Meet Mr SNP and his fantastical snide-show

I’ve long had this one, pleasant fantasy: which is that, somehow, people get what they say they want, but it all happens in some kind of parallel existence and I don’t have to suffer from their preferences. Examples might be Osama bin Laden is left in Afghanistan, speed cameras are removed, there’s a Lib Dem government or Ken Livingstone becomes mayor of London.

On Sunday I was thinking about Scotland. A series of weekend polls seemed to be suggesting that the Scottish National Party could come out top in the elections in May, and that right now a majority of Scots would favour a move to complete independence from the United Kingdom. An ICM poll put support for Scottish independence at 52 per cent in Scotland and — a backhanded compliment this — at 59 per cent in England. The Welsh, apparently, were not consulted.

I am not completely confident about this last figure. Polls that ask respondents to choose between real alternatives (independence and, say, devolution) register much lower support for separation. As you can imagine I find myself in a lot of discussions with a lot of people, and never once have I had somebody set their drink on the table, lean forward with furrowed brow and say: “You know, the one of the things that I would most like is for the Scots to have independence.” In fact, never once has anyone of any kind in any situation ever mentioned it to me.

Anyway — in this other dimension Scotland does indeed elect an SNP government with Alex Salmond as its First Minister, and subsequently votes at a referendum for independence. And yes, for this scenario to be sufficiently entertaining Mr Salmond must actually be elected to run something, and thus be shorn of his habitual role as super-snide sideline critic, his nasal sneer now turned to plaintive defence of his own inevitable disasters.

You think I don’t like him? He’s clever, is Alex. He is the debater par excellence, the sixth former with the answer for everything. His party is in the high moral business of squaring circles, giving the business of making impossible promises an almost religious dimension. Under the SNP there would be cuts in local taxes, more money on health, local hospitals kept open, no student debt, a reduction of burdens on small business, while — apparently — being able to replicate the economic success that Ireland has enjoyed by making life easier for big business.

As for independence, well Scotland would be better off because, as I understand Mr Salmond’s complex argument, Scotland is a small country and some small independent countries are doing well economically, therefore independent Scotland will do well economically. Some small countries are, of course, doing badly, but Scotland won’t be like those, because it is full of geniuses, entrepreneurs and Scottish nationalists.

Naturally, though “London” has apparently acted like some kind of sheet anchor on Scotland’s ability to grow as fast as, say, Iceland, the SNP presumption is that, when independence is negotiated, and as plans are advancing for border checks (yes, of course there will have to be border checks, ask the Norwegians) and Scottish embassies (or maybe they could rent out rooms from the British embassies), what is left of the United Kingdom will say, sure — let’ s do it on your terms. Of course it’s all your oil, we had nothing to do with it. And by the way, please don’t imagine that we will act in any way to reassume control of any of our natural “English” or “Welsh” assets currently held by Scots.

What I most dislike about the SNP, however, is its necessary chauvinism. “For Scotland to flourish,” says Mr Salmond, “our economy must be free from London control”; “Labour’s policy of sending up the heavies from London . . .”; “Mr McConnell is like a little boy lost and hardly gets a look-in while his London bosses take centre stage”; “we were lucky enough to discover oil and gas as well, but we gave all of ours away to the London exchequer”; “those revenues either flow south to London or they can be invested for the people of Scotland”. London’s taken our money, London’s controlling our Parliament, everything would be great if we didn’t have London. And for London, of course, read England. For England read “the other”.

I am not going to argue with Mr Salmond about the extent to which English people or companies might have helped to discover “his” oil and gas, or the extent to which Scotland might have been subsidised by English enterprise or natural resources. I am not going to argue about it because it’s so obviously demeaning.

What interests me, however, is the magical thinking involved in the increasing tolerance of Mr Salmond’s scapegoating. These days you find some Scottish Tories arguing, as one did this month in Prospect magazine, that independence — by removing the English scapegoat and the London subsidies — would force the Scots to confront their own demons. The new independent government, they suggest, would have no choice but to make the self-same tough decisions on public expenditure and the role of the State that the SNP is so determined to avoid. There are some English constitutionalists who, despairing of our lack of interest in regional assemblies and the West Lothian question, also believe that Scottish independence would — as one put it — “concentrate minds in England about where we want to go”.

None of this will happen. The Scots chauvinists would not be one whit happier for being completely separate (just as they weren’t happy with substantial devolution), and would work even harder to discover why their failure was really the fault of England. The gap between their promises and the Scottish reality would always be found to have an external cause. The English, on the other hand (including the new Anglo-Poles, the English-Africans, the Telford Caribbeans) might moan about the passport man getting on the train near Berwick, but — with traditional complacency — would otherwise soon get over it.

But what a strange, backward-looking argument to be having as we contemplate massive population mobility, technological advances, Islamist terrorism and international environmental crises. Or perhaps that’s exactly why such an argument is happening now. The argument for Scottish independence is essentially an argument for avoiding hard choices; which is why Alex Salmond is so well qualified to make it. If there were a parallel dimension it would be fun to watch him win. But there isn’t.

Comments

[Dave The Cab Driver]

Too right Dave! And as for them bloody 'Indoos, we should own half their railway, wot we Brits made for them cos they was too stupid to build it themselfs.

Wot *I* wanna know is, how come them Norwegians get to keep all their oil money when obviously some Englishmen musta helped them set up the 'ole shootin match too?? Flippin liberty is wot it is an no mistake me old muckah!

[Matthew]

Why do say "his" oil and gas? He said "ours"

[dsquared]

David, among other fairly serious issues I have with respect to this post (as "Dave the Cab Driver" above notes, your thesis on oil seems to imply that a development interest equals an ownership stake, which to put it bluntly is the thesis of "our oil underneath their sand" when applied to the Middle East), do you not think that Ireland might be a more relevant comparator for Scotland than Iceland? Passports aren't checked on the Dublin ferry, and Ireland does in fact manage to combien a low-tax, business-friendly environment with a substantial degree of social protection.

The idea that Scottish independence might lead to the expropriation of private property held by ethnic Scots (in your paragraph 7) is something that even the Balkans managed to avoid, so I think that the UK might manage a "velvet divorce" a bit more smoothly than that.

[dsquared]

oh god how embarrassing - I submitted an earlier comment castigating Dave for analogising Scotland to Iceland rather than Ireland and I now see that there was a speck on my monitor. Apologies for that obviously, although I stand by my other points. What a muppet eh, I ask you.

[Simon]

"But what a strange, backward-looking argument to be having as we contemplate massive population mobility, technological advances, Islamist terrorism and international environmental crises."

Tell you what, David, why not pop over to East Timor or Montenegro and have a chat with the locals about the 'backwardness' of nations choosing freely to claim their independence.

Alternatively, you could consider the fact that not everyone shares the political priorities and prejudices of New Labour and that if the Scots want to vote for their independence then that's their bloody right, and a right of precisely no consequence to "Islamist terrorism" or "environmental crises" or whichever hot topic the Number Ten Press Office thinks they ought to care about.

[Joe]

If the SNP and their dopey Little Englander cohorts believe that breaking up Britain is good idea they are, to paraphrase Dave the cab driver, 'aving a laugh.

Britain is still a major world power - economically, culturally and militarily. I know this embarrasses some people but there you are. Britain sits on the UN Security Council, Britain is a member of the G8, Britain has nuclear deterrents and is an active and powerful member of both the EU and NATO.

Breaking the union would change all of this at a stroke and none of it for the better. It would 'Scandanavianise' Britain, turning all home nations into Norway at once! We'd all be small, northerly, relatively prosperous but distant, ineffectual and utterly unimportant to the workings of the world.

Couple this loss of stature, this decline of status with our continued, grand conceit of ourselves (something, I think that unites rather than divides most of us in Britain) we'd become the most preposterous, pompous and silly isle of petty nationalists outside Monaco.

[Willie]

Joe
Your last paragraph sums up how many here in Notrh Britain view the UK position now.
It one of the reasons we would like to make our own way in the world; project a Scandinavian type image of Scotland to the international community. We want to accept responsibility for our domestic well being and our international obligations. It's time.

[Yaffle]

Joe,

I don't think Great Power status (UNSC, G8 etc) has much appeal for today's Scots, or even very many English - after all, how do these things benefit the man/woman in the street? If anything they seem to be a source of embarrassment to the average progressive.

I suspect most Scots would be happy being Denmark with whisky. The Danes, after all, are the most contented nation, if surveys are to be believed.

[Frank Schnittger]

"...and never once have I had somebody set their drink on the table, lean forward with furrowed brow and say: “You know, the one of the things that I would most like is for the Scots to have independence.” In fact, never once has anyone of any kind in any situation ever mentioned it to me."

David - you really should get out more - and beyond the metropolitan confines of London. Come and visit us in Ireland if you want. We have never had it so good. Like Disquared - I too find your comparison of Scotland with Iceland deliberately demeaning, as the comparison with Ireland is far more direct and appropriate.

Some may feel that England needs Scotland to continue to feel Great. That does not mean that the feeling is necessarily mutual. The comparison with Ireland is indeed direct and useful, but it should be noted that it took Ireland 70 years post political independence to become truly independent. Before that we were still blaming British imperialism for all our woes. Now we just like to welcome you as friends and beat you at Rugby!

So political independence (within the context of the EU) might well be a necessary pre-condition for Scotland to take full responsibility for its own destiny. But it does not mean that political independence will necessarily or immediately solve all of Scotland’s problems. The Scots will have to do that for themselves, and it could take a long time even post independence.

The question is – do they really want to? The evidence seems to indicate that increasing numbers do. Your cynicism, ridicule and sarcasm – if representative of English attitudes more generally, will only accelerate the process.

[George Walls]

I know you were attacking the SNP, David, but if we add your piece to those by Johnny Grimond (Economist), Max Hastings (Mail), Michael Portillo (Mail) and Edwina Currie (Telegraph) it begins to look like a loose campaign of vilification. Not a lot of these recent rants are based much on fact but prejudice and tell Scots they are whinging, chippy, ungrateful spongers spending english money and there is an obvious relish in belittling us. Isn't this verging on discrimination on ethnic grounds? Would an Aaranovich accept such things said of Jews? Isn't it quasi racism? For the first time in my life I feel like a pariah in my own country. Is this what it feels like to be for example Pakistani in Britain? (I am white - and half English by blood) The only whinging I hear comes the other way - from England and is unmistakably fuelling the very anti-englishness some complain of. No wonder Mr Salmond is, as you say, smirking. You are one of those playing his game. (Pity. I usually like your stuff..I recommend Simon Jenkins in today's Times).

[Left Hook]

This is a really useful thread: thanks David: it is not often enough that these issues are aired in the London-based media. The main point is that temporary dissatisfaction with a UK government could lead to permanent partition of the UK. The best analogy would be the severance of Slovakia from the Czech Republic.

[James Russell]

Scotland independent from England? Where on earth will they get their income for public services from? I live in Scotland and most of the population see SNP as nothing more than a fringe party, something of a Scottish UKIP. Even if Scots were given the opportunity to vote on independence, it wouldn't happen...

[Frank Schnittger]

David - you have gradually been slipping down the order of play on the Timesonline blogs board. Today you have disappeared off it altogether. Is this a sign that you are wearying of our comments and want to retire to a quieter life? Tell us it ain't so!