Showing posts with label Great Britain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Great Britain. Show all posts

Friday, 14 October 2011

You take the high road! - Scottish independence

Wales will be making final preparations for their Rugby World Cup semi-final tomorrow against France in New Zealand. Yet, as the only home nation remaining in the competition, many countries, including England, will be lending their support towards the French and beyond that New Zealand, to win the tournament outright. Sporting rivalries transcend traditional barriers and we are used to reading about hostilities descending across households when city rivals compete against each other in the local derby; but much of the national sporting rivalries have been antagonised from political factions and recently, the greater debate for Scottish independence and an English Parliament. Sport aside, would this really be a desirable outcome and would it really change the way the Union is governed?

For the past 10 years, a lone voice has become louder and louder in his desire to see a Scotland, independent of Westminster and England, his name is Alex Salmond. Salmond began his career as an economist at the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) before joining the ranks of the Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP) to where he has become the most prominent actor. Salmond, who spent time as a SNP MP at Westminster before standing to become the First Minister at the Scottish Parliament in Holyrood, is best known for his quick and cerebral wit and expanding waistline. This aside, Salmond has continuously argued for greater determination for Scotland and one that can look after its own financial and strategic affairs.

Why would Scotland or Wales want to leave the Union? What has distinctly changed? In all fairness, calls for Welsh independence have been much quieter and the devolution acts at the turn of the last century were important in identifying the Welsh language and culture. Whereas in Scotland the calls have steadily grown, 50 years ago less than one per cent of the population voted for the SNP, yet now in 2011 we have a SNP majority in the Scottish Parliament. Why after over 300 years since the Act of Union in 1707 does Scotland see itself as more separate? For 300 years, Britain and the notion of ‘Britishness’ was distinct through Empire and the wars in which the Army and Royal Navy, drawn from all areas of the British Isles (including Ireland), fought. The wars in the Americas are notorious for the role of the Welsh Fusiliers and the Battle of Waterloo was lead by the cavalrymen of the Royal Scots Greys. It was also said that all across the Empire that for every Englishman there were ten Scotsman – building the railways or manning the garrisons in every isolated outpost. Yet, despite the link of the army and the Royal Family, links between ordinary families have declined with the dissipation of British industry. No longer, do Glasgow shipbuilders have the same links to the ports of Liverpool or Hull, nor the identity of Scottish miners with the collieries in Nottinghamshire or South Wales. Industrial decay has beset a British decline.

To the English, they have been irked by the so-called ‘West Lothian Question’ that has allowed Scottish MPs to vote on English matters, yet Westminster MPs could not hold sway over affairs north of the border. Party politically it is changing as well, the dominance of the SNP has saw the decline of traditional Labour safe seats and recently the Scottish Conservatives put forward an idea to move the party away from the its southern cousin. The English see the Scottish or ‘Jocks’ as lazy and subsidised by the revenues of the City of London. In fact, Aberdeen is the UK’s second richest city and Scotland’s budget deficit, if you include North Sea oil revenues, is well within the 3% limit of the European Union’s regulations, meaning it can compete without the handouts from England. Much of the scorn exists through the perceived inequalities that English taxpayers must pay for prescriptions, tuition fees and elderly care, something the Welsh and Scottish Governments provide free.

Alex Salmond has a vision of Scotland becoming a prosperous state, a mixture between Norway and Switzerland, an economy based on financial services and energy wealth. Scotland, as Europe’s windiest country, hopes to use the power of wind energy to become carbon neutral by 2020 and no longer rely on carbon fuel. However, the ‘arc of prosperity’ of countries like Iceland and Ireland that Salmond saw Scotland amongst, were engulfed in their own financial crises. Scotland’s two financial leviathans, the Bank of Scotland and RBS being saved by the UK Government and massively recapitalised by taxpayers’ money. Prominent Scots in England like the former Chancellor Alastair Darling said that an independent Scotland would have collapsed something Salmond remained muted about.

A Scotland with greater financial powers, control of its own waters (fisheries and oil) is the ideal that Salmond puts forward. Yet, the indecision within the Eurozone highlights the vulnerability of Scotland’s vision within the EU. After decolonisation we saw scores of new countries come into existence under the premise that life under your own flag is much better, yet despite globalisation, life for smaller countries relies on heavily on remittances from Diaspora and factors outside of their borders. The dream that Scotland will become a country similar to Scandinavian nations also seems uncertain, who is not to say that if Scotland obtains independence then the Shetland and Orkney Islands won’t follow the same path, taking the hydrocarbon revenues away with them.

The relationship that will continue to evolve for Scotland will probably be a semi-independent or ‘devolution max’, whatever you want to call it. One that retains the Royal Family, the currency, diplomatic corps and armed forces (minus Trident). Until then the English will continue to talk about Irn-Bru and deep-fried Mars Bars and the Scots will continue to back the opposition every time the England take to the sporting field.

Saturday, 24 July 2010

Foreign relations: placing Britain on the map.

Looking at Britain's place in the world, it is easy to think pie in the sky amidst International Relations theory and group our interests as an integral part of Europe, mixed with a 'Special Relationship' with America, not to mention the lasting historical and cultural ties with the Commonwealth. Britain is a nuclear power (albeit under the US's defensive wing), it is the seventh richest country in the world and its soft power is vast in terms of language, law and culture.

Since the Coalition Government came to power there is a renewed sense of soul-searching in terms of the British footprint across the world, through its Foreign Policy and Armed Forces. In times of economic hardship it is becomes apparent that a hefty defence budget is an easy target to slice, particularly when the public are more concerned about health, education and the economy. What can Britain effectively do when it is fighting an isolated and expensive war in Afghanistan and expect major cuts at the MOD?

Britain has Trident, a weapons system that is more appropriate to the Cold War than the modern mobile insurgency that we see today. Yet, if the country were to dispose of this costly yet 'necessary' weapon (figures range between 20 to 130 billion sterling) would we lose our top seat at the UN? Certainly, you could take Tony Blair and New Labour’s opinion that they are needed in an ‘uncertain world’ or the opposite gambit that the money could be spent on more effective defensive equipment like cruise missiles, helicopters or investment in special forces. Ballistic missiles and particularly submarinal warfare is only likely to take place against a superpower, but how likely is that? Would Britain’s voice still continue to be heard if it is willing to send thousands of its troops abroad, even if it doesn’t have tactical nuclear weapons.

The fact the coalition government has decided to ring fence Trident suggests that it is to maintain Britain’s continuing defensive force. This seems utterly stupid when it will have to mothball two Royal Navy aircraft carriers, retain and probably store needless amounts of Typhoon Jets that are too expensive to operate and maintain a combat force of 10 000 fighting a thankless war in Afghanistan. If Trident is necessary then have a debate in Parliament, the Government will win if its case is overriding of any moral or budgetary opposition. The politics of defence procurement is that military contracts and defence budgets can show real muscle flexing but ultimately they are expensive and can be out-dated once contracts are fulfilled. The British tanks in Iraq seem superfluous to today's combat missions.

Defensive reviews and cuts of all natures lead to the same thing: hurting people on the frontline, something very costly to all those men dug-in in Afghanistan. One telling statistic this week was that the U.S. spends £75 billion a year on military intelligence, that’s more than the entire UK defence budget. Spending reviews give no long term answers and only an decision by the government can ultimately decide Britain's future. The Foreign Secretary William Hague is fully aware of the great statesman of the nineteenth century and their policies, maybe it is time for some Disraeli-style pragmatism.
Share

Widgets