PINSTRIPE
LAST September we had once-in-a-generation referendum to decide whether we wanted to stay within the UK and we concluded, by a good margin, that we did. Less than a year on Nicola Sturgeon appears to be contemplating having a second referendum.
I find it insulting that the SNP care so little for the people of Scotland’s clear choice on the specific question of independence that we may be forced to have a retest. What has changed? The SNP point to the result of the General Election but that was only the predictable consequence of a combination of the Yes voters sticking with the SNP, the No vote being splintered amongst several parties and a collapsing Labour vote. The result of the General Election does not, in any way, justify a new referendum. We have had a referendum on independence and after a long and thorough debate the answer was No.
Actually, some things really have changed - but not the ones the Nationalists point to.
First, the future revenues which we can reasonably expect from the oil industry have collapsed. Not just gone down a bit but gone through the floor. People who knew what they were talking about pointed this out before the referendum but were told by the Nationalists that they were doom-mongers and wrong. In fact they were absolutely right. This blows a huge hole in the Nationalists spending plans. We can’t have the extra schools and hospitals they promised us, instead we are more likely to have to cut our expenditure. Don’t think that we can just raise taxes and have a proper socialist republic - only around 15,000 people pay the top rate of income tax and a significant number would leave if tax went up. Higher tax rates would mean a lower tax take.
Second, we have seen what happens when a proud small nation, united behind its prime minister, says “No” to austerity - it gets crushed. The Greek people have suffered immensely over the last few years - a depression rather than a recession. Their’s is only the most extreme example, others such as Portugal and Ireland have suffered too. Cuts in salaries and pensions, severe curtailment of social protection programmes, abandonment of much needed infrastructure projects have all featured.
The SNP may actually believe that we could not face the same fate. They claim that the Pound sterling is as much Scotland’s as England’s - but in fact this is only true if we stay in the Union. The Pound Sterling was not Scotland’s before the Union and if you leave the club you leave its benefits behind unless the remaining club members allow you to continue to enjoy them - which, having kicked sand in their faces, unsurprisingly they don’t want to. The weasel words extend further, the SNP say we will negotiate the terms of our membership “from within the EU”. This is technically correct in that there is a period before we leave the British Union during which we would talk to the EU - but it is irrelevant. What matters is that if we leave the British Union we are a new applicant to the EU. No doubt we would be generally welcomed but one rule is clear - if you join the EU you have to agree to take the Euro. What this means is that instead of pooling our economic sovereignty with the other three parts of the UK, where we have real influence as well as historic and institutional ties, we submerge ourselves in the EU. That need not be a disaster but we must recognise what would happen if we stepped out of line. Berlin and Brussels would tell us what to do and we would have to do it.
A second referendum in the near future is morally dishonest and a step down the road to a poorer Scotland for us all. The proper thing for the SNP to do is accept the verdict of the referendum we have already had and use honest endeavours to make the new relationship with the rest of the UK, which is being shaped to give Scotland significant autonomy, a success.
Pinstripe is a senior member of Scotland's financial services community
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel