Halfway through questions at the launch of the first independence referendum paper an unnamed PA journalist got up and asked the First Minister about Scots ‘accepting an element of risk when voting for independence’. The same ‘risky’ independence narrative that, you’ll remember from 2014. It relied on the vulnerable presupposition that the ‘safe’ option is… maintaining the Union.
Already an unthinking narrative – confirmed by the events of the past decade – asking that question, this time especially, with the contents of the document being released and the speech just made, was particularly cloth-eared.
Because the paper is about risk – from the various vivid failures of the UK. Shown through the kind of international comparison that leaves that, PA, routine Unionist arrogance and complacency we see on the issue of the economy badly exposed.
‘Building a New Scotland’ uses ten western European nations to illustrate how pervasively rubbish the Union is for Scots. It shows a disparate group of countries with different resources and economic strategies all doing much better for themselves than London does for Scotland.
They are all richer. They have less unequal societies. They are statistically happier and healthier. They live longer. And it’s not even close.
The comparison
The examples of Ireland – Iceland – Finland – Denmark et al all provide strong corroboration for the argument that independent Scotland-sized countries in western Europe (who control their own economy) do better than Scotland-sized devolved countries in the UK (who don’t). But the true, Unionist quieting, parallel Scotland example is Norway…
The difference in outcomes could not be starker, across the board, it’s almost unbelievable. It’s difficult for most Scottish people, BBC-raised, to fathom how much better the independence model has done than the devolution model. Compare Ireland and Northern Ireland. Bring in Wales.
But ‘the risks of independence, First Minister’?
WEALTH
International comparison like this is a good way to start the campaign and a very worthwhile exercise because, as you have probably noticed, large numbers of Unionists genuinely seem to believe the Union has been a good thing for Scotland, financially. Probably because that’s exactly what we’re always being told.
HEALTH & HAPPINESS
Life expectancy
- Compared with their Norwegian counterparts Scottish women and men live 3.9 and 5 years less respectively.
- Glaswegian life expectancy at birth is 73.1 years for men, eight and a half years below the Norwegian national average of 81.6 years, and 78.3 years for women, more than six and a half years below the Norwegian national average of 84.9 years.
- These are smoker/non-smoker levels of disparity between the two Weegies.
- Risky independence though.
Falling further behind, faster.
The First Minister answered the PA journalist’s question by talking about what’s happened since 2014. Understandable, and as she said it’s very difficult to imagine a poorer, weakened, Brexit Britain having a better time of it anytime soon. A country falling further behind our independent neighbours – now at a faster rate. So where does the risk lay, exactly?
“At this critical juncture we face a fundamental question: do we stay tied to a UK economic model that consigns us to relatively poor economic and social outcomes which are likely to get worse, not better, outside the EU?” – Nicola Sturgeon
It’ll be interesting to see if any of Scotland’s journalists actually use the information and points made in the paper to ask Unionist politicians questions about the evident failures of their preferred model. Ross, Sarwar, Jack, McDougall, should really be facing some tough questions on the poor performance of the UK. Regularly. But will they – Unionists just aren’t ever asked to justify their basic position in the way pro-independence politicians routinely are.
Which is lucky for them because, in this kind of debate…
‘If you’re explaining, you’re losing’
Where’s their evidence that the Union works as well as independence? How do the stats tie in with the ‘best of both worlds’ claim? Shouldn’t they be honest with Scots about the risks of staying in the UK?
If the independence movement is clever, international comparison like we see in ‘Building a New Scotland’ should be centre stage of the debate. The other devolved areas of the UK should be included to provide further context and evidence and to broaden the coverage of the results to Wales and N.I. – and to England outside the London area. The more people who know about and talk about the many failures of the Union the better.
Why are our independent neighbours always at the top of the tables that matter most?
Why not Scotland?
It’s difficult to shake off the suspicion that – if Norway was run by Westminster – London would be an even bigger market for Bugatti’s and the far-off Norwegians would have their own version of gers telling them how big their deficit is but not to worry because the ‘broad shoulders’ and ‘fiscal transfers’ of the Union will keep them in above the low UK average public spending. Oil is a volatile resource you can’t base an economy on… etc, you know how it goes.
Let’s see how much space the ScotPol media gives up to international comparison now.
