Scottish Independence: Reframing the Debate

With the referendum on whether Scotland should become independent just over a year away, the debate and discussion around this important event has intensified. As a Scot born in Paisley, brought up in England and studying at the University of Edinburgh, this issue fascinates me intensely. However, thus far the proposition and opposition to the motion have both left much to be desired, defending their views with weak arguments. In this article, I will argue that the issue of Scottish independence should be a matter of ideological concerns about one’s own identity, not a pragmatic choice. Following on from this, I shall contend that the culture and values the United Kingdom possesses is one of the richest, and consequently is not worth sacrificing unless Scottish independence will produce a more desirable national narrative.

The Yes vote campaign (led by Alex Salmond) and the No campaign (represented by Alistair Darling) has so far wrangled over many contentious issues. Whether it is the economy, trident, membership of the EU and NATO, immigration, tuition fees or guests on Question Time, the two groups have engaged in a brutal war of words. Whilst the majority of the polls suggest Scotland will not go independent, the clashes up to this point have suggested the No campaign is poorly organised, enabling the Yes vote to aggressively propose their position, making slight increases. Considering a week is a long time in politics, the landscape of public views will look very different in a year, so both sides will need to fight hard to ensure victory in this historic vote.

Let us summarise the two factions’ overall views. On the one hand, the Yes campaign argues they can bring prosperity to Scotland. By leaving the economically downtrodden Coalition governed UK, they can have lower tax rates, embrace European trade and improve public services, whilst still retaining the pound and the North Sea Oil. Furthermore, they will dispense of sin’s the British government has imposed upon the Scottish people, such as Trident. Scotland will become in all but name a utopia.

On the other hand, the No campaign are running a very pessimistic polemic against independence. If Scotland becomes independent, they face an uncertain future. As the endless cycle of boom and bust has demonstrated, inability to have secure prospects often leads to doom. By leaving the economically powerful and stable UK, Scotland risks losing crucial capital and investment, losing its membership of the EU and NATO, whilst losing monetary control and being forced to share out North Sea Oil and British debts. Moreover, as a tiny nation, Scotland will lose whatever influence it had in global affairs. Scotland will be transformed into a dump.

Both of these positions seek to argue that Scotland should choose independence or remain within the union for pragmatic reasons. They claim what they advocate provides more benefits to the people of Scotland in contrast to their counterparts. Scotland will be a better place to live if you vote Yes/No according to the respective campaigns. You should vote depending on what you find more convincing: the optimistic outlook of SNP and her allies, or the pessimism of the Better Together campaign. The consequences of independence should drive your decision in the 2014 referendum, and nothing more.

This approach to such a monumental choice is faced with an insurmountable problem. As with all consequentialist theories of action (such as Mill’s Utilitarianism), they contend that an action is right if and only if it has the best consequences. However, how can one calculate which consequences are the best? With the future filled with so many contingencies, it is near impossible to evaluate the results of any one action. It is said that the flap of a butterfly’s wing can cause a hurricane. This implies that a small, insignificant event can shape the whole world’s history. Hence, predicting in an accurate way the implication of small scale actions is fraught with error. If such an approach to the actions of individuals is difficult, applying such a philosophy to the actions of a nation is absurd.

In this climate of economic and political chaos, where confidence and emotion mould the decisions made in government halls, how can one hope to predict the immediate results of independence, never mind far off into the future. Nations rise and fall. Britain has been a land which has been invaded by the Romans, the Saxons, the Vikings and the Normans. Who would have thought in 1066 that the people of this country, invaded and ransacked incessantly by warring tribes, would become the centre of the largest and wealthiest empire the world has ever known. Or take France. Following the revolution, the French empire fell into disarray, facing threats from abroad, civil strife at home and a languishing economy. It was only a matter of years before Bonaparte Napoleon, the first Emperor of France, restored the country to its former glory, becoming the conquerors of Europe. History is a fickle thing, and deciding to become independent or not on the basis of temporal pleasures, such as economic prosperity, is fraught with peril. As the consequences of becoming independent will be constantly changing, there is no certainty that any state of living will remain long, and as such judging whether Scotland should choose independence using a consequentialist apparatus is futile.

Of course, we all need to make decisions made on consequentialist grounds sometimes. In everyday life, we have to make choices, and some of those are best made when judging various short term consequences. Furthermore, much national and international legislation is justified on consequentialist grounds, as there is clear information on what may or may not happen in the immediate futre. Indeed, if it was evident that Scottish Independence would render Scotland a poverty stricken nation, then it would be abundantly clear that we should all vote no. However, as there is much confusion over what will happen, and by the nature of the case that is unlikely to change.

Heraclitus recognised that the world of particulars (that is, all those objects available to the senses) is in a ‘state of constant flux.’ Everything we observe is in a process of change, not only from our own perspectives but objectively too. Famously, Plato argued that grounding knowledge, and hence morality, in the world of particulars is flawed, as constant change prevents assurance of finding assurance or justification. The place to find ethical guidance is the Forms/universals/abstract objects. For the Platonist, these are immaterial, timeless, perfect objects, which are never changing. They are archetypal concepts which all particulars are mere shadows of. Every predicate, such as virtue, justice, the Good, has a Form, and being unchanging, one could be certain of one’s convictions if they are grounded in the Forms. Whilst one need not subscribe to such metaphysics to reframe the Scottish Independence debate, the fact that ideals are unthawed by temporal contingencies indicates one should judge the issue of separation on ideological grounds, as opposed to pragmatic factors.

The issue of independence is a question about how one identifies oneself. No one choose their original national identity – we are born in a particular geographical location and are forced to become a citizen of that country. However, when one reaches a certain age, an individual has the choice to request citizenship of another country. Sometimes this is done on pragmatic grounds: to work in that location, to get closer to family, to try something new etc. However, for those seeking permanence abroad, they do so because they subscribe to the culture of that place. They may not agree with everything in that country, but they essentially identify themselves with the ideals and values of that nation. That was why so many immigrants moved to the USA, for the values of that country upheld the idea that if you work hard enough you will succeed (the reality being somewhat different), which they wanted to be a part of. When setting up residence in a new culture, the individual identifies their views somewhat with the positions held by the people, engrossing themselves in the way of life there. This entails that changing your citizenship is an ideological choice, for your own identity is intertwined with the cultural milieu and interpersonal relationships that community has.

The referendum is also a choice of culture. It a vote to decide what the Scottish people want: the current British culture, which they have contributed to for over 300 years, or their own, rooted in the tales of Bruce and Wallace, looking towards a new dawn. Last time, the Scots and English were robbed of a vote. After the disastrous Darien Scheme left Scotland bankrupt, the Scottish government united with England to ensure economic stability and to prevent Scotland choosing a different monarch to England. Daniel Defoe, the author of Robinson Crusoe, was hired as an English spy to report on how the Scottish people had been reacted to the decision. ‘A Scots rabble is the worst of its kind,’ he reported, ‘for every Scot in favour there is ninety-nine against’. As a purely pragmatic decision, the Union was a move of remarkable ingenuity. Yet without consultation of any kind, the Scottish people had been ‘bought and sold for English gold’ eliciting the classic line ‘such a parcel of rogues in the nation’ (Rabbie Burns). They felt their culture had been traded in for capital. This truly was a betrayal of the narrative which made up Scotland, and forced English people to be associated with those up north.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Js7x3u2GHYs - Such a Parcel of Rogues

This time things are different. Scottish people have a choice to remain as part of the union or to leave it. Pragmatic issues need not trouble their minds, for they now have the opportunity to affirm their national identity for the first time. So, which should they choose?

I believe that one should vote ‘No’ to Scotland becoming independent of the UK, because Britain has one of the greatest cultures in the world. Ever since the act of union, Great Britain has developed into a global power, bring benefits to the world over. Whilst it has done many bad things in its history, it also has helped millions of people around the world. At the heart of the empire, position in European and international politics, industrial revolution and the other notable aspects of British history is that there has been an ethic of unity which admits plurality. Whereas the Napoleonic Empire crumbled partly by forcing the conquered to assimilate to a French paradigm, the British government was able to run a large part of the world by cooperating and developing the infrastructure of those different to themselves. Allowing others to be different and participate within the trade, military and other components of an Imperial force enabled the small nation of Britain to garner allies and unite far off people’s to their cause. This structure of a united peoples working together, whilst still upholding the plurality of the individuals cultural norms is still present today, with the UK being a diverse and culturally diverse place. With the right to freedom of speech, freedom of action and the accountability of those in charge, the UK is a country which upholds the dignity of each person’s blik (worldview/horizon). This all spawned from the union of England and Scotland, which was a unification of two culturally opposed peoples for a common good. This is a value system I want to subscribe to, and I cannot conceive of a situation where an independent Scotland can surpass the cultural model of plurality within unity. Therefore, on ideological ground, I conclude Scotland should not go independent.

Before I summarise the blog, a note of caution. An ideological debate can be used by sophists and politicians to assert unfounded things in the name of their cause. SNP members have argued Scotland has always been more egalitarian than England, which has little historical truth, and the UK has contended that if Scotland went independent it would have to have nuclear weapons to be apart of NATO, which is nonsense. It must be a principle of any such dialogue that neither culture can be fully realised, as they are a set of ideals. However, each party should be honest about what is their cultural narrative, without deferring to trickery to win the day.

Drawing the threads of the article together, I have argued that the debate over Scottish Independence has been framed in a consequentialist manner, which misses the point of nationality. Rather, the discussion should be on whether one wants to identify themselves with the cultural values of Great Britain or an independent Scotland. It appears to me that the values of unity within plurality, which is at the foundation of democratic nation states, is at the heart of British culture, and that is something I urge all voters to subscribe to. Therefore, the debate needs to be reframed, and in light of this I hope Scots will see why they should vote ‘No’ next year.