Government’s claims of jam tomorrow are a bit rich
◆ The SNP’S promise of future bounty is about as believable as the Brexit bus NHS funding pledge, writes Euan Mccolm
I’m not saying Scottish nationalists are thin-skinned but have you ever suggested to one they’ve got a lot in common with a Brexiteer? They do not like it. Try it and the devoted Scottish nationalist will explain the many and varied ways in which their belief system differs from that of their English counterpart.
Scottish nationalism is about being outward-looking and compassionate while the version practised south of the Border is about coldly turning one’s back on the world.
The drive for Scottish independence is not about the “other”, it’s about “sovereignty” but the push to break from the EU was fuelled by racism. The chaos caused by tearing up years of cooperation with Europe will not be replicated by tearing up years of cooperation with the rest of the UK.
The uncomfortable truth for the smiling, “progressive” Scottish nationalist is that they’re a damned sight more like a Brexiteer than they could bear to admit.
Nowhere are these two strands of nationalist populism more alike than when it comes to promising great wealth will flow just as soon as a preferred constitutional arrangement is in place.
Back in 2016, the Vote Leave campaign insisted the UK’S departure from the EU would free up £350 million a week to be invested in the NHS. We know now that promise was nonsense. We know, too, that the endless list of Brexit benefits has not yet materialised and that, instead, families and businesses across the UK are struggling that bit more thanks to departure from the European bloc.
This week, Humza Yousaf kicked off the year in politics with a new offer to those browsing at the nationalist kiosk. If Scots voted for independence, he said, the average household could expect to be £10,200 a year better off. This was a remix of an old song.
Back in 2014, the nationalists went into the referendum campaign promising a Yes vote would improve family finances by £600 a year. Throughout a fraught campaign, that number ticked up until, in a last-ditch attempt to turn the vote in their favour, the nationalists said a Yes vote would bring a £5,000-perhousehold dividend.
Just like that £350m for the NHS, the SNP’S numbers represent wishful thinking in the extreme. In order to come up with the figure of £10,200, Yousaf and his team looked at successful small countries, such as Denmark and Norway and imagined Scotland emulating them. The First Minister’s argument seems to be “if Scotland was a different place, Scotland would be a different place”.
The SNP’S analysis also ignores the financial benefits – as confirmed by the Scottish Government’s own accounts
– of Scotland’s place in the Union, an arrangement that both allows the government at Holyrood to run a considerable deficit of almost £20 billion and also sees public spending proportionately higher in Scotland than in England.
I wonder who, except for the most fully committed nationalist, Yousaf ’s promise is for? Perhaps the First Minister is merely trying to keep his party’s base energised. That’s a perfectly noble objective but shouldn’t SNP activists expect more from Yousaf than this subbrexit campaign bulls*** about future riches?