c775d14_ram6b81bk.pdf">more modest proposals</a> than the more ambitious Conservative or Lib Dem proposals – it’s easier to settle on the lowest common denominator. It would be extraordinarily difficult for Labour’s internal party politics to go much further.</p>
<p>Of course now that the SNP government seems set to be involved in these discussions too, we can expect them to push for a more extensive set of devolved powers. The SNP will not abandon its commitment to independence, but we will see the party revert back to a more gradualist strategy, in keeping with its recent political history, trying to push the UK parties further down the road of Scottish self-government.</p>
<p>The debate over Scotland’s place within the UK won’t go away. It’s perfectly feasible that there will be another constitutional referendum in my lifetime, but I think it would emerge in a different way: not as a result of a top-down initiative – a political opportunity created by an election victory – but more because there is popular demand for a referendum from the bottom-up. The first minister, Alex Salmond, talked about this referendum being a once-in-a-generation opportunity. I don’t expect the SNP to put another referendum in their manifesto in 2016. </p>
<p>It’s interesting to see how quickly the debate has moved on to thinking about the English question. We know from the <a href="http://sites.cardiff.ac.uk/wgc/2014/08/20/the-english-favour-a-hard-line-with-scotland-whatever-the-result-of-the-independence-referendum/">“Future of England” survey</a> that there is growing discontent in England with the way it is governed, and in particular of the fact that Scottish MPs can continue to vote on areas like health and education, despite these responsibilities being devolved to Scotland. Indeed, there appears to be a greater sense of grievance about the way that England is governed than there was in Scotland before the referendum. </p>
<p><strong>Paul Cairney, Professor of Politics and Public Policy, University of Stirling</strong></p>
<p>The referendum didn’t go wrong. It was as good if not better than expected. It was 60-40 in favour of No for such a long time, so 45% Yes seems OK to me. </p>
<p>I think 45% is a good number because it’s not so close that people are bitter about how indecisive it was, but it’s also powerful enough to make progress, especially since the three major UK parties got together and <a href="http://www.itv.com/news/update/2014-09-16/what-is-the-barnett-formula/">said they would</a> hand over extra powers to Scotland and keep the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/19/what-is-barnett-formula-how-work-scotland-wales-northern-ireland">Barnett formula</a>. </p>
<p>That has to be part of the explanation for the gap between Yes and No. There is some sort of onus on the UK parties to deliver what they were talking about now. </p>
<p>Saying that, I don’t think the extra powers to Scotland will be that extensive. It will be more income tax, more powers over welfare, and they will emphasise that we’re getting more responsibility. </p>
<p>Barnett will be tricky. The thing about it is that the UK government kept it over the years because no one talked about it, but it becomes harder now that it’s the focus of attention. They have to satisfy two audiences, one in England and one in Scotland. The problem for the English audience is that Barnett is supposed to help economic disparities to converge, but there has been no difference in the gap in per-capita spend since the 1970s. That means there is a strong argument to get rid of it. </p>
<p>But Barnett means that the two governments don’t have to negotiate spending every year, which keeps it out of the public spotlight. I think they’ll do whatever they can to keep it, even if they have to rename it. It’s the least worst option for holding everything together. Otherwise it becomes a broken promise to Scotland that stores up potential tensions, so it’s going to be very difficult. </p>
<p>What does 45% mean for Scottish independence? You can’t have another referendum for at least ten years. Five years would be long enough to find out if the maximum devolution that Scotland gets is adequate in people’s eyes. That then gives you the opportunity to put it back on your manifesto again. </p>
<p>But remember that the only reason the referendum happened is because the SNP has a majority in the parliament. So you’ll need to have a majority of pro-independence parties if it’s to happen again. That’s the main obstacle. </p>
<p><strong>Arthur Midwinter, Visiting Professor of Politics, University of Edinburgh</strong></p>
<p>My view all along was that it would come down to whether people felt they would be better off or not. Even though there was that wobble in the middle, it came back to that in the end. </p>
<p>The Yes campaign never made a coherent economic case. There were too many big guns against them. I know the campaign wasn’t just the SNP, but really it was Salmond and Sturgeon against the world. The bankers and business and the bulk of academics didn’t believe their figures. </p>
<p>I never understood why the vote narrowed a few weeks ago. I always thought there would be many people that would vote No that would not tell pollsters if they were asked. One side was very noisy and one side was very quiet. It’s what you call the silent majority. I didn’t have a single neighbour in Falkirk who said they were going to vote Yes. </p>
<p>Brown was just magnificent these past few days. Is he going to run the show now over extending powers? He certainly made the difference. I don’t know if he saved the union, but the poll figures certainly suggested that either side could have won. Brown made the case for more devolution in a much more coherent way than anybody had until that point. </p>
<p>I would love to see Brown standing for the Scottish parliament. Whether he will or not, I don’t know. His whole life has been politics. Brown against Salmond would be exciting, that’s for sure. </p>
<p>But there is the issue that it doesn’t make sense to devolve a lot more powers. If your working assumption is that it’s an integrated economy, <a href="https://theconversation.com/scotland-will-not-be-offered-devo-max-after-a-no-vote-heres-why-31500">devo max is just not possible</a>. Labour originally wanted to devolve all income tax control, but all the advice in the <a href="http://www.commissiononscottishdevolution.org.uk">Calman consultation</a> was that it wasn’t possible. </p>
<p>So I don’t know how negotiations will go, but I’m fairly confident that the agreement will end up being the <a href="http://s.bsd.net/scotlab/default/page/file/26e0eb4bdf4c775d14_ram6b81bk.pdf">Labour position</a> from earlier this year with a few changes. That will make it difficult to navigate in Scotland, but it can be done if the country is governed differently. If the Conservatives had remained a one-nation party, they would still be doing much better in Scotland. </p>
<p><strong>Karly Kehoe, Senior Lecturer in History, Glasgow Caledonian University</strong></p>
<p>Westminster will have to look at this result and address the fact that 45% of people are unhappy. The three main UK-wide parties are now going to have to deliver on the promises they have made. </p>
<p>I was so impressed with the voter turnout. Approximately 84% is extraordinary. If I was the No campaign I would be grateful for the result, but not elated because it’s not an enormous victory. About 45% of people voted for independence - that’s a clear indication that something is seriously wrong. </p>
<p>Alex Salmond’s speech was very good, saying it’s important for the nation to come together, to recognise that this is what the people who live here want, and to focus on moving forward so that we can have the best society. You can feel very sad or you can think, right, now what do we do ensure we get the kind of society we want? </p>
<p><strong>David McCausland, Head of Economics, University of Aberdeen</strong></p>
<p>The United Kingdom has had a lucky escape. The economic effects of independence would have been damaging and irreversible. In the short term the increased uncertainty would have pushed up the cost of the borrowing, undermined trade, and reduced investment. </p>
<p>One of the biggest headaches avoided is the currency question. All of the possible configurations would have had a serious disruptive impact at least in the short term. The mismatch between spending ambitions and variable revenue streams may have led to permanent austerity. </p>
<p>So with the cloud of independence now lifted, what for the future? Increased powers over taxation and spending, and the retention of the Barnett formula, through which Westminster sets Scottish spending, have all been promised: devo max by proxy. </p>
<p>Scotland could therefore have come out quite well. But calls for political reform and a hardening of attitudes south of the border may eventually erode the influence of Scottish MPs in Westminster. And the political fallout may have a substantial impact, not just on the governing elite in Westminster, for whom polls in the last few weeks were a bit too close for comfort. But closer to home, also on Scottish Labour, and where they position themselves. In short, this was a close shave (though not as close as predicted), and a welcome outcome for Scotland’s economic future.</p>
<p><strong>John McKendrick, Senior Lecturer, Glasgow Caledonian University</strong></p>
<p>The turnout was phenomenal. That makes me optimistic. It got close for a nanosecond when Dundee came in followed by West Dunbartonshire, but then it slumped back to that familiar pattern. It was just a matter of time after that. You can look at it wryly and say it’s almost another one of those glorious Scottish defeats like the ones we get in football, where we pride ourselves on never quite getting there but celebrating coming close. </p>
<p>It was always going to be the case that the work starts now. The vote was only a constitutional matter at the end of the day. The issues that were there for the people of Scotland are still there. There is a cynical view that some of the offers might begin to unravel because after all, it was politics and not a firm policy commitment. There is certainty a degree of uncertainty there. </p>
<p>But I don’t think that Westminster or the Scottish government will be able to shirk the fact that they have to do more now. We can talk about devo max, but we’re also going to have to learn to do more with the tools that we have. </p>
<p><strong>Gavin Phillipson, Professor of Constitutional Law at Durham University</strong></p>
<p>After the night’s events and David Cameron’s statement this morning, the proposal that Scottish (and perhaps Welsh and Northern Irish) MPs should in some way be debarred from voting on legislation affecting only England has rapidly shot up the political agenda.</p>
<p>The “English votes for English laws” solution is attractive because of its simplicity: a single procedural change would effectively bring into being a new, but intermittently existing English parliament within the Westminster parliament; the latter would morph into the former whenever an “English bill” was being considered.</p>
<p>The problem with Scottish MPs’s presence in Westminster is that legislation that fails to command a majority among English MPs can sometimes still be passed with Scottish votes. This is precisely what happened with to two notoriously controversial pieces of legislation introduced by the Blair government: foundation hospitals and top-up university fees. Because of large Labour backbench rebellions, the then government needed the votes of Scottish MPs to get these policies through – even though neither would apply in Scotland.</p>
<p>Since much of the important work of Westminster consists of dealing with bills mainly or exclusively affecting England, this, it is said, would fatally undermine any government that depended on Scottish votes for its overall majority. </p>
<p>However, this problem has been overstated. The scenario would only really arise with the election of a Labour government (or Labour-led coalition) with a very small majority. More importantly, however, the objection is wrong in principle. If a government cannot muster a majority of English MPs for legislation that only concerns England, why should it be able to pass it? </p>
<p>In reality, all this objection amounts to is the observation that a Labour government with no majority among English MPs (which has only rarely happened) would no longer be able to impose legislation upon England without the support of a majority of its representatives. This sounds like an advantage rather than an objection. </p>
<p>There are obviously many practical problems to consider, but at least as a temporary and easily implemented measure, “English votes for English laws” could be a simple and economical solution to the West Lothian question.</p>
<p><strong>Thom Brooks, Professor of Law and Government at Durham University</strong></p>
<p>The referendum vote is a great result for Scotland and for the United Kingdom. It is easy to see the appeal of independence at first glance. Dissatisfaction with politics is high, and there are widespread calls for more consideration for local concerns. </p>
<p>One major problem for the independence campaign from the start was making a clear and compelling case for Scotland to go it alone in an increasingly interconnected world. </p>
<p>So while it may be popular to challenge immigration policy as the SNP have done, such matters can still often be impacted by other sovereign states: one country alone cannot dictate whether there are <a href="https://theconversation.com/customs-at-gretna-green-neither-side-is-telling-the-whole-truth-on-this-one-28993">controls on either side of every border</a>, for instance. </p>
<p>Or take defence and security: it may be popular to argue against retaining Trident in order to find savings to fund other programmes, but this raises issues about whether Scotland would be more secure as an independent country than it would as part of a united country sharing security services. </p>
<p>The Yes campaign failed for many reasons, but among them, it found out to its cost that launching a new independent country is far more difficult than its leaders might have thought (or wanted to think) in our globalised world.</p>
<p><strong>Meryl Kenny, Lecturer in Government and Politics at University of Leicester</strong></p>
<p>Thursday’s No vote – while closer than many commentators had initially anticipated at the start of the referendum campaign —was decisive. But it does not represent an end to the matter, nor does it represent a return to the constitutional status quo. </p>
<p>Record numbers of Scots turned out to vote in the referendum; the majority of them favour enhanced powers for the Scottish parliament, and almost half of them voted for full independence on the day. The outcome of the referendum, then, is still a vote for change, albeit change within the structure of the Union. </p>
<p>Indeed, this is what the No campaign promised in the end stages of the campaign - with the three main parties (pushed by Gordon Brown) committing to a fast-track timetable towards new powers for the Scottish Parliament in the event of a No vote. </p>
<p>David Cameron pledged to honour these commitments immediately after the referendum, promising draft legislation by the end of January 2015. Questions remain, however, as to whether he will deliver. There are significant differences between the Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrat proposals for new powers - and it is difficult to see how they could be resolved in the short space of time offered. </p>
<p>Cameron will also probably face significant backbench opposition to further devolution. Worryingly, and in sharp contrast to the more inclusive processes that existed in the run-up to devolution in the 1990s, this expedited legislative timetable also leaves little to no scope for public consultation. That has prompted calls for a citizen-led UK-wide Constitutional Convention.</p>
<p>Questions also remain for Labour, and for the future of left politics more broadly. Much of the coverage of the independence referendum has reported on the debate through the lens of political nationalism, but this fails to acknowledge the numerical reality: there simply were not enough nationalist supporters to win a Yes vote on their own. </p>
<p>The relative closeness of the outcome, along with Yes victories in traditional Labour strongholds such as Glasgow, suggests that a significant proportion of Labour voters also voted for independence.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, as part of his proposals for a “new and fair” constitutional settlement, David Cameron has pledged that English matters will only be voted on by English MPs, a proposal that could effectively undermine a future Labour majority in the House of Commons.</p>
<p>Uncertainties remain, then, as to what lies next for Scotland and the UK - but all sides are agreed that the status quo is no longer an option.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/31908/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>As an adviser to Scottish Labour leader Johann Lamont, Arthur was appointed chair of the party's Welfare Commission, which is putting together a series of proposals for the future of Scotland.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Gavin Phillipson, John H McKendrick, Karly Kehoe, Meryl Kenny, Neil Blain, Nicola McEwen, Paul Cairney, Thom Brooks, and W David McCausland do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>In its independence referendum, Scotland voted to remain in the United Kingdom by 55-45%. Our panel looks at what happened, and where it leaves the UK and Scotland. Neil Blain, Professor of Communications…Paul Cairney, Professor of Politics and Public Policy, University of StirlingArthur Midwinter, Associate Professor, Institute of Public Sector Accounting Research, The University of EdinburghGavin Phillipson, Professor of Law and Deputy Head of School, Durham UniversityJohn H McKendrick, Senior Lecturer, Glasgow Caledonian UniversityKarly Kehoe, Senior Lecturer in History, Glasgow Caledonian UniversityMeryl Kenny, Lecturer in Government and Politics, University of LeicesterNeil Blain, Professor of Communications, University of StirlingNicola McEwen, Associate Director, ESRC Scottish Centre on Constitutional Change, The University of EdinburghThom Brooks, Professor of Law and Government, Durham UniversityW David McCausland, Senior Lecturer in Economics, University of AberdeenLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/318712014-09-18T19:39:40Z2014-09-18T19:39:40ZScotland Decides ’14: reflections on an incredible campaign<p>Scotland has rejected the opportunity to become an independent nation by leaving the United Kingdom. <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-scotland-29130277">Defeat was conceded</a> by the Yes side as votes were still being counted. </p>
<p>So, an astonishing campaign is over. We asked members of our panel to reflect on an extraordinary political event. </p>
<hr>
<p><strong>Chris Whatley, Professor of Scottish History, University of Dundee</strong></p>
<p>The whole campaign used the language and tone of a general election. That wasn’t helpful for a debate of such significance. It was a straight Yes/No choice on the ballot paper, but there were many shades of grey in between. Questions remain unanswered on both sides, but I sensed less preparedness to discuss detail on the Yes side. This was particularly noticeable in the past few weeks. </p>
<p>There was some nervousness about people speaking out against the Yes campaign. Business people who did so were condemned as being part of a conspiracy hatched by David Cameron and the treasury.</p>
<p>But the Yes campaign was masterly in attracting popular support. Yes Scotland chairman Blair Jenkins and presumably Kevin Pringle, the head of communications, did a wonderful job of ensuring that a few simple messages were constantly repeated, spiced at key points with dubious but highly effective claims such as protecting Scotland from alleged reductions in NHS spending and privatisation. Impressive too was the way they were able to portray as scare stories what seem to have been legitimate challenges to campaign assertions. You have got to hand it to them. </p>
<p>Two people on the other side impressed. Ruth Davidson, leader of the Scottish Conservatives, showed herself to be a gifted, sharp-witted and canny politician and a very able speaker. And more recently it was intriguing to watch a <a href="https://theconversation.com/gordon-browns-intervention-in-no-campaign-has-been-his-political-resurrection-31862">revived Gordon Brown</a> coming back from semi-retirement as the vociferous, savvy politician and commanding speaker that we saw more of before he became chancellor of the exchequer. </p>
<p>On the other hand, the Better Together campaign was by common consent overly negative. Little attempt was made to match the Yes campaign’s vision. Many of us called for a more upbeat vision of the UK union for the 21st century. Brown probably came closest, but Better Together’s campaigning was quite backward-looking, dwelling on Labour’s achievements with the nationalised industries, creating the NHS – illustrated in TV broadcasts by the use of black and white film. </p>
<p>Through all their warnings of the dangers of independence, there was a failure to appreciate the Scots’ proud and contrary nature. </p>
<p>Better Together was unable to counter effectively Yes claims of Westminster’s approval of illegal wars, the bedroom tax, and the alleged one-sidedness of austerity policies. Better Together won despite its campaign. </p>
<p>But we have seen a remarkable level of public engagement. There has been a return to the public meeting in Scotland, and a passion for argument and debate that most people thought had disappeared from the political map forever. I hope this can be maintained. It’s great to see the heart of democratic Scotland is still beating strongly. </p>
<p><strong>Jo Armstrong, Professor of Public Policy, University of Glasgow</strong></p>
<p>At long last we have reached the end of the referendum campaign. We all agree we now have to work together for the benefit of Scotland. To do that will require agreement on the economic and financial facts and challenges facing Scotland in 2016. </p>
<p>Sadly, however, I am left with real worry that no one seems to be trusted to offer the electorate these essential facts. Everybody who has had a view on Scotland’s economy and its public finances seems to have been pigeon-holed as being either for the Yes or No side. To be a grown-up country we need to be able say: “We don’t necessarily like what you are saying but we know you are telling us what we need to hear.” </p>
<p>The politicians haven’t been willing for that to happen. You have to be honest with the public at some point, otherwise, you feed their cynicism when the “facts” emerge after the event. </p>
<p>I have tried not to listen to the politicians at all. I have limited my viewing to the live TV debates as what I did see comprised unedifying shouting matches. It may be fun TV for some, but offers little for those trying to understand the the realistic political choices being offered. </p>
<p>The Yes side had a much stronger campaign, energising many about the importance of politics in ways that probably we never thought possible. Keeping this grassroots interest may not be easy but it must be in the interest of democracy to at least try. </p>
<p>For the No side, it always had a harder task presenting a cohesive vision when it required three different parties to agree their collective offerings. But it should have been prepared for it to be far closer than the polls initially signalled. The Scots voted Yes for devolution in 1979, the SNP won a majority of seats in 2011, and a majority seemed to want devo max on the ballot.</p>
<p><strong>Karly Kehoe, Senior Lecturer in History, Glasgow Caledonian University</strong></p>
<p>It may have lost the vote, but Yes won the campaign hands down. It was positive and gave people the courage to think about the future in a different way. </p>
<p>The Yes side reached out to ethnic minorities. It spoke about “people of Scotland” not “Scottish people”, which is an important distinction. Yes also learned pretty quickly that it needed to re-evaluate how it was approaching women. The No camp didn’t catch on, which was why it aired <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLAewTVmkAU">a disastrous commercial</a>. That was humiliating for them. </p>
<p>The leaders of the big UK parties didn’t seem to get what was happening until the past few weeks. A lot of people advised David Cameron not to come and campaign, but he’s the prime minister. He made a very bad decision not to get more involved earlier. Nick Clegg has been almost absent. As for poor Ed Miliband, he just reminded us of the growing divide among Labour supporters in Scotland. </p>
<p>I liked Jon Snow for Channel 4 News. He’s been more aware of the high level of debate from an earlier stage than most of the London media. The BBC was disappointing. Its coverage felt one-sided and selective. <a href="http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/09/16/face-of-the-day-581/">A big demonstration</a> of Yes supporters in Buchanan Street in Glasgow was hardly mentioned. It felt like the real information was been passed around on social media – the role of which was under-estimated.</p>
<p>In general, it’s wonderful that people have been encouraged to express an opinion. Facebook and Twitter have been lighting up with so many people who never engage in politics, saying what they think – it has been inspiring to see them empowered. It really was the most uplifting campaign in my lifetime. A lot of places around the world would love to have what we have had here. If history teaches us anything, it’s that we are very lucky.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/31871/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Scotland has rejected the opportunity to become an independent nation by leaving the United Kingdom. Defeat was conceded by the Yes side as votes were still being counted. So, an astonishing campaign is…Jo Armstrong, Honorary Professor of Public Policy, Centre for Public Policy for Regions, University of GlasgowChristopher A Whatley, Professor of Scottish History, University of DundeeKarly Kehoe, Senior Lecturer in History, Glasgow Caledonian UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/318612014-09-18T12:27:34Z2014-09-18T12:27:34ZIt’s Better Together for David Cameron’s future – but the same goes for Ed Miliband<p>On Monday, <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11098311/Scottish-referendum-David-Cameron-begs-Scots-not-to-leave-the-UK.html">prime minister David Cameron delivered a big speech</a> in Aberdeen on the Scottish independence referendum. It was a masterly performance.</p>
<p>He spoke of the shared histories of Scotland and England, of the achievements of both countries united for 300 years. He highlighted extra powers to be devolved to the Scottish parliament – agreed with the leaders of the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats – should Scots reject independence at the ballot box.</p>
<p>Cameron spoke plainly and with conviction. He sounded like he believed in what he was saying. Listening to it live, I even wondered if it might go down in history as a landmark, a turning point for the Better Together campaign which, over the last fortnight, has been haemorrhaging support and looking like it was in a state of free-fall.</p>
<p>Perhaps Cameron, drawing on what he imagines to be the moral authority of his office as prime minister, hoped his speech would save the Union.</p>
<h2>Backbench grumbles</h2>
<p>Within minutes of finishing his speech, however, right-wing Tory backbenchers such as <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/16/politicians-scottish-funding-pledge-anger-daily-record">John Redwood and Bernard Jenkin</a> – the latter a long-time critic of the prime minister – were on the phone to journalists, vowing to block further powers and financing to the Scottish parliament unless a new settlement could be reached with England.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/briefing-papers/RP01-108/the-barnett-formula">Barnett formula</a>, which the Treasury has used since the 1970s to allocate additional funding to Scotland, has been singled out for specific criticism. Many MPs representing constituencies south of the border think it is unfair and argue that it insulates Scottish public services from cuts to public spending that those resident elsewhere in the UK have no choice but to wear.</p>
<p>It must have made for a long and lonely journey back to London for Cameron and his staff. Any good they might have expected to come of his speech on the eve of the poll has now been comprehensively undone by several of his party’s own MPs.</p>
<p>All of this has helped stoke one of the strongest arguments for the Yes campaign, which has been quick to point out that the pledge by the leaders of the pro-Union political parties may not have the backing of their parliamentarians at Westminster.</p>
<p>For example, Scotland’s deputy first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, argued that voting No carries little guarantee of constitutional change. This is important, as beefing up powers for the Scottish parliament – a commitment to so-called “<a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/scottish-independence/scottish-independence-what-is-devomax-9733931.html">Devo Max</a>” which the prime minister refused as a third option that could have been put on the ballot paper – has broad support across the Scottish electorate, among voters on both sides of the independence argument.</p>
<p>According to Sturgeon, the agreement between Cameron, Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg and Labour’s Ed Miliband is a promise they can’t claim to be able to keep. They are treating Scottish voters “with contempt”, she said.</p>
<h2>Perfect storm for PM</h2>
<p>Cameron’s problems are compounded further by speculation about his future should Yes win. Sources close to the powerful 1922 committee of backbench Conservative MPs have said Tory backbenchers are being canvassed about whether he should resign if Better Together loses.</p>
<p>With the London mayor Boris Johnson planning to return to parliament as a Tory MP next year, the prime minister’s critics can now imagine their party being headed by a popular new leader in the not-too-distant future. It is difficult to envisage how Cameron could continue as prime minister after agreeing, two years ago, to a referendum that resulted in the break-up of the very country he was elected to lead.</p>
<p>Politically, Cameron is now caught in a perfect storm. Hoping that the No campaign will prevail despite its strategic blunders and self-inflicted wounds may not be enough to save his premiership. A narrow margin could be no more than a Pyrrhic victory. </p>
<p>Labour’s lead in the polls is growing ahead of a UK general election, now less than a year away. Under pressure from Nigel Farage, Cameron has promised to hold a referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU in 2017. At the time, he bargained that this would satisfy Eurosceptic voters that his party risks losing to UKIP. Badly bruised from campaigning, as he might put it, against the break-up of Britain, will Cameron have the appetite to come back and fight another divisive referendum campaign after this week’s vote?</p>
<h2>Labour pains</h2>
<p>The debate over Scottish independence offers him one consolation, though. The Labour Party views Scotland as its territory. With a bigger political stake in the result of Thursday’s referendum than any other Unionist party, its leaders are desperate for Scots to reject independence. But tens of thousands of their own supporters have broken with Labour – that most tribal of political parties – for the first time, saying they would vote Yes. This could destroy Labour’s electoral base north of the border.</p>
<p>Labour needed this like a hole in the head. That’s why the Labour Party have committed significant capital and resources to slugging it out with the nationalists, whose reach now extends deep into their rank and file.</p>
<p>This is also why, if a victory for the Yes campaign renders Cameron’s future as prime minister untenable, it should rightly also raise questions about Miliband’s leadership too.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/31861/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alex Smith receives funding from the Leverhulme Trust and has also been funded by the British Academy, British Council, ESRC and the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research. He is Senior Leverhulme Research Fellow and Assistant Professor of Sociology at the University of Warwick. He is also an Adjunct Assistant Professor of Sociology at the University of Kansas and an Honorary Lecturer in the Institute for Science and Society at the University of Nottingham.</span></em></p>On Monday, prime minister David Cameron delivered a big speech in Aberdeen on the Scottish independence referendum. It was a masterly performance. He spoke of the shared histories of Scotland and England…Alexander Smith, Senior Leverhulme Research Fellow and Assistant Professor in Sociology, University of WarwickLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/316112014-09-17T08:47:01Z2014-09-17T08:47:01ZScotland’s literary types should leave indyref analysis to the experts<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/59170/original/z65my55b-1410869746.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Val McDermid and Alex Massie on The Andrew Marr Show</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29196878">BBC</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>You can hardly miss all the Scottish writers who are engaged in the business of considering the state of an independent Scotland – writers such as Val McDermid on <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04hg7rp">The Andrew Marr Show</a>, or the poet John Burnside in <a href="http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n17/lrb-scotland/reflections-on-the-independence-referendum">the London Review of Books</a>, or Irvine Welsh <a href="http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/irvine-welsh-the-scots-poll-can-give-hope-to-the-left-across-britain-9559111.html">here</a> and <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/jul/19/scottish-referendum-independence-uk-how-writers-vote">there</a>. </p>
<p>I find myself (with a smile on my face) counting up the number of them who aren’t published by English houses or engaged deeply and energetically with a cultural life south of the border. And whatever remnant is left, it is worth asking (again with a smile) how many among them are not – despite all the talk of independence of mind and politics and spirit – deeply desirous for review coverage and a readership that is much larger than can be afforded by a country that might split off on its own with its own Scottish newspapers and possibly even its own BBC?</p>
<p>Because of course writers want more for their work than any kind of localised reception. Doesn’t our choice of publishers and the pieces we write for the national – not only Scottish – papers prove that we do? Yet so many of them are, even so, our literary spokespeople, cheering and “aye"ing and waving the Saltire … when the literary discussion about what’s Scottish and what’s not is surely long over.</p>
<h2>The paradox of Scottish writing</h2>
<p>Indeed, Scottish letters is now in its interesting follow-on phase, with Scottish writers setting their work way beyond the border, embedding it hard in Salmond’s <a href="http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/alex-salmond-london-is-dark-star-of-the-economy-1-3328653">"dark star”</a> of a metropolis and further afield even (albeit as poet and scholar Alan Riach rightly <a href="http://www.listener.co.nz/current-affairs/the-scottish-play-3/">pointed out recently</a>, we are still waiting for there to be established more than the one department of Scottish literature in the entire kingdom that exists at his University of Glasgow). </p>
<p>So why, with the history of Scottish literature thus so established that it might represent anything it pleases, should fiction and poetry now feel it must play a part in the nation’s deliberations?</p>
<p>In some cases you also have to question writers’ motives. One prominent Yes thinker admitted to a colleague recently that the whole issue of an independent Scotland was “great for business”. In the midst of numerous media appearances, this surely adds to the sense that this debate may well indeed profit certain writers. </p>
<h2>Our undeniable shared language</h2>
<p>For those of us whose currency is in words, not economics or fiscal policy, we have to admit to the same language, north and south of the border, and admit that despite what many of those poets and novelists say – when they say, as they say often, that no one cares about Scottish literature – we all, across the British isles, read the same books. The issue of a shared language and culture is just that – shared.</p>
<p>So enough of all the chat from our chattering imaginative classes. I want to read column inches from economists and political scientists and historians who will tell me about all of those things that really will be separate and demarcated and different if we have an independent Scotland. Informed, authoritative content free from spin or politics. </p>
<p>I want there to be pieces in all our papers about the things that will be real. Articles and essays and opeds about money and taxes and policy written not by politicians or writers or poets but by scholars and experts and statisticians – those other kinds of writers. What’s needed now is opinions and thoughts arrived at from fact, not fantasy. We need there to be much ado about … something, after all.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/31611/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kirsty Gunn does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>You can hardly miss all the Scottish writers who are engaged in the business of considering the state of an independent Scotland – writers such as Val McDermid on The Andrew Marr Show, or the poet John…Kirsty Gunn, Professor of Creative Writing, University of DundeeLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/316032014-09-17T05:16:31Z2014-09-17T05:16:31ZAn independent Scotland may strengthen the cultural identity of Great Britain<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/58886/original/hqtjf9hv-1410518582.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Hadrian's Wall hasn't stood in the way of common British culture, and any future boarders wouldn't either</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/photographicpictures/4135056272">davidnewgas/flickr</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>If a majority of Scots vote Yes for independence on September 18, it will transform our sense of what it is to be British. Still, that wouldn’t mean an end to the common culture of the island – it may even enhance it.</p>
<p>Many people north and south of the border have invested in this shared sense of “British-ness” and have understandable anxieties about finding family members (however remote) in a foreign country. But are they right to be concerned? </p>
<p>In the short term, there will be significant disruption. There will be an upending of old certainties, a blow to a sense of solidarity and mental, if not physical, borders raised … and that’s even before the politicians get to work on the carve-up. And yet, we would most likely continue watching the same programmes, read the same books and listen to the same music. British culture won’t stop overnight.</p>
<h2>The right kind of different</h2>
<p>Capitalising on this continuity has been a strength of the SNP’s campaign. In his <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-27118795">St George’s Day speech</a> in Carlisle, Alex Salmond made a bold play in Unionist territory, when he spoke of a social union and emphasised Scotland as part of a family of island nations. Derided in the national papers as a sop to wavers, it is at least an astute reading of the polls: 69% of Scots regard themselves as British in some part and a full 86% of Scots favoured retaining the BBC. Salmond’s pitch, it seems to me, is this: you don’t stop being part of the community just because now you get the chance to make your own decisions.</p>
<p>And why shouldn’t it work? Creative production is all about making something individual and distinctive. When we watch TV crime dramas like <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092379/">Morse</a>, <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118401/?ref_=fn_al_tt_4">Midsomer Murders</a>, <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2294189/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1">The Fall</a> or <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088621/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1">Taggart</a> – the accents do not detract from the viewing experience, they enhance it. An independent Scotland might create new opportunities for experimentation and new channels for broadcasting, why shouldn’t this output be attractive to the rest of the UK?</p>
<p>The danger is that borders create divisions in the mind. For one, it creates space for posturing. If Scotland keeps all the licence fees raised in Scotland, this would reduce scope for genuine collaboration with the BBC. Similarly, the United Kingdom may choose not to legislate enabling the National Lottery to operate in Scotland and keep the economy of scale for itself. There is also scope for chauvinism from broadcasting commissioners along the lines of: “Why do we want to hear stories from that lot that separated.” Scottish output would surely be foreign to the rest of the UK and would compete for commercial slots against the deluge of US content. </p>
<p>Finally there is also a more profound inhibition. Creative professionals rely on “cultural capital” – the tacit knowledge that enables diverse artists to collaborate successfully and for producers to anticipate the interests of their audience. If the two countries move in different directions, will we have the same outlook, sense the same changing trends or find the same jokes funny?</p>
<h2>You can’t act small, if you want to be big</h2>
<p>I believe there is every reason why artists – even those passionate about building a distinctive Scottish identity – will try hard to make a “social union” of kinds work. And it will come down to quality and money.</p>
<p>Creative production is an inherently risky business. When <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117951/?ref_=nv_sr_1">Trainspotting</a> hit the screens in 1996 it was a major hit, but its risky material was also a big gamble for Channel 4, which financed it. It is impossible to know whether a hypothetical Scottish broadcaster might have done the same, though it would have been a bigger slice of the available funding pie and thus a tougher sell. </p>
<p>What can be said with reasonable certainty is that the UK audience would have been the target market, being big enough to make a return on the investment but also similar enough to appreciate it. Indeed, significant changes were made to the film when it crossed the water to America, and though successful, it made less money.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/58878/original/djcszqp4-1410514582.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/58878/original/djcszqp4-1410514582.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=452&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/58878/original/djcszqp4-1410514582.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=452&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/58878/original/djcszqp4-1410514582.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=452&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/58878/original/djcszqp4-1410514582.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=568&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/58878/original/djcszqp4-1410514582.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=568&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/58878/original/djcszqp4-1410514582.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=568&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The UK was just the right size for Trainspotting.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stylorouge_trainspotting_poster_0.jpg">Markblam</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This isn’t a question merely of the size of the market, but the diversity of opportunities available for production and distribution. It’s nearly impossible to imagine that a first-time writer would restrict themselves only to Scottish agents and publishers when the rest of the UK (and Ireland) offers so many more opportunities to beat the odds and get their material in print. </p>
<p>In more collaborative art forms like theatre, television and film, reputational networks are used as proxies for quality control – and screenwriters, directors or actors need to ensure they are visible and in tune with the right circles of people, whether they are in Glasgow, Cardiff, Salford or London. <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0436992/">Doctor Who</a> will not just lose its Scottish (and Welsh!) character and the dynamics of the creative sector will continue to demand the circulation of talent and material between the two islands.</p>
<h2>A social union without a political one?</h2>
<p>The cultural similarities between the nations of Britain mean that there will always be a centrifugal pressure promoting collaboration in the creative sector and the spread of common ideas and material. Scotland will continue to feel like a home from home for the rest of the UK, regardless of the political complexion.</p>
<p>But there is still a political dimension. The cultural relationship between the UK and Ireland is notably commercial and asymmetrical. Irish actors and screen-writers contribute greatly to UK production, but there is an absence of Ireland-based programmes on UK TV. The BBC shows in Ireland, following a partnership with RTE but we do not see the studio cutting to its Dublin correspondent during Comic Relief fundraisers. There is not a broad collaborative relationship – Ireland is, and is regarded as, a foreign country. </p>
<p>Would an independent Scotland be foreign or part of the family? If it is to be the latter then it would require political agreement – not just to provide the framework for institutions to collaborate effectively, but as part of a wider popular consensus that Britain remains a greater cultural community regardless of the political changes. </p>
<p>This would be difficult in the wake of a separation but there would be great gains – Scotland would get better access to funding and a large market for its output, the BBC would retain its economies of scale and the UK a strong Celtic presence to offset its remaining 92% of English dominance. </p>
<p>Could it work? Maybe. But whatever this new arrangement might be, just don’t call it the “United Kingdoms”.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/31603/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Richard Brooks does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>If a majority of Scots vote Yes for independence on September 18, it will transform our sense of what it is to be British. Still, that wouldn’t mean an end to the common culture of the island – it may…Richard Brooks, Research Officer - Business, Environment and Society, Coventry UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/317002014-09-15T15:44:01Z2014-09-15T15:44:01ZScotland’s indyref: history will now be decided in a final battle between hope and fear<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/59028/original/q8s9v2kk-1410778087.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Who is flagging?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-216603754/stock-photo-scotland-and-british-flags-together.html?src=Grw6wwtXsYWkqYbPs6HI6w-1-17">STILLFX</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Just a few short weeks ago, it looked as though it was clear who was going to win the Scottish independence referendum. Although the polls persistently disagreed with each other as to how far it was behind, not a single independently commissioned poll had actually put the Yes side ahead. <a href="http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/08/11/latest-scottish-referendum-poll/">Some indeed</a> put the independence camp as much as 11 points short of the 50%+1 winning post it needed to reach.</p>
<p>It also looked as though shifting the balance of public opinion was difficult. Although the Yes side certainly managed to close the gap during the winter, <a href="http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Slide17.jpg">its progress</a> – from an average poll rating of 39% (after Don’t Knows were removed) to one of 43% – was stately rather than meteoric. And since April there had been no consistent evidence at all of one side or the other beginning to make ground. This was a debate that had been going on for 40 years and touched many people’s profound sense of national identity, so there seemed every good reason to believe that the polls would not move.</p>
<p><strong>Indyref poll of polls</strong></p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/59041/original/rz8v8xvk-1410787854.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/59041/original/rz8v8xvk-1410787854.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/59041/original/rz8v8xvk-1410787854.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=250&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/59041/original/rz8v8xvk-1410787854.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=250&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/59041/original/rz8v8xvk-1410787854.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=250&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/59041/original/rz8v8xvk-1410787854.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=314&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/59041/original/rz8v8xvk-1410787854.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=314&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/59041/original/rz8v8xvk-1410787854.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=314&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">ScotCen</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The turnaround</h2>
<p>But in the second half of August there were the first signs that perhaps the Yes side was making progress. It was nothing dramatic, but more than one poll suggested that support might have edged up a point or two, even though Alex Salmond <a href="https://theconversation.com/scotland-decides-14-darling-draws-first-blood-by-homing-in-on-salmond-weak-spot-30191">was widely thought</a> to have lost the first of the two televised leaders’ debates at the beginning of the month.</p>
<p>Then came <a href="http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/09/02/support-scottish-independence-jumps-47/">the news</a> from YouGov on September 2 (in a poll conducted after the second leaders’ debate <a href="https://theconversation.com/scotland-decides-14-salmond-strikes-back-in-tv-debate-but-will-it-be-a-game-changer-30892">that Salmond clearly won</a>) that Yes was on 47%. Not that this was the first time a poll had put the pro-independence vote that high. Three other companies – ICM, Panelbase, and Survation had all previously done so – in some cases repeatedly. But not YouGov. Only as recently as August 11 <a href="http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/08/11/latest-scottish-referendum-poll/">it had put</a> the Yes vote on 39%, and had never given the Yes side more than a 42% rating. Many concluded that if YouGov thought it was close then it really must be.</p>
<p>It did not end there. On September 6 YouGov announced that it now detected a further advance by Yes and that it <a href="http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/09/06/latest-scottish-referendum-poll-yes-lead/">was now ahead</a> on 51% – the first poll to do so. Then <a href="http://tns-bmrb.co.uk/uploads/files/TNSUK_SOM2014Sep9_DataTables.pdf">three days later</a> another company that also had hitherto been painting a relatively pessimistic picture for the Yes side weighed in with the finding that Yes and No were now tied on 50% each. Curiously neither <a href="http://www.panelbase.com/media/polls/F6134tables09092.pdf">Panelbase</a> nor <a href="http://example.com/">Survation</a> detected any swing at all, still reckoning Yes to be on 47% to 48%. But it certainly appeared that, whatever disagreements they had had up to that point, all the pollsters now agreed that the referendum race was remarkably close.</p>
<h2>The plateau</h2>
<p>But that left a key question. Was the swing to Yes a bandwagon onto which more and more voters would now want to jump given that the prospect of independence finally looked like more than an impossible dream? After all, the apparent negativity of the No campaign did not seem be generating much enthusiasm in the minds of voters. However, the narrowing of the polls also gave the No side a new weapon. As a result of the polls, the financial markets <a href="http://news.sky.com/story/1332042/pound-falls-over-scotland-referendum-fears">got a little jittery</a>, the Scottish registered banks <a href="http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/royal-bank-of-scotland-and-lloyds-to-move-hqs-south-after-yes-vote.1410390981">announced that</a> in the event of independence they would move their registered head office to London, while many a business leader was stimulated to put their head above the parapet and warn of the deleterious consequences that independence would bring. Maybe this reaction – and a <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29142488">much trumpeted visit north</a> by all three Westminster party leaders – would cause some voters to draw back as they peered over the edge of the independence precipice and become more aware of the size of the (alleged) drop.</p>
<p>In truth neither development seems to have happened. True, at the end of the week <a href="http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/09/11/scotland-referendum-no-52-yes-48/">YouGov announced</a> that Yes support had eased back to 48%. But both <a href="http://survation.com/latest-scottish-referendum-poll-shows-8-point-lead-for-no/">Survation</a> and <a href="http://www.panelbase.com/media/polls/F4108w15tables.pdf">Panelbase</a> suggested Yes support remained more or less steady, while ICM put it <a href="http://www.icmresearch.com/media-centre/polls/guardian-scotland-poll">as high as 49%</a> in one poll and <a href="http://www.icmresearch.com/media-centre/polls/sunday-telegraph-independence-referendum-poll">as much as 54%</a> in another (albeit one with rather a small sample size). At 49% the average Yes vote in six polls published between Friday and Sunday was exactly the same as it had been in four polls released in the first half of the week.</p>
<p>Arguably that still meant that last week was a better one for No than for Yes. Stopping the Yes bandwagon while it still appeared to fall short of the 50% mark could be regarded as a damage limitation exercise well done. On the other hand, the apparent failure of the independence warnings from banks and business (not after all the most popular of institutions) to make any significant dent in Yes support means the No side can still hardly afford to rest on its laurels.</p>
<h2>The final few days</h2>
<p>In the final few days we can anticipate yet more from the No side on the alleged risks of independence and above all how it thinks leaving the UK would hit people in their pockets, laced with reminders that if Scotland does vote Yes there will be no turning back, <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11095696/David-Cameron-in-final-patriotic-plea-to-Scots-not-to-quit-the-UK.html">not least from David Cameron</a>. The No side will hope that will generate a late swing that sees it securely home, and this <a href="http://example.com/">would not be the first</a> referendum in which that has appeared to happen. </p>
<p>The Yes side has a counter to that argument. Thursday’s vote, its leaders argue, represents a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to seize the chance of a brighter and better future. If Scotland votes No, they suggest, it will not get a second chance. It is on this psychological battle between hope and fear that the outcome of Thursday’s historic vote would now appear to rest.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/31700/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Curtice does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Just a few short weeks ago, it looked as though it was clear who was going to win the Scottish independence referendum. Although the polls persistently disagreed with each other as to how far it was behind…John Curtice, Professor of Politics, University of Strathclyde Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/316992014-09-15T14:57:12Z2014-09-15T14:57:12ZCampaigns fight to define what Scottish social justice means<p>From the way Ed Miliband’s <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/10931880/Ed-Miliband-Reject-Scottish-independence-to-secure-social-justice-for-all.html">recent turn on the campaign trail</a> in Scotland was reported, you might think that his chosen theme of social justice has just suddenly appeared in the independence debate, just another rhetorical weapon to be deployed as the vote draws near.</p>
<p>Many <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29052861">reports</a> have focused on Miliband’s <a href="http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/ed-miliband-urges-no-vote-for-social-justice-1-3530775">assertion</a> that the best way to guarantee social justice is to vote “No” because “a Labour government is on the way, a Labour government with genuine proposals for social justice.”</p>
<p>The truth is that Miliband is rather late to the party. Not only has the idea of social justice been deployed regularly throughout the referendum campaign, but ever since the advent of devolution in 1999, there have also been repeated claims by numerous politicians from different parties that their agendas and commitments indicate a strong commitment to social justice.</p>
<p>This is all well and good, if perhaps unsurprising – who, after all, would come out against social justice? But the problem is that there’s precious little clarity about what “social justice” actually means in today’s politics – and its taken-for-granted status means it’s rarely subject to any real interrogation.</p>
<h2>Skirting the issue</h2>
<p>Labour, the SNP, the Liberal Democrats and even the Tories all profess to be supporters of “social justice” – the Tories not least through Iain Duncan Smith’s <a href="http://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/">Centre for Social Justice</a>, which purports to be “an independent think-tank, established to put social justice at the heart of British politics.”</p>
<p>This superficial consensus is possible precisely because social justice has become a vacuous buzzword, so endlessly flexible that it’s now of hardly any practical use. Take any recent UK government as well as the Scottish government and you don’t have to look far to find a claim that x or y policy is “social justice-inspired” or “-informed”. </p>
<p>This has largely held true in the referendum campaign. The main constitutional question aside, there is little obvious daylight between the SNP, Labour and perhaps even Tory visions of what social justice would mean for Scotland and how it can be achieved. On all sides the idea seems to be that it will somehow be guaranteed by healthier economic growth, enhanced competitiveness and so on.</p>
<p>This sounds a lot like New Labour’s much-vaunted and widely criticised “<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/feb/10/labour.uk1">Third Way</a>”, with its emphasis on competition and “cohesion”. Indeed, the SNP’s professed vision is almost a Scottish version of Third Way politics, with the same theme of a national collective solidarity built on global competitiveness – and, just as with New Labour, the Yes campaign has hardly explained what social justice would look like at all.</p>
<h2>Nation and territory</h2>
<p>That partly reflects how, in Scottish politics, social justice has generally taken a back seat to another form of justice: territorial or even national justice, justice for “Scotland”, for “the nation”, for the <a href="http://www.nationalismproject.org/what/anderson.htm">imagined national collective</a>. If we achieve territorial justice, so this argument goes, we will by definition find ourselves at our goal of social justice too.</p>
<p>This is not new. Demands for devolution were always demands for territorial justice of some kind; today’s demands for more and more devolution (<a href="https://theconversation.com/scotland-will-not-be-offered-devo-max-after-a-no-vote-heres-why-31500">Devo Max</a>) or for full independence are similarly demands for more territorial justice, increasingly badged and branded as “national”. </p>
<p>The idea of a “<a href="http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-opinion/7664-only-a-yes-vote-can-end-this-democratic-deficit-as-yes-scotland-takes-off-kid-gloves">democratic deficit</a>”: that Scotland has been the loser in decades of UK government policy, plays to this idea. In the hands of the SNP and the Yes campaign, much of the point of independence is to make the nation “equal, fair and kind,” as Alex Salmond <a href="http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Speeches/FM-Statement-26-05-11">expressed it in 2011</a></p>
<p>Miliband’s pitch, on the other hand, is that only under a future Labour government can social justice for Scotland and the rest of the UK be secured. It’s difficult to see how this is any clearer a vision. <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/16/labour-doomed-tory-austerity-george-osborne-ed-balls">Disturbingly to many on the party’s left</a>, Labour’s <a href="http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100281301/now-that-ed-miliband-has-accepted-reality-labour-might-be-ready-for-the-2020-election/">commitment to austerity</a> and what amounts to a free-market worldview has been consolidated over its years in opposition; it has also adopted an <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jun/18/labour-welfare-plan-benefits-means-testing-training-ed-miliband">increasingly punitive</a> tone on welfare.</p>
<p>Regardless of the outcome of the independence vote, greater territorial divergence will continue across the British isles. And in an increasingly volatile climate of territorial politics, constitutional issues and the question of territorial justice may be far easier to address than the more fundamental issues of social justice, understood in its traditional sense: a far-reaching redistributive justice, tackling deep inequalities, vested interests and established power. </p>
<p>The pursuit of those goals has the power to shake the UK and Scottish establishment far more deeply than constitutional issues alone. And however woolly political leaders’ thinking might be, it is this bolder, clearer vision of social justice that has drawn many to the Yes campaign in particular.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/31699/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Gerry Mooney does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>From the way Ed Miliband’s recent turn on the campaign trail in Scotland was reported, you might think that his chosen theme of social justice has just suddenly appeared in the independence debate, just…Gerry Mooney, Senior Lecturer in Social Policy and Criminology, The Open UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/316512014-09-12T16:05:04Z2014-09-12T16:05:04ZHow Scottish referendum could push English politics to the right<p>The difficult-to-predict nature of what a Yes vote in the <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/scotland">Scottish referendum</a> would mean is, in part, what makes the possibility so fascinating, so exciting and so scary. It seems, to a large degree, a leap into the unknown and people’s gut feelings play as much of a role as sober analyses.</p>
<p>But while the vote raises all kinds of questions about the future of Scotland, it also opens up great uncertainty for British political parties more generally. It’s possible, for example, that a Yes vote could push politics in the remainder of the UK to the right.</p>
<h2>2015 and beyond</h2>
<p>It is often noted that the referendum has the potential to affect future elections in the short term because of the <a href="http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/scotland-the-referendum-and-independence/impact-on-the-uk-parliament/">loss of Scottish constituencies after a Yes vote</a>. Labour and the Liberal Democrats would be hit disproportionately hard by this, although the impact of the loss is usually over-exaggerated.</p>
<p>But a less widely discussed result would be the transformation of the 2015 election campaign itself which could swing to the right even before Scottish seats disappear. This is because the contest would no longer boil down to promises about living standards or coalition failures but would also be based on questions about who voters want to negotiate the separation from Scotland.</p>
<p>The parties would then compete over who could be the toughest in squeezing out the best deal for the remaining UK, and England in particular, as independence approaches.</p>
<p>The Conservatives and UKIP may well find it easier to portray Labour and the Liberal Democrats as “soft touches” when it comes to Scotland than to campaign directly on a programme of austerity and cuts. A wellspring of nationalist resentment is already rising among sections of England over the Scotland vote and the right-wing parties seem well positioned to capitalise on feelings of hurt and rejection. A tough line on the financial package offered to Scotland could be sold as part and parcel of continued “fiscal rigour” in what is left of the UK. Even with a No vote, the question of devolving more powers to Scotland could lead to similar arguments.</p>
<h2>Who takes the blame?</h2>
<p>There is of course speculation that the public could blame the Conservatives for a Yes vote. They do head the coalition government and many argue that defeat on September 18 could <a href="https://theconversation.com/cameron-clegg-and-miliband-head-to-scotland-but-who-has-the-most-to-lose-31527">spell doom for David Cameron</a>. He already faces opposition from eurosceptic backbenchers who appear to be looking for an excuse to replace him as leader and presiding over the break up of the Union would seem like the perfect excuse. But in fact, a defeat for the No camp could be worse for Labour.</p>
<p>From the very start, the consensus has been that the Conservatives would only have made things worse if they spent more time campaigning in Scotland. That’s why the No campaign has essentially been led by the Labour Party, in the form of <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-strength-of-character-on-show-in-scottish-independence-debates-could-win-votes-30942">Alistair Darling</a> and now <a href="https://theconversation.com/scotland-decides-14-could-gordon-brown-be-riding-to-rescue-of-the-union-27895">Gordon Brown</a>.</p>
<p>A defeat might therefore actually attach itself more steadfastly to Labour than the Conservatives. Gordon Brown will no longer be just the man who broke the economy, according to right-wing rhetoric, but the man who broke the Union too.</p>
<p>Of course, the left could fight back – asserting its strength as negotiator. Aware of the dangers the Scottish referendum brings, Labour figures are already talking about realigning to appeal more directly to “English identity”. A broadly soft-nationalist approach has worked well for Labour in Wales, but whether or not “One Nation” rhetoric can be rearticulated into an English Labour discourse without distressing as many people as it attracts, is far from clear.</p>
<p>For the Liberals, who are already facing single digit support, things simply look bleak.</p>
<p>Admittedly, this is all to portray an extreme scenario. Plenty could happen over the next few days, or after the vote, that could blow such possibilities out of the water. All three main Westminster parties have agreed a preliminary timetable to devolve more powers to Scotland in the chance of a No vote, and they may even enter into independence negotiations as a cross-party group in the event of a Yes. If the major parties somehow agreed to delay the election until independence became a reality, the issue could even be drained of rancour.</p>
<p>But the British have never done well with consensus politics and it’s easy to imagine the arguments of populists of the right trumping idealistic calls to cross-party consensus. People delighted or worried by promises of a post-election referendum on EU membership, may therefore have added reasons to pay attention to the Scottish referendum.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/31651/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Moon does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The difficult-to-predict nature of what a Yes vote in the Scottish referendum would mean is, in part, what makes the possibility so fascinating, so exciting and so scary. It seems, to a large degree, a…David Moon, Lecturer in Politics, University of BathLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/316472014-09-12T11:33:15Z2014-09-12T11:33:15ZIgnore the scaremongers – banks will not be leaving Scotland if the Yes vote wins<p>Recent media reports might have you thinking that banks will move out of Scotland if there is a Yes vote in the independence referendum. But even a cursory glance at what these banks have actually said makes it clear that they will not be leaving. The <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29151798">Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds TSB</a> have been the focus of reports which – once analysed – pose little, if any, threat to employees, operations or customers.</p>
<h2>Wrong reports</h2>
<p>Reports proliferated that Lloyds TSB will <a href="http://www.cityam.com/1410398811/city-giants-show-hand-vote">move its headquarters to London</a>. This is an odd statement since Lloyds has had its HQ in London for more than 100 years. What Lloyds said was that it was moving its legal entity status to London, that this was merely a legal procedure and “there would be no immediate changes or issues”. </p>
<p>The perpetuation of the idea that the Royal Bank of Scotland would be leaving too led its <a href="http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/rbs-ceo-tells-staff-zero-rbs-job-losses-when-scotland-votes-yes/">CEO Ross McEwan to issue a letter to staff</a> saying, while it would “re-domicile the bank’s holding company”, there was “no intention to move operations or jobs”.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/matheson-bank-move-is-a-vision-of-future-180199n.25304178">Clydesdale Bank</a>, which is part of National Australia Bank, has also confirmed its commitment to Scotland regardless of the outcome of the vote. Chief executive David Thorburn stated there is no threat to jobs, operations or customers: “We have strong roots in Scotland and we remain fully committed to our customers, staff and the communities in which we operate.” For Clydesdale Bank, a change to legal structures has no impact on the “vast majority” of the bank’s staff. Glasgow will continue as the main operational centre. </p>
<p>Other financial giants have also stated there is no issue. The chief executive of Scotland’s biggest asset manager, Aberdeen Asset Manager, this year the new owner of Scottish Widows Partnership, said Scotland would be prosperous regardless of the outcome of the referendum vote.</p>
<h2>We’ve been here before</h2>
<p>This kind of scaremongering is nothing new in the debates over Scottish independence. In 1997, in the run up to the referendum on Scottish devolution, the Scotsman newspaper published the views of the then head of Scottish Widows bank. He said Widows’ business would be damaged by devolution for Scotland and selling financial products to markets elsewhere would become difficult. No such thing happened. Widows successfully continued its operations in Scotland employing some 3,000 people while enjoying, it says, “being one of the most seriously considered brands for life, pensions and investment products”.</p>
<p>The move of a legal domicile involves completing some paperwork and putting up a name plate. Companies are cheap to create and register so it’s not as if banks have gone to any massive expense and put any serious money behind these changes, which are most likely related to tax planning and retaining the Bank of England as lender of last resort in the event of a currency union not being available – something that at least one senior government minister <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/28/independent-scotland-may-keep-pound">has dismissed</a>. </p>
<p>Plus, legal residence is not an indicator of where or to which jurisdiction corporation tax is paid. The location of economic activity is just as important a driver of where corporations pay their tax.</p>
<h2>Size doesn’t matter</h2>
<p>The financial sector is an important sector in the Scottish economy. The idea that this is a handicap, as has been stated by some advocating a No vote, is laughable when we see what other countries have achieved. And these countries even managed to avoid a banking crisis, unlike the UK. The <a href="http://www.zyen.com/research/gfci.html">Global Financial Centres Index</a>, a ranking of the competitiveness of financial centres round the world, places Edinburgh 64th and Glasgow at 74th place. But Luxembourg is in 12th place, while Oslo, Norway is 33rd and Wellington, New Zealand is 39th. </p>
<p>Country size does not affect the success of the financial services industries in these small countries. They are are smaller than Scotland, yet have capitalised on their financial services capabilities in a way that Scotland cannot while long-term fiscal and other policy is set in, and largely for, the giant that is London. </p>
<p>Flexibility to adapt to change is an advantage of smaller countries which have, like Luxembourg, exploited this extensively taking the positive impact on jobs, tax take, revenue and the economy: Luxembourg has the <a href="http://www.quantumbooks.com/business/economy/richest-countries-world-based-gdp-per-capita-2004-2014/">highest GDP wealth per capita in the world</a>. Norway is second, followed by other small countries: Switzerland, Austria, Sweden, and Denmark. We have to ask why financial services companies are happy to operate in successful countries like Luxembourg and Norway yet would, as it is claimed, be “leaving” an independent Scotland.</p>
<p>There’s a lot of noise surrounding this highly political issue. A look beyond superficial reporting on the idea of banks leaving Scotland shows a different view – not least from what the banks say themselves, but also from what other small countries manage to achieve in terms of their financial services. Despite Scotland’s successes to date, there is the possibility of doing even better should Scotland become independent.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/31647/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The views expressed in this article are Rachel Holmes' and not Edinburgh Napier University's. Rachel Holmes is a member of the SNP and Business for Scotland.</span></em></p>Recent media reports might have you thinking that banks will move out of Scotland if there is a Yes vote in the independence referendum. But even a cursory glance at what these banks have actually said…Rachel Holmes, Lecturer in finance, investment management and taxation, Edinburgh Napier UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/312592014-09-12T10:47:13Z2014-09-12T10:47:13ZAn independent Scotland could become a film powerhouse<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/58791/original/ycrxs6dk-1410428681.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The road to light, camera, action.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Bill McKelvie/Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The current independence referendum presents the film-making community in Scotland with an unprecedented opportunity to develop a film culture befitting a modern nation state. They should seize it without hesitation.</p>
<p>That appears to be the dominant position emerging from a series of well-attended industry events exploring the potential impact of independence on filmmaking in Scotland. </p>
<p>It is often stated that Scotland within the UK gets the <a href="http://bettertogether.net/blog/entry/new-report-evidence-we-benefit-from-the-best-of-both-worlds">best of both worlds</a>. But a cursory review of the current state of the country’s film production casts significant doubt over the truth of that statement.</p>
<p>Take, for starters, the disconnection between the outstanding quality of the existing and emerging talent base and the paucity of opportunities available. Recent successes include Paul Wright’s celebrated debut feature <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/oct/06/for-those-in-peril-review">For Those in Peril</a>, Jonathan Glazer’s adaptation of Michael Faber’s novel, <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1441395/">Under the Skin</a>, and <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2481198/">Sunshine on Leith</a>, a musical based on The Proclaimers’ songs. Yet, despite these achievements, the industry in Scotland stands on shaky financial foundations.</p>
<p>Since the development of the Scottish Production Fund in 1982, film policy has become increasingly devolved. Prior to this, decisions relating to state funding of fictional feature production were made in London. This shift has led to notable successes, but infrastructural support lags significantly behind other countries: Robin MacPherson noted recently that approximately <a href="http://robinmacpherson.wordpress.com/2014/05/18/independent-screens/">£1 per year person is spent on film in Scotland compared to £2 in Ireland and £10 in Denmark</a>.</p>
<p>The infrastructural lack is perhaps best exemplified by the absence of studio facilities. Although the Scottish government has established a Film Studio Delivery Group and pledged £1m for such a facility, it has been the subject of discussion for at least 70 years. Meanwhile, <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/jul/06/british-film-new-golden-age">studios south of the border are struggling to meet demand</a>.</p>
<p>But it isn’t just infrastructure that’s lacking. The imbalance filters down to education, too. Creative Scotland’s <a href="http://www.creativescotland.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/25245/Review_of_the_Film_Sector_in_Scotland_-_Jan_2014.pdf">Review of the Film Sector in Scotland</a> notes that only 10% of Scottish children receive film education. The figure is 25% in England, 80% in the Republic of Ireland and 81% in Denmark.</p>
<p>It would, of course, be implausible to place all of the problems of film making in Scotland at the door of the Union. But independence creates an opportunity for fresh ideas to emerge. For instance, at a recent discussion on the future of the screen industries, producer Eddie Dick proposed that the 20% VAT on cinema tickets should be set aside for a film production fund, following the example of a similar fund in Sweden. This proposal has been taken up by the newly-formed lobby group <a href="http://www.scotsman.com/what-s-on/film/producers-bid-to-revive-scotland-s-film-industry-1-3448609">Independent Producers Scotland Ltd</a>. The company calculates that this would create a production fund of <a href="http://www.scotsman.com/what-s-on/film/cinema-ticket-tax-calls-to-help-fund-scots-films-1-3490104">£23.1m</a>. This is a potentially transformative sum which would place film funding in Scotland on a par with Denmark. It is just this that is the kind of imaginative idea that seems possible in Holyrood but unlikely to be implemented in Westminster.</p>
<p>In 2012, a major public debate over arts policy in Scotland (coined the <a href="http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/bloggers/state-of-the-arts-creative-scotland-still-hogs-the-headlines.2012108516">Creative Scotland stooshie</a>), artists were successful in forcing the Scottish government to state that arts and culture have intrinsic, not simply economic value. The debate exemplified that the closer you are to those in power the greater the chance of influencing policy.</p>
<p>These are exciting times for politics in Scotland. And so they are too for the arts and culture. But nothing is guaranteed. Independence will create the best opportunity to weave together the disparate parts of film culture in Scotland – from film education to film production – and to forge a new integrated film policy which could transform filmmaking in Scotland.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/31259/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Archibald delivered the Forsyth Hardy Lecture at the 2014 Edinburgh International Film Festival on ‘Should Scotland have an independent film industry?’</span></em></p>The current independence referendum presents the film-making community in Scotland with an unprecedented opportunity to develop a film culture befitting a modern nation state. They should seize it without…David Archibald, Lecturer in Theatre, Film and Television Studies, University of GlasgowLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/315862014-09-11T10:47:44Z2014-09-11T10:47:44Z‘Cybernats’ chase down No camp online as Scotland’s #indyref approaches<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/58789/original/55v852wz-1410428174.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Is the Yes camp having all the fun online?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">http://frannleach.com/daily-docs-65/</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>As Alex Salmond and Alistair Darling went head-to-head for the last time on Monday August 25, both sides were already pre-empting the following day’s media coverage of post-match analyses, and talk of “game changers”.</p>
<p>But just 24 hours later, something happened which arguably generated more buzz than anything said during the TV debate: a little piece about a glaikit (not very bright) Scottish housewife dithering over the vote that was masterminded by the Saatchis and aired as a campaign broadcast for Better Together at 10pm on STV.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/OLAewTVmkAU?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Only a relatively small proportion of the Scottish audience will have watched it go out, but like most things #indyref it grew its legs on social media. Overnight the hashtag <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/patronisingbtlady">#PatronisingBTlady</a> was trending on Twitter and the ever-creative and prolific online community of yes supporters – dubbed the “cybernats” – were circulating witty and colourful variations on the original. Even some of the no voters joined in the fun. And like an uncool older relative belatedly trying to get in on the joke, the mainstream media picked up the story the next day.</p>
<h2>More relevance in social media</h2>
<p>Within the research and academic community, the battle rages over how much mainstream media continues to set the social media agenda – with <a href="https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Mainstream%20media%20and%20the%20distribution%20of%20news%20in%20the%20age%20of%20social%20discovery.pdf">claims that</a> news from outlets such as the BBC and the Daily Mail are the “lifeblood” of Twitter and Facebook. Certainly the huge <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-28929057">spikes during the TV debates</a> give some weight to that argument.</p>
<p>But for many social media users the publicity around the #PatronisingBTlady simply confirmed what they already knew: that the real debate about the independence referendum, one of the liveliest and most passionate in generations, is taking place online. The public have tired of the way that Darling and Salmond – and mainstream media and politics more generally – continue to concentrate on a very narrow range of largely economic issues. </p>
<p>The complaint heard on the doorstep which the BT campaign broadcast at least tried to represent – is that the electorate want clarity on the questions that really matter to them, not political point scoring and soundbites.</p>
<p>To counter this, the electorate have gone online, directly questioning respected experts and launching their own discussions where every possible scenario, as well as every hope, dream and fear gets an airing. What independence might mean for the country’s arts and culture, for example, is rarely touched on by politicians and journalists, yet the online community have argued endlessly over questions such as what might happen to the BBC, and whether EastEnders will still be on.</p>
<h2>Digital voices</h2>
<p>With an average of <a href="http://www.portland-communications.com/2014/08/indyref-scottish-independence-debate-on-twitter/">almost 37,000 tweets</a> circulating every day, perhaps what is most inspiring is how digital Scots have given voice to their future vision for their own country – in or out of the union – and raised fundamental questions about the values we share, what constitutes a fair society and the success or otherwise of the UK as a project. </p>
<p>Pro-independence blogs like <a href="http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/">Bella Caledonia</a> have seen their readership soar doing just this, while the <a href="http://nationalcollective.com/about-us/">National Collective</a>, a yes group representing Scotland’s artistic community, held their own “reasons day” to which thousands responded.</p>
<p>And this is perhaps where the “cybernats” have the edge. It’s not so easy to let the imagination and passions run wild about maintaining the status quo – even if there are strong and sensible arguments for doing so. As a result, many of those supporting a no vote have fallen back on arguments about the <a href="http://policyscotland.gla.ac.uk/indyref-twitter-analysis-talked-policy-areas/">economic risks</a> and, in particular, uncertainty over the currency in close parallel with the official website and mainstream media.</p>
<p>Research by Policy Scotland shows the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-25642809">Yes campaign has been less centralised</a>, more active and spontaneous. Faced with a <a href="https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/john-robertson/bbc-bias-and-scots-referendum-new-report">relatively hostile media</a>, it has effectively exposed their inaccuracies and bias. Crucially this has also cemented the idea of the independence push as a battle against the establishment – which in the event of a yes vote might leave institutions such as the BBC not just licking their wounds but questioning their legitimacy.</p>
<p>At times though the debate has got ugly – the self-selection of friends and followers at the core of social media can encourage a particular kind of tribalism. Strong Yes and No supporters find it easy to immerse themselves in a media environment where they never hear anything other than an endorsement of their own views. </p>
<p>So when a fairly moderate statement by, say, JK Rowling is released, she is roundly dismissed by the cyber community as a “traitor”. The all-too familiar sexist and homophobic trolling is sadly part of the debate too, with both deputy first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, and Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson <a href="http://www.rgu.ac.uk/news/when-twitter-turns-nasty-female-politicians-trolled-during-indyref-debate">receiving threats</a> of violent sexual assault.</p>
<p>But for good or ill, passion has ultimately reigned on both sides. As to winners and losers, as one astute Twitter user observed of a TV debate, the verdict will be: “Both sides won hands down.”</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/31586/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Catherine Happer does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>As Alex Salmond and Alistair Darling went head-to-head for the last time on Monday August 25, both sides were already pre-empting the following day’s media coverage of post-match analyses, and talk of…Catherine Happer, Research Associate, Glasgow University Media Group, University of GlasgowLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/315452014-09-11T10:40:13Z2014-09-11T10:40:13ZHard Evidence: what do SMEs think about #indyref in Scotland?<p>We have heard a lot about the implications of independence for Scottish business. According to the latest government <a href="http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0043/00437279.pdf">statistics</a> Scotland has 340,840 micro, small and medium-sized businesses, representing 99.3% of its private sector enterprises. So the outcome of the vote will clearly have a significant impact on the Scottish economy.</p>
<p>But what do the people who run the 4.8m SMEs across the rest of the UK think about an independent Scotland? The decision rests with the Scottish people but, as the commentator <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/05/britain-scotland-independence">Jonathan Freedland</a> has pointed out: “Just because it’s their choice doesn’t mean the rest of us are not allowed a reaction.”</p>
<h2>The view from Scotland</h2>
<p>Opinion remains divided within Scotland’s business community. In May, a large <a href="http://www.scottishchambers.org.uk/userfiles/files/SCC%2520Constitutional%2520Survey.pdf">membership survey</a> by the Scottish Chambers of Commerce yielded interesting findings on the main perceived risks and opportunities of independence. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/58719/original/w2khmq9j-1410367867.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/58719/original/w2khmq9j-1410367867.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/58719/original/w2khmq9j-1410367867.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=254&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/58719/original/w2khmq9j-1410367867.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=254&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/58719/original/w2khmq9j-1410367867.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=254&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/58719/original/w2khmq9j-1410367867.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=319&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/58719/original/w2khmq9j-1410367867.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=319&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/58719/original/w2khmq9j-1410367867.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=319&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Responses to the question: What is the main business opportunity for your business associated with independence?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>While more than half (53%) of respondents identified a way their business could benefit, 47% selected “no opportunities”, a sentiment that the authors describe as “particularly acute” amongst those trading mainly with the UK. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, the most commonly-cited risk was uncertainty (38%), yet almost a quarter (23%) did not identify any risks for their businesses.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/58720/original/2knz9vx9-1410368185.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/58720/original/2knz9vx9-1410368185.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/58720/original/2knz9vx9-1410368185.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=254&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/58720/original/2knz9vx9-1410368185.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=254&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/58720/original/2knz9vx9-1410368185.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=254&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/58720/original/2knz9vx9-1410368185.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=319&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/58720/original/2knz9vx9-1410368185.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=319&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/58720/original/2knz9vx9-1410368185.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=319&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Responses to the question: What is the main business risk for your business associated with independence?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Argument has raged over the consequences of a Yes vote for particular industries within Scotland. On August 27 2014, 130 chief executives, board members and entrepreneurs penned a widely-reported <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/237805123/Letter-to-the-Scotsman-Wed-27-Sep-2014">open letter</a> to The Scotsman in support of the Union. The next day, <a href="http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/200-businesses-sign-up-to-say-yes-to-independence.25171171">another letter</a> appeared in The Herald, in which 200 similarly distinguished business leaders made the case for independence. However, much less attention has been paid to the implications for businesses in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.</p>
<h2>Contrasting UK-wide views</h2>
<p>Some have argued that independence would benefit businesses and communities in the rest of the UK. For example, Professor Nathu Puri, a co-signatory of the pro-independence letter, <a href="http://www.yesscotland.net/news/top-business-leader-says-yes-vote-will-be-good-scotland-and-rest-uk">states</a>: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Scottish independence will be a major step forward towards that goal [of rebalancing the British economy] in the interests of not just Scots but business and jobs in Wales, Northern Ireland, the Midlands and the north of England. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Others remain more sceptical. A recent report by the UK Parliament’s cross-party <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmbis/504/504.pdf">Business Innovation and Skills Committee</a> raises concerns around trade, EU membership, tax and regulation. It asserts: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>The benefits to business of a single UK market should not be underestimated. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>The <a href="http://www.cbi.org.uk/media/2631703/cbi_analysis_-_scottish_government_s_independence_white_paper.pdf">CBI’s</a> response to the Scottish Government’s 2013 White Paper on Independence also highlights the, “highly interconnected” nature of the UK’s constituent nations. It concludes that breaking up this internal market would increase costs for businesses and consumers, citing as examples the need to create new cross-border arrangements in relation to issues like tax, employment and company pensions.</p>
<h2>SME data</h2>
<p>So what do SME owners and managers really think? We researched their views on the implications of independence as part of a forthcoming <a href="http://www.open.ac.uk/quarterly-survey">Quarterly Survey of Small Business in Britain</a> study. During July and August we collected a total of 225 responses from our online panel, a modest but broadly representative sample in terms of firm size, sector and region. </p>
<p>Rather than seeking personal opinions on the prospect of independence, we opted for a more concrete, business-specific question as a better indicator of the practical importance of this issue. More than half (58%) thought that Scotland’s membership of the UK made little difference to their own business. </p>
<p>This result suggests lower levels of concern than those reported in a <a href="http://www.britishchambers.org.uk/press-office/press-releases/bcc-publishes-leading-business-survey-on-scottish-independence-debate.html">BCC</a> membership survey (published in May), where 85% of respondents stated that Scotland should remain within the UK. However, it does leave a sizeable minority (35%) who see Scotland’s membership of the UK as having a significant – either “good” or “very good” – impact on their business.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/58721/original/c8ncyyrb-1410368760.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/58721/original/c8ncyyrb-1410368760.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/58721/original/c8ncyyrb-1410368760.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=254&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/58721/original/c8ncyyrb-1410368760.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=254&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/58721/original/c8ncyyrb-1410368760.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=254&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/58721/original/c8ncyyrb-1410368760.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=319&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/58721/original/c8ncyyrb-1410368760.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=319&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/58721/original/c8ncyyrb-1410368760.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=319&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Responses to the question: “Do you think that Scotland’s membership of the United Kingdom is, on balance, a good thing for your business?”</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Underlying reasons</h2>
<p>In order to probe for underlying reasons, we asked respondents for practical examples to show how Scotland’s membership of the UK had an impact on their own businesses. Comments from rUK firms who see Scotland’s membership as a “good thing” highlight three main concerns. </p>
<p>One is potential barriers to cross-border trade: “We trade to a significant degree in Scotland. Anything that makes this harder would potentially be negative.” Another business-owner commented: “I would hate to add any complexity to my Scottish sales. I sell a lot to Scottish buyers … Scotland leaving worries me a lot. I think it will be a disaster.”</p>
<p>There is also the concern that transaction costs will be higher as a result of an independent Scotland: “The prospect of having to treat deliveries to Scotland as exports horrifies me, especially if Scotland does not continue as a member of the EU.”</p>
<p>And many just have a general sense of uncertainty about how an independent Scotland will affect their business: “We need stability. Any large upheavals will produce uncertainty and interrupt workflow. Splitting up the UK will be a nightmare and we will be poorer for the split.”</p>
<p>Another said: “[Our] pensions are held in a group scheme headquartered in Scotland. Were Scotland to break away the fund would have to be split, with the possibility that economics of scale fall for both sections. It would be lose-lose.”</p>
<p>Scottish business owners in this sample also referred to cross-border trade and currency: “Most supplies come from outside Scotland. Currency union and lack of trade restrictions are absolutely necessary.”</p>
<p>Scotland’s decision to be independent or part of the UK is an important issue to many small and medium-sized businesses within Scotland and in the rest of the UK. The data suggests that concerns may not be as high as some believe or have reported. But, with more radical devolution waiting in the wings, these firms are likely to face some interesting challenges, whatever the outcome of the referendum.</p>
<hr>
<p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/hard-evidence">Hard Evidence</a> is a series of articles in which academics use research evidence to tackle the trickiest public policy questions.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/31545/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Richard K. Blundel is editor of the Quarterly Survey of Small Business in Britain, which has previously received external funding. He does not work for, consult to or own shares in any company or organisation that would benefit from this article.</span></em></p>We have heard a lot about the implications of independence for Scottish business. According to the latest government statistics Scotland has 340,840 micro, small and medium-sized businesses, representing…Richard K. Blundel, Senior Lecturer in Enterprise Development, Department of Public Leadership and Social Enterprise, The Open UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/315422014-09-11T05:14:06Z2014-09-11T05:14:06ZScotland Decides ’14: if No wins, what happens next?<p>Will the heady blend of <a href="http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/cameron-and-miliband-to-miss-pmqs-to-join-indyref-campaign.1410261253">Westminster love-bombing</a>, <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/11086667/Pensions-giant-Standard-Life-threatens-transfer-to-England-if-Scotland-votes-for-independence.html">ominous corporate warnings</a> and <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11084414/Saltire-flies-above-Downing-Street.html">a saltire flag over Downing Street</a> be enough to persuade the Scots to come back into the fold? We have already looked at what will happen <a href="https://theconversation.com/scotland-decides-14-if-yes-wins-what-happens-next-31254">if they vote Yes</a>. Now we we ask our panel what would will happen if they opt for No. </p>
<hr>
<p><strong>Karly Kehoe, senior lecturer in history, Glasgow Caledonian University</strong></p>
<p>If Scotland votes No, there will definitely be another referendum. You can’t have half the population saying they want independence and expect them to disappear. The timing would depend on how Westminster responds to the result. Scotland must be given a genuine form of devo max. If it just brushes it aside and makes token gestures, the second referendum would come a lot sooner. </p>
<p>Next year’s general election will be crucial here. If it produces a coalition government between the Tories and UKIP, that would be devastating for Scotland. But even if Westminster does do a good job of reaching out, which I would optimistically say they would, I still think a second referendum is highly likely. </p>
<p>I suspect the aftermath won’t be as divisive as some people think. Scotland will heal itself. Most people I have spoken to have been very understanding and respectful of other people’s positions. There would be significant disappointment among Yes voters, of course, but they may well be more politicised as a result. The debate has been very empowering for young people. It might even produce the next political leader. </p>
<p>Should Salmond step down after a No victory? Of course he shouldn’t. I am not an SNP supporter, but he would have still managed to mobilise a Yes campaign that has done what nobody thought was possible. The person who should resign, even after a No vote, is Scottish Labour leader Johann Lamont. She has been completely ineffective. </p>
<p>I feel sorry for Alistair Darling. He’s been so unsuccessful. Sometimes I listen to him and think, do you even believe what you are saying? The problem with Darling and Gordon Brown is that you can’t have people fronting the No campaign who are intimately tied to the legacy of being <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/">voted out of office in the UK</a> and <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/election2011/overview/html/scotland.stm">losing badly to the SNP in Scotland</a>. They needed to find young blood. If they limp over the line, they certainly shouldn’t feel victorious. There wouldn’t be much reason to celebrate. People needed to hear something new and they didn’t. </p>
<p><strong>Neil Blain, Director of Media Research Institute, University of Stirling</strong></p>
<p>It’s not all love from the south in the last couple of days. Simon Heffer <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2750071/Why-don-t-tell-Scots-shove-In-personal-view-Mail-disagrees-SIMON-HEFFER-says-fear-English-people-think.html">is at it again</a> in the Daily Mail (“300 years of subsidy” has become his catchphrase), telling the Scots to get lost. If the Mail is all too predictable, you could find Alex Thomson on Channel 4 News explaining the union of 1707: “Scotland was skint and England was flush.” </p>
<p>So we’ve been subsidy junkies since the start of the 18th century, and if the comment threads on the Mail and the Telegraph are correct, we’ll soon “come crawling back” after we vote Yes. The Guardian’s Michael White (only slightly) more subtly <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/08/salmond-scotland-independence-first-minister">praises</a> the first minister for success with his “grand illusion”.</p>
<p>Underlying Scotland’s brief moment in the sun is the harsher reality that these brief peaks of attention will disappear the moment a No vote has registered and Westminster and the London media can get back to business. The <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/sep/08/prince-william-duchess-cambridge-expecting-second-child">instant displacement</a> of Salmond by Will and Kate showed the true yearnings of London news editors. Even thoughtful commentators like Will Hutton <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/06/will-hutton-10-days-to-save-the-union-scottish-independence">propose a federal Britain</a> as the solution to Scottish needs. If ever there was a way of kicking the Scottish constitution into the long grass, that must be it. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, are the deathbed conversions of the three Westminster party leaders to devo-medium-strength is froth that the next UK election will have quickly blown off? No future Westminster government will be bound by fevered promises made in a panic in September 2014. </p>
<p>So if we vote No next week, it will likely be back to business – by about October, probably. The news cohorts will withdraw; the London media will note how our subsidy addiction overcame our nerve; Scotland as a news item will largely disappear. Current claims that “things will never be the same again” may be borne out too, though not in dreams of a federal Britain, but at best a take-it-or-leave-it Holyrood fix (devo-whatever, as long as it leaves real power at Westminster). This will come with financial penalties, probably also for Scotland’s role at Westminster, thus keeping the English regions quiet, enabling the nation to get on with important matters like finishing Crossrail, developing Thameslink, and pushing through that pesky third runway at Heathrow. </p>
<p><strong>Trevor Salmon, Emeritus Professor of Politics and International Relations, University of Aberdeen</strong></p>
<p>I think Salmond is the kind that bears grudges. My fear is that the losing speeches are gracious but nothing else will be. Are there going to be recriminations? You hear about businessmen getting phone calls warning they’ll get no more business from the Scottish government if they support Yes. If there’s any of that, you despair. </p>
<p>At what point in his own mind does Salmond say, “I have been leader of the SNP for so long, I have failed. It’s time to go.” Maybe he’s not the sort of person to do that. Or he may decide to wait to see what happens at the 2016 election. But he would have to face the fact that some people voted No because of him. </p>
<p>Darling should get the credit if he wins. But he would have a moral obligation to run for the Scottish parliament. That would be the best way to ensure that everything he promised the Scots comes true. Part of the No side’s problem is that the SNP have the best performers in Holyrood by far. If senior Labour people resigned from Westminster and stood for the Scottish parliament, they would be saying it is significant to them. Labour also has to reconnect with its grass roots by recognising that people are worried about things like welfare reform and the future of the NHS. Salmond has spoken to traditional Labour values. Labour must understand these count for people. </p>
<p>The UK would change. People in Yorkshire, Tyneside and Cornwall are likely to ask for some kind of devolution. They are going to want something similar to the Barnett formula the system for transferring funding to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland). And the country is going to have to answer the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/jan/17/what-is-west-lothian-question">West Lothian question</a> about Scottish MPs voting on English business. It’s not going to be a sudden revolution. But these thing are now on the agenda. </p>
<p>Salmond <a href="http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/alex-salmond-vows-keep-fighting-3187352">has said</a> a referendum is once in a generation. That should mean you can’t go back in a year or two. But if No wins, there will be another referendum. I have been predicting ten years, but if the vote is very close, it could even be five years. A fuse has been lit. </p>
<p><em>To read other editions of Scotland Decides ‘14, click <a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/scotland-decides-14">here</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/31542/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Will the heady blend of Westminster love-bombing, ominous corporate warnings and a saltire flag over Downing Street be enough to persuade the Scots to come back into the fold? We have already looked at…Karly Kehoe, Senior Lecturer in History, Glasgow Caledonian UniversityNeil Blain, Professor of Communications, University of StirlingTrevor Salmon, Emeritus Professor of Politics and International Relations, University of AberdeenLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/315272014-09-11T05:13:14Z2014-09-11T05:13:14ZCameron, Clegg and Miliband head to Scotland – but who has the most to lose?<p>Whichever way the Scottish independence vote swings, the result will have a significant impact on England and Wales. But as David Cameron, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg rush to drop a <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11081025/Scottish-independence-campaign-live.html">“love bomb”</a> on Scottish voters in a last ditch attempt to stave off a Yes vote, they are putting their own futures on the line. But one of them has more to lose than the others.</p>
<p>For many reasons, the situation is bad for all of three party leaders. They’ve suspended normal business at Westminster and are taking a big gamble by knocking on the doors of referendum voters. Being rebuffed after declaring undying love is a blow to the reputation of any suitor and indeed, none of these leaders would come out of it looking good in the eyes of English and Welsh voters. That might not be a problem for them in the lead-up to the general election if they all suffered equally but that is unlikely to happen. David Cameron would most likely be the hardest hit by a Yes vote.</p>
<p>This is true for two reasons, one relates to voters in general and the other to the internal politics of the Conservative party.</p>
<p>As prime minister, Cameron is more visible than Clegg and Miliband. He speaks for the UK as a whole – at least for now – so losing part of the country could be a landmark moment for him. And recent history tells us that it can be very difficult for an incumbent to recover from a crisis. </p>
<p>We can get some idea of what this might mean from Gordon Brown’s experience after he took over from Tony Blair in July of 2007.</p>
<p>In September 2007, 40% of voters thought Gordon Brown was the best choice for prime minister among the party leaders. He was two months into his tenure and far outstripped David Cameron in <a href="http://bes2009-10.org">public opinion polls</a>. Just 19% of voters backed the Conservative leader. But within just six months, the figures had nearly reversed themselves. In March 2008, just 24% supported Brown while 33% backed Cameron.</p>
<p>Two things happened over those six months that appear to have sealed Brown’s fate. First, the run on the <a href="http://www.economist.com/node/9832838">Northern Rock bank</a> sent a clear signal to voters about the approaching recession, then he made a botch of dampening speculation about the chances of him <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/gordon-brown/9589561/Gordon-Brown-and-the-2007-election-why-it-never-happened.html">calling an early election</a>. Brown allowed rumours to swirl for so that when he finally confirmed that he would not bring polling day forward, it appeared to be a reaction to his drastically declining popularity.</p>
<p>Nothing that David Cameron did as leader of the opposition during this six-month period explains his rising popularity. It was the prime minister stumbling badly in the eyes of the public that turned opinion. A similar thing could happen to Cameron if Scotland votes Yes.</p>
<p>The internal politics of the Conservative party are relevant too, since many Tory backbenchers have not forgiven Cameron for failing to win an outright majority in 2010. The loss of Scotland would, after all, be a blow of historical proportions to what was once called the Conservative and Unionist Party.</p>
<p>Eurosceptics in particular will be emboldened and we may well see them demanding a promise that Britain will leave the EU if it fails to win concessions in renegotiations with Brussels. There might even be a move to oust him altogether – this would have to take place at the party conference if a new leader is to be in place in time for the election campaign.</p>
<p>The loss of Scotland would of course be a blow to Miliband and Clegg too, largely for electoral reasons. Labour has 41 seats in Scotland and the Liberal Democrats have 11 – all of which would ultimately be lost. But these losses will only be felt after Scottish independence is complete and won’t change the number of seats contested in the May election.</p>
<p>All three leaders have faced derision for failing to act sooner and dropping everything at the last minute to canvass on the streets of Scottish towns. But David Cameron faces the most immediate problem: if the vote is Yes, then Scotland would be lost on his watch.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/31527/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Paul Whiteley receives funding from the ESRC</span></em></p>Whichever way the Scottish independence vote swings, the result will have a significant impact on England and Wales. But as David Cameron, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg rush to drop a “love bomb” on Scottish…Paul Whiteley, Professor, Department of Government, University of EssexLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/314962014-09-11T05:12:40Z2014-09-11T05:12:40ZThe independence referendum in Scotland: a beginner’s guide<h2>What is Scotland voting for?</h2>
<p>Voters in Scotland will go to the polls on September 18 and answer the question: “Should Scotland be an independent country?” The result will be determined by a simple majority vote, and is expected to be announced on the morning of September 19.</p>
<hr>
<h2>Who can vote?</h2>
<p>The 4.1m <a href="http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/the_independence_referendum/guide_to_voting.aspx">people eligible to vote</a> include UK citizens, EU citizens and qualifying Commonwealth citizens currently resident in Scotland. Scots living outside of Scotland (with the exception of those in the military or diplomatic service) are not eligible to cast their vote. </p>
<p>The voting franchise has been <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25626419">extended to 16 and 17-year-olds</a>.</p>
<hr>
<h2>What do the polls say?</h2>
<p>In a “poll of polls” conducted in <a href="http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2013/11/the-poll-position-a-quick-guide/">autumn 2013</a>, the average support for Yes was at 32%, with no at 49%. When accounting for undecided voters, this translated into to 39% for Yes, and 61% for No. </p>
<p>But in the most <a href="http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2014/09/poll-of-polls-5-september-updated/">recent poll of polls</a>, the difference has narrowed to four percentage points, with 48% polling Yes and 52% polling No. Early polls indicated a <a href="http://www.futureukandscotland.ac.uk/papers/minding-gap-women%E2%80%99s-views-independence-2014">gender gap</a>, with women more likely to be in favour of the union, but this gap appears to have <a href="http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2014/09/06/the-scottish-independence-gender-gap-in-full/">closed in recent weeks</a>.</p>
<hr>
<h2>Why the sudden excitement?</h2>
<p>For most of the campaign, polls suggested a strong lead for the No campaign – but that now appears to have narrowed significantly. </p>
<p>A poll published on September 7 by <a href="http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/09/07/scotland-yes-blitzkrieg-wipes-out-no-lead/">YouGov</a> indicated that the Yes campaign had in fact pulled slightly ahead in the polls. A survey by pollster <a href="http://www.tns-bmrb.co.uk/news/scottish-opinion-monitor-swing-to-yes-makes-referendum-vote-too-close-to-ca-1">TNS BMRB</a>, published late the next day, showed that both sides were polling at 41% for those definitely going to vote, with the rest of the electorate undecided.</p>
<p>As far as the polls go, the referendum is now considered <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/09/scottish-yes-vote-momentum-independence-polls">too close to call</a>.</p>
<hr>
<h2>Who is who?</h2>
<p>The official campaigns are <a href="http://www.yesscotland.net/">Yes Scotland</a> (with party support from the Scottish National Party and the Scottish Greens) and the unionist <a href="http://bettertogether.net/">Better Together</a> (supported by Labour, the Liberal Democrats, and the Conservatives). </p>
<p>First minister of Scotland <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-28835771">Alex Salmond</a> has been the primary face of the Yes campaign on the trail and <a href="https://theconversation.com/salmond-vs-darling-debate-the-perceived-winner-is-not-what-matters-30940">in debates</a>, while <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/scottish-independence/scottish-independence-bruised-better-together-leader-alistair-darling-stays-on-the-stump-9719284.html">Alistair Darling</a>, Labour MP and former chancellor of the exchequer, has headed up Better Together (No to independence).</p>
<hr>
<h2>What are the key issues?</h2>
<p>The campaign has largely revolved around the economic implications of independence, with much being made of <a href="http://www.futureukandscotland.ac.uk/blog/financial-reflections-union-dividends-and-independence-bonuses">independence bonuses and union dividends</a> – the questions of whether Scots would be financially better of within or outside the union. </p>
<p>Other major issues are provisions for <a href="https://theconversation.com/is-scottish-independence-bad-for-your-health-30009">health</a>, social services and <a href="http://www.napf.co.uk/PolicyandResearch/DocumentLibrary/0353-Scottish-independence-the-implications-for-pensions.aspx">pensions</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/scotland-decides-14-all-about-the-money-as-currency-debate-rages-on-24937">currency</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-to-strengthen-scottish-defence-after-independence-cooperate-with-london-23106">defence</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/scotland-decides-14-who-is-right-on-eu-membership-26144">EU membership</a>.</p>
<hr>
<h2>Would independent Scotland be in the EU?</h2>
<p>There isn’t a precedent for the division of an EU member state, and it’s unclear whether an independent Scotland would need to reapply or would automatically be granted entry. </p>
<p>The pro-independence campaign has maintained that Scotland would automatically be an EU member; <a href="http://theconversation.com/scotland-decides-14-who-is-right-on-eu-membership-26144">experts differ on how this accession process might occur</a>. Questions remain over whether Scotland would receive the same terms as the United Kingdom, which include a budgetary rebate and opt-outs from the eurozone and <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/borders-and-visas/schengen/index_en.htm">Schengen</a> – which gives freedom to cross internal borders in Europe.</p>
<hr>
<h2>What currency would it use?</h2>
<p>The <a href="http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2013/11/9348/7">Scottish government</a> has pledged to negotiate a currency union with the rest of the United Kingdom in the event of a Yes vote, allowing Scotland to continue to use the pound sterling – even though, in a statement last year, <a href="http://theconversation.com/no-to-currency-union-but-that-might-not-change-many-scottish-minds-about-independence-23209">chancellor George Osborne</a> ruled this out. </p>
<p>However, there are questions over whether this is a negotiating tactic. <a href="http://www.futureukandscotland.ac.uk/papers/scotland%E2%80%99s-currency-options">Currency options for Scotland</a> should a currency union prove unworkable include adopting sterling without a currency union (a “<a href="http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/currency-union-would-have-dollarisation-effect-1-3402979">dollarisation</a>” model), using an independent Scottish currency, or adopting the euro. Essentially, <a href="https://theconversation.com/salmonds-plan-b-currency-alternatives-clarify-nothing-30984">it is not yet clear exactly what would happen</a>.</p>
<hr>
<h2>How would it defend itself?</h2>
<p>The proposals for a Scottish defence force put forth in the <a href="http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2013/11/9348/10">Scottish government’s white paper</a> suggest a smaller, more modest force focused on maritime defence and peace-keeping, with a particular focus on the High North. The white paper proposes a defence budget of £2.5 billion (a reduction from the £3.3 billion Scotland contributes to the UK defence budget) and 15,000 regular and 5,000 reserve personnel. </p>
<p>Following independence, the <a href="https://theconversation.com/scotland-decides-14-could-salmond-shift-on-retaining-nuclear-weapons-28752">withdrawal of the UK’s nuclear submarine programme</a> from Scotland would be negotiated. The Scottish government also foresees membership of NATO, though an independent Scotland would apparently <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-28853275">have to apply</a>. </p>
<p>The UK government has critiqued these proposals in <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/scotland-analysis-defence">its own analysis</a>, arguing that Scotland is more secure within the United Kingdom and questioning whether an independent Scotland would be welcomed by NATO.</p>
<hr>
<h2>What would Yes vote mean internationally?</h2>
<p>The rest of the world has been relatively quiet on the topic of independence, watching instead of intervening. For his part, <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-27713327">US president Barack Obama</a> has said that he hopes that the United Kingdom will remain a “strong, robust, united and effective partner”, although noted that it would be up to the Scottish people. </p>
<p>As the vote nears, there are more signs of <a href="http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/2/9/110256/World/International/NATO-partners-raised-concerns-about-Scottish-indep.aspx">international concern</a> about the outcome, not least in financial markets, with the pound <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-09-07/pound-in-peril-as-opinion-poll-puts-scottish-separatists-ahead.html">falling after publication of the YouGov poll which indicated a close race</a>. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, substate nationalist parties such as those in <a href="http://www.futureukandscotland.ac.uk/blog/state-debate-lessons-quebec">Quebec</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/belgium-wont-split-after-sundays-elections-but-it-could-take-a-step-in-that-direction-26938">Flanders</a>, <a href="http://theconversation.com/catalonia-deadlocked-as-nationalists-plan-new-offensive-25101">Catalonia</a>, and the <a href="http://theconversation.com/basque-separatists-inch-along-watching-catalonia-closely-26115">Basque Country</a> are all expected to be watching especially closely.</p>
<hr>
<h2>What happens next if Scots vote No?</h2>
<p>All three unionist parties have promised more powers for the Scottish parliament should voters reject independence at the polls. However, each party has proposed <a href="http://www.futureukandscotland.ac.uk/blog/devolution-commission-reflections-comparisons-and-contrasts">different models</a>. There has been a recent flurry of activity on this front, with <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/08/fgordon-brown-leads-scottish-labour-drive-rescue-no-campaign">Gordon Brown</a> introducing a timetable for a bill which would transfer significant powers to Scotland following a no vote. His proposals were backed by prime minister David Cameron, deputy prime minister Nick Clegg, and Labour leader Ed Miliband. </p>
<p>In the event of a no vote, the Scottish National Party would remain in office in Edinburgh until the next Scottish parliamentary elections in May 2016.</p>
<hr>
<h2>What happens next if Scots votes Yes?</h2>
<p>Negotiations over the creation of an independent Scotland would likely begin immediately after a Yes vote, with a <a href="http://devolutionmatters.wordpress.com/2014/09/09/negotiations-after-a-scottish-referendum-yes-vote/">wide range of issues</a> to be covered: currency, the division of assets and liabilities, borders, the movement of people, EU membership, the removal of Trident, and the distribution of pensions and welfare agreements. </p>
<p>To manage such a process, Salmond has called for a <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-28965416">Team Scotland negotiating team</a>, which would include leaders who campaigned against independence. </p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2013/02/transition-paper05022013">timetable for transition</a> envisioned by the Scottish government includes 18 months of negotiation, with a declaration of independence taking place on March 24, 2016. The election of the new Scottish parliament would then take place that May. Until formal independence, the laws currently in place will remain so. </p>
<p>The actual progress of the negotiations and the outcome of the 2015 UK general election, of course, might have a major impact on this timeline. Some issues may be negotiated immediately with interim agreements put into place for the rest.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/31496/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Coree Brown is a programme researcher for The Future of the UK and Scotland.</span></em></p>What is Scotland voting for? Voters in Scotland will go to the polls on September 18 and answer the question: “Should Scotland be an independent country?” The result will be determined by a simple majority…Coree Brown Swan, PhD Candidate in Politics, The University of EdinburghLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/315312014-09-10T12:19:17Z2014-09-10T12:19:17ZHow Rupert Murdoch is sticking his oar into Scotland’s independence referendum<p>On September 6, the evening before the Sunday Times published the <a href="http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/09/07/scotland-yes-blitzkrieg-wipes-out-no-lead/">YouGov opinion poll on Scottish independence</a> in which the Yes campaign was reported to be on 51% against the “No” camp on 49%, Rupert Murdoch tweeted: “London Times will shock Britain and more with reliable new poll on Scottish independence. If right on 18th vote everything up for grabs.” He later followed this up with: “Scottish independence means huge black eye for whole political establishment, especially Cameron and Milliband (sic).”</p>
<p>These were the clearest indications yet that the executive chairman of News Corp appears to be positioning himself firmly in Alex Salmond’s pro-independence Yes camp – his most recent tweets indicate a “wrestling” with the issues, to be sure, but let’s look at why Murdoch’s support for Yes is entirely predictable.</p>
<h2>Best pals</h2>
<p>Murdoch and Salmond, the Scottish first minister have always had a friendly relationship. In February 2012 Murdoch tweeted: “Alex Salmond clearly most brilliant politician in UK. Gave Cameron back of his hand this week. Loved by Scots.”</p>
<p>In notable contrast to the aloofness which characterises how Westminster MP’s now deal with Murdoch and News UK, Salmond is still (even in this post-Leveson and phone-hacking environment) ready to admit to affection for the media magnate – who had a Scottish grandfather. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/comment/articles/2014-05/28/alastair-campbell-alex-salmond-interview/viewall">Asked by Alistair Campbell in April’s GQ</a> if he liked Murdoch, he stated: “I do. He is a remarkable man. What is wrong with this relationship? Why shouldn’t politicians engage with people in the media?”</p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/58685/original/mgyk9p3z-1410347323.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/58685/original/mgyk9p3z-1410347323.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/58685/original/mgyk9p3z-1410347323.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=633&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/58685/original/mgyk9p3z-1410347323.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=633&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/58685/original/mgyk9p3z-1410347323.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=633&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/58685/original/mgyk9p3z-1410347323.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=796&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/58685/original/mgyk9p3z-1410347323.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=796&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/58685/original/mgyk9p3z-1410347323.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=796&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Sun shines on Salmond.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Planet Politics</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Salmond certainly does engage. In the launch edition of the Scottish Sun on Sunday he wrote: “I’m delighted to see the new edition of The Scottish Sun hit the streets… The independence referendum in autumn 2014 will be chance for the whole country to have their say. The Scottish Sun will play an important part in the great debate on our future.”</p>
<p>This was fair enough – as in 2011 the daily Scottish Sun, which is one of the country’s biggest selling and most influential papers, urged voters to re-elect Salmond, telling its readers: “Play it Again, Salm: Alex Salmond cares passionately about Scotland. He is ambitious for this country and has the drive, the personality and the policies to lead us through these troubled times.”</p>
<h2>The business of friendship</h2>
<p>But does this close relationship go beyond reciprocal compliments? We know from the Leveson Inquiry and subsequent admissions that Salmond planned to lobby the UK government on Murdoch’s behalf in News Corporation’s bid to take over BskyB completely in 2010. </p>
<p>We know, too, that Murdoch and Salmond <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-17210014">met in Edinburgh 2012</a>, in a meeting described by the first minister’s office as “very constructive”. Under discussion was: “News Corporation’s substantial economic footprint in Scotland … and the potential for further investment within the country.”</p>
<p>Rumour had it at the time, in speculation fuelled by former Murdoch acolytes Andrew Neil and Kelvin Mackenzie, that Murdoch was <a href="http://www.thedrum.com/news/2012/03/06/rupert-murdoch-dangling-carrot-salmond-move-bskyb-hq-scotland">prepared to move BskyB to Scotland in the event of independence</a>. Mackenzie wrote in the Mail: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>A little bird tells me Mr Murdoch suggested a referendum winner would be an announcement that corporation tax for firms coming to an independent Scotland would be cut from the UK norm of 26% to between 10-15%. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Tittle tattle maybe, but there is no denying that the proposal to cut corporation tax in an independent Scotland to 3p below the UK rate would prove attractive to any multinational company.</p>
<p>In another of his pro-Salmond tweets Murdoch cited the BBC as the most “powerful media totally biased for no”.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/58687/original/s3bjjwf6-1410347633.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/58687/original/s3bjjwf6-1410347633.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/58687/original/s3bjjwf6-1410347633.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=210&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/58687/original/s3bjjwf6-1410347633.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=210&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/58687/original/s3bjjwf6-1410347633.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=210&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/58687/original/s3bjjwf6-1410347633.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=264&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/58687/original/s3bjjwf6-1410347633.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=264&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/58687/original/s3bjjwf6-1410347633.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=264&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>As a decades-long critic of the BBC, Murdoch has a commercial interest in a change in the broadcasting system of the UK. And it is a fact that an independent Scotland would have radical and far-reaching consequences for the corporation. The loss of income resulting from the disappearance of revenue from Scottish licence fees would impact in variety of ways. </p>
<p>A former director-general of the BBC, John Birt, <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/19/scottish-independence-bbc-scotland-income">has pointed out</a>, in the space of just a few years, if Scotland became independent, the BBC as we know it would lose significant funding. Fundamental changes to BBC services would be unavoidable.</p>
<h2>Revenge is Tweet</h2>
<p>Tacit support for the “Yes” campaign also allows Murdoch the opportunity to gain some sort of revenge on the political elite of Westminster which has so cruelly turned against him. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/58688/original/bmg247dw-1410347952.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/58688/original/bmg247dw-1410347952.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/58688/original/bmg247dw-1410347952.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=177&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/58688/original/bmg247dw-1410347952.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=177&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/58688/original/bmg247dw-1410347952.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=177&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/58688/original/bmg247dw-1410347952.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=222&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/58688/original/bmg247dw-1410347952.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=222&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/58688/original/bmg247dw-1410347952.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=222&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>He has dismissively referred to the “southern” parties and world-wide disillusion with political leaders and old establishments, which would seem to sum up his personal attitude to the UK government in general. It is important to remember how far the influence of News International has waned – from the heady days of 2011 and when monopoly control of Sky was literally days away and Andy Coulson was ensconced in Number 10 to the phone hacking trial and Murdoch’s own farcical appearance before the Parliament select committee. No wonder he would wish to see Cameron and Miliband with “black eyes”.</p>
<p>But is his influence over News UK Scottish titles real or imagined? Andrew Neil tweeted on Sunday, September 7: “Strong indications from Murdoch and Salmond sources that Scottish Sun will back independence, despite protestations of London Sun Editor.” It is worth pointing out that the London editor – the widely respected David Dinsmore – is a Scot and a former editor of the Scottish Sun.</p>
<p>It may yet be that the paper does not take an explicit editorial line. But as <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2014/sep/10/rupert-murdoch-scottish-independence">Roy Greenslade points out</a>, the newspaper has already shown the signs of supporting Yes. Last Thursday one of its most popular columnists, Bill Leckie, declared his backing and the No campaign has been mocked. The No campaign is flagging, it states, the raising of the Scottish flag over Downing Street: “Another Pole Disaster” a “boob” in the charm offensive. We’ll find out in the days ahead, exactly how the Sun plays this one. But Mr Murdoch is clearly plugged in. Watch this space.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/31531/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Jewell does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>On September 6, the evening before the Sunday Times published the YouGov opinion poll on Scottish independence in which the Yes campaign was reported to be on 51% against the “No” camp on 49%, Rupert Murdoch…John Jewell, Director of Undergraduate Studies, School of Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies, Cardiff UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/315002014-09-10T10:27:12Z2014-09-10T10:27:12ZScotland will not be offered devo max after a No vote – here’s why<p>In the current debate on independence, journalists and commentators regularly claim that “devo max” is the favoured option of a majority of the Scottish people, and some express an expectation that this will be the result of inter-party discussions between unionists that have been <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11082930/Gordon-Brown-unveils-cross-party-deal-on-Scottish-powers.html">promised by Gordon Brown</a> in the event of a No vote. In recent days, there <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/09/scotland-promised-devo-supermax-london-spooked">has even been</a> talk of “devo supermax”. This is strange. Very few people actually know what devo max means. </p>
<p>It is in fact an independent model which was proposed by the Scottish National Party (SNP) as a fallback position for independence. None of the three main unionist parties supported devo max in their <a href="http://www.scottishconservatives.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Strathclyde_Commission_14.pdf">proposals</a> over the past year <a href="http://s.bsd.net/scotlab/default/page/file/26e0eb4bdf4c775d14_ram6b81bk.pdf">for</a> transferring <a href="https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/no2nuisancecalls/pages/228/attachments/original/1409241095/Federalism_-_the_best_future_for_Scotland_web.pdf?1409241095">more powers</a> to Scotland if it stays in the union. </p>
<p>The Scottish government sees devo max as a means of acquiring fiscal powers to promote economic growth through a more competitive tax regime. It set this out in a <a href="http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2009/02/23092643/0">2009 paper</a>, proposing a model which they call full fiscal autonomy. This would make the Scottish parliament responsible for raising, collecting and administering the vast majority of revenues in Scotland – and the vast majority of spending. The Scottish government would make a payment to the UK government for common services such as defence and foreign affairs. The 2009 report <a href="http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2009/02/23092643/6">described this</a> as “the maximum form of tax and policy devolution short of independence”.</p>
<h2>Why devo max is unworkable</h2>
<p>The problem is that this is an entirely theoretical model which is incompatible with the British system. This is why it was rejected by the <a href="http://www.commissiononscottishdevolution.org.uk/">Calman commission</a>, the body set up to look at the options for extending devolution in Scotland. Any additional powers for the Scottish parliament need to be compatible with a fiscal framework that is based on a highly integrated economy with common economic and fiscal policies; a free market in goods and services, capital, labour and knowledge; and similar standards of welfare benefits and public services funded by pooled taxes.</p>
<p>The current UK treasury model is expenditure-based. Budget allocations are made to UK departments and devolved administrations to meet their objectives. This avoids wasteful tax competition, and funding is transferred automatically to assist areas that raise lower levels of taxes than the average.</p>
<p>By contrast, the notion of full fiscal autonomy is tax-based. It means there is no money redistributed from the centre to help boost areas in need. But in particular, the SNP’s obsession with corporation-tax cuts would clearly be unacceptable to the rest of the UK. Calman rejected it as disruptive to the UK economy and to the management of government finances. The same would obviously go for handing over control of VAT or North Sea revenues (which are counted separately from the rest of corporation tax revenues). </p>
<p>The scope for tax variation in the UK is limited. Nor is there any evidence to support the SNP view that this would provide growth. The Scottish government’s <a href="http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/919/0120770.pdf">own assessment</a> of the impact of its flagship policy of cutting corporation tax is based on economic modelling – an imprecise science. In fact this produces a growth of only 1.4% over 20 years, or 0.07% per annum. This is trivial. It is reckless to argue for this change.</p>
<h2>Bye, bye, Barnett</h2>
<p>Moving the UK to full fiscal autonomy would end the <a href="http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/barnett-formula-will-be-replaced-says-mcconnell-1-3519167">Barnett formula</a>, the system for transferring spending from London to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It consistently delivers higher spending to all three devolved administrations. The devo max model would result in real deficits that each administration would have to fund.</p>
<p>What would be beneficial would be some form of Calman plus, with greater control over income tax for accountability purposes and for example through devolution of housing benefit which would permit more efficient housing policy (this would enable the UK to keep the Barnett formula). This is essentially what the three main unionist parties are offering. Scotland has a very high level of welfare spending, which will grow, and therefore benefits from the pooling of resources. </p>
<p>It’s not possible for the unionists to go much further than their existing positions on increased powers without undermining the whole expenditure-based system. What is possible is to reach a swift agreement on new Calman-plus powers that can be implemented shortly after Scotland decides to stay in the union.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/31500/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>As an adviser to Scottish Labour leader Johann Lamont, Arthur was appointed chair of the party's Welfare Commission, which is putting together a series of proposals for the future of Scotland.</span></em></p>In the current debate on independence, journalists and commentators regularly claim that “devo max” is the favoured option of a majority of the Scottish people, and some express an expectation that this…Arthur Midwinter, Associate Professor, Institute of Public Sector Accounting Research, The University of EdinburghLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/314422014-09-08T16:08:47Z2014-09-08T16:08:47ZExplainer: why didn’t the UK notice that Scotland might be about to bail out?<p>With just 10 days until a vote in Scotland on independence from the UK, London dramatically exploded into action. This week we can expect to see a package of measures being offered by the chancellor, George Osborne, including <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/scottish-independence/scottish-independence-george-osborne-offers-scotland-fresh-powers-but-says-no-chance-of-sharing-the-pound-9716931.html">greater powers</a> for the Scottish parliament over spending and tax.</p>
<p>But why did it take the Westminster establishment so long to sit up and notice? The truth is, it has been aware of what has been going on in Scotland for some time, but felt the need to become more vocal now, because the campaign against independence suddenly appears less likely to secure a win in the September 18 referendum.</p>
<p>The narrative had been that an expected, respectable win for No would be followed by promising of further powers. But that has been disrupted by the failure of the No side to present a convincing message to undecided voters.</p>
<p>In a <a href="https://theconversation.com/scotland-decides-14-salmond-strikes-back-in-tv-debate-but-will-it-be-a-game-changer-30892">second television debate</a> with Alistair Darling, leader of the Better Together (No to independence) campaign, Scotland’s first minister, Alex Salmond, went into full attack mode for Yes. The Yes campaign has been pushing hard ever since, with street canvassing and social media engagement. So hard, in fact, that the latest <a href="http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/09/06/latest-scottish-referendum-poll-yes-lead/">poll</a> has it in front. That prompted panic in the coalition and a wobble in the pound. </p>
<p>So the possibility of Yes winning is now clear for all to see, and that represents a sea-change moment.</p>
<p>Polls are a snapshot indicator of opinion, and shouldn’t be taken as a prediction. But the symbolism of this one has sent a much-needed jolt of fear up the spine of the No campaign. Those supporting the continuation of the UK have enjoyed very favourable polls over recent months, thereby encouraging Westminster to relax more about the outcome. This mistake has led to it being seemingly caught off guard when Yes caught up and performed a rhetorical wedgie. </p>
<p>The promise of more powers from London essentially only reaffirms prior commitments, and accusations of panic from the Yes side were thrown back. Although the No campaign denied it, the flurry of activity does indeed give credence to the appearance of panic. </p>
<p>The markets have also started to consider the possibility of a Yes victory. Their response has not been positive, with the pound suffering against the dollar. Rumblings at the Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds banking groups have led Unionists to suggest this could be a small flavour of things to come.</p>
<p>The central issue over the unionist campaign has been its negative rhetoric. But a realistic, logical assessment of a given situation is sometimes preferable to the more positive, comforting visions offered by dreamers. The No campaign is striving to highlight the dangers because they are very real. The Yes side argues that all will be well but they have not fully addressed issues such as what will happen with the EU, NATO, currency, social welfare, banking sector or the NHS.</p>
<p>In Westminster, David Cameron is desperate not to be the prime minister who presides over the break-up of the United Kingdom, but his decision not to include <a href="http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/referendum/4216-no-devo-max-says-cameron-even-if-scots-vote-for-it">deeper devolved government for the Scots</a> on the ballot means he is exposed to blame if they vote Yes.</p>
<p>Such blame could cost him the Conservative leadership, prompting a crisis in the run-up to a general election. This is, of course, small fry compared to the other possible fall-outs that Westminster would want to avoid.</p>
<p>Losing Scotland would throw open debates about national identity in the rest of the UK. Cornwall and Yorkshire are likely to become more belligerent in showcasing their difference for a start. But Northern Ireland would become the most likely territory facing uncertainty in the immediate future. Should Scotland vote Yes then the consequences are likely to unfold over the coming years. To some then, a Yes outcome will be the gift that keeps on giving. However, a No result does not mean the status quo prevails. Rather the closeness of the result will necessitate a rebalancing of power throughout the United Kingdom. </p>
<p>So, why has Westminster suddenly become more vocal? Because for the first time a the possibility of an independent Scotland has been afforded the credibility of a poll lead. It has been enough to put the fear of God into Westminster.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/31442/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrew S. Roe-Crines does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>With just 10 days until a vote in Scotland on independence from the UK, London dramatically exploded into action. This week we can expect to see a package of measures being offered by the chancellor, George…Andrew S. Roe-Crines, Research Fellow in Rhetoric and British Politics, University of LeedsLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/309842014-08-27T13:49:30Z2014-08-27T13:49:30ZSalmond’s plan B currency alternatives clarify nothing<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/57530/original/2dcv3t7w-1409138570.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Salmond's detractors still think his campaign has the currency blues</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-56991382/stock-photo-culzean-castle-banknote-a-five-pound-banknote-from-scotland-in-the-united-kingdom-showing-the.html?src=j6EtABdJ1yUWwEmdTxQqLg-1-28">BasPhoto</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In the second TV debate between Alistair Darling and Alex Salmond, the currency issue was again to the fore. This was almost inevitable after it was the Scottish first minister’s undoing in the <a href="https://theconversation.com/scotland-decides-14-darling-draws-first-blood-by-homing-in-on-salmond-weak-spot-30191">previous debate</a>. </p>
<p>But this time it didn’t give Darling the same advantage. Salmond was forced to reveal plan B – the currency alternative if Scotland were not able to enter into a sterling union with the rest of the UK. It turned out to be “three plan Bs”. Two of which looked suspiciously like plan A. Here is what Salmond is now saying:</p>
<p>Plan A: Entering a currency union with the rest of the UK – of course the preferred option. Putting aside whether the rest of the UK would agree, this essentially means handing over control of interest-rate setting to the Bank of England. And inevitably some degree of fiscal coordination, too. This is a strange idea of independence. We have seen recently in the eurozone what kind of tensions can arise from these sort of arrangements.</p>
<p>Plan B1: A Scottish currency with a fixed parity rate to another currency – meaning a Scottish central bank would intervene in the markets to ensure the Scottish currency’s value stayed at this fixed rate (or within a band between a lower and higher level). If this peg were to the pound, then this is effectively plan A. If it were to the euro, such as the Danes do with their krone, then why is Salmond so dismissive of the accession rules that since the late 1990s have compelled all new entrants to the EU to become eurozone members?</p>
<p>Plan B2: Use another currency. <a href="https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/issues/issues24/">The Panama solution</a>. But which one? If it is the pound, Scotland would have even less input into decisions over interest rates or fiscal policy than under plan A. The most inferior of all the options.</p>
<p>Plan B3: A Scottish currency, but free-floating rather than at a fixed rate. This would be the closest to the Norwegian case. This is probably the best option for a petro-economy like Scotland, as it allows the currency to adjust in response to balance-of-payments imbalances caused by fluctuating oil revenues. Norway has undoubtedly benefited from retaining the krone in this way. Of course in Scotland’s case, it would introduce transaction costs with its main trading partner, England, which would not go down well with the business community.</p>
<h2>Health and welfare</h2>
<p>Two other issues also were of note during the debate. The issue of privatisation of the health service stoked up emotions. Contrary to Salmond’s sentiments, spending on the NHS has been growing since the 1980s and is now around 8% of GDP. </p>
<p>The argument that voting yes would protect the NHS from privatisation is an attractive one to tug at the nation’s heart strings but doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. All spending, whether direct to NHS institutions or purchasing from private providers, comes from the same budget. This is likely to increase even in England due to a rise in the overall population and a rise in the aged population. </p>
<p>Salmond’s link between austerity and child poverty is spurious. Health spending is rising. There are already devolved powers over education; further devolved powers over income tax have been promised by both leading UK parties. These are levers that can impact on household income and life chances. In any case, it is by no means certain that Scotland could afford to be less austere than the rest of the UK, even if it was independent. Independence would not free us from having to make very difficult priority decisions in relation to spending.</p>
<h2>The jobs conundrum</h2>
<p>In the debate, Darling looked visibly unsettled when challenged to name new devolved powers that would be job-creating. He stammered through but revealed little. Perhaps politicians should not try to create jobs, but rather create conditions which foster the creation of jobs: an educated workforce, low interest rates, investment in research and development, a taxation system that rewards effort and investment. Again Norway might be a model here in terms of education, research policy, and of course, the oil fund (which is invested outside Norway).</p>
<p>The second debate certainly revealed more than the first, once you see through the more fiery rhetoric. Salmond’s performance was much more confident and statesmanlike. But on the all-important issue of currency, the three plan Bs have probably muddied the waters rather than clarified the arguments.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/30984/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>W David McCausland does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>In the second TV debate between Alistair Darling and Alex Salmond, the currency issue was again to the fore. This was almost inevitable after it was the Scottish first minister’s undoing in the previous…W David McCausland, Senior Lecturer in Economics, University of AberdeenLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.