15BN REASONS WHY SCOTLAND DIDN’T VOTE YES:
AT LAST! After the disappointment of the SNP’s failure to launch its summer push for independence, it is finally upon us. Within days, bright-eyed Scottish nationalists will rally to try to persuade those who voted No in the 2014 referendum to change their minds.
Let joy be unconfined! Join me in welcoming even more constitutional bickering to see us through autumn and on into the long, dark winter.
If you detect a hint of sarcasm, you are correct. There comes a point when even my easygoing nature is tested.
As part of this charm offensive, SNP activists and their fellow travellers in the ‘broader Yes movement’ (or SNP front organisations depending on your willingness to believe any old hooey) will seek the views of those who voted to remain in the Union last time around. Why, they will ask, did you vote No?
I can think of almost 15 billion reasons why those who did so would do so again.
Last week, the Scottish Government produced its expenditure and revenue figures (GERS) which showed that, in 2015/16, Scotland spent £14.8billion more than it raised in taxes.
This is, by any standards, a hefty sum and the undeniable reason that such a state of affairs was sustainable was that Scotland was supported by the UK. Scotland’s deficit represented 9.5 per cent of GDP, compared with the UK-wide deficit of just 4 per cent.
The clear message to be taken from these figures is that Scotland does very well indeed out of the Union.
Remarkably, even though these were figures published by the SNP-run Scottish Government, some SNP politicians sought to discredit them.
Angus MacNeil MP – not, I’m bound to say, the fizziest drink in the fridge – described the numbers as ‘p*sh’. But the figures do not lie. They tell an uncomfortable truth. They tell the nationalists that the notion an independent Scotland would be a land of prosperity is a nonsense.
The inescapable consequence of this deficit in an independent Scotland would be massive tax rises or huge cuts to public services, or a combination of both. One suspects that SNP activists asking No voters why they voted as they did will hear legitimate concerns about the cost of breaking up the UK.
But it was not, I’d venture, just the cold hard numbers that meant a majority of Scots rejected separatism. There was also the wider issue of trust.
In 2014, former SNP leader Alex Salmond delivered to Scots a tissue of lies and called it a White Paper. This document was the blueprint for an independent Scotland. It was, we were told, a detailed document that contained the answers to any and all questions about how independence might be made a success.
At more than 600 pages, it was a hefty document but woefully short on credible detail. Those who considered it lacking were right to do so. If you don’t believe me, ask a senior nationalist.
Speaking at the Edinburgh Book Festival, the SNP’s former head of policy – Alex Bell – admitted that the White Paper was, well, that thing Angus MacNeil said. Not only did Mr Bell say that the document was worthless, he added that those who wrote it should hang their heads in shame and that the politicians who presented it should apologise. Only then, he said, could the SNP move on with a new, credible offer to Scots.
I should not be at all surprised if No voters tell the SNP that, along with worries about finances, they did not believe they were being told the truth. And there’s more, much more. The referendum was not simply a matter of financial arrangements. It was, first and foremost, about identity.
NATIONALISM – whether one puts a ‘civic’ hat on it or not – is always about identity. Scots were told by Alex Salmond and his deputyturned-successor Nicola Sturgeon that independence was required because Scots had different priorities.
That is, undoubtedly, a persuasive message for some but the SNP discovered two years ago that British identity is also a powerful thing. For many No voters, being British was, and remains, important. Attempts by nationalists to paint Britain as a malevolent force were insulting to those voters who believed otherwise.
To the list of reasons for voting No, we should add identity.
It doesn’t stop there. To the list of reasons for rejecting its proposal, we must also add the SNP’s failure to get on and govern in the interests of all. The SNP did a skilful job after winning its first Holyrood election in 2007 of giving the impression that it was a dynamic force, bringing about real and enduring change in Scotland. But not everyone was convinced.
Close examination of the SNP’s record in government revealed that the nationalists talked a good game and enacted a few headline-grabbing policies – such as free tuition fees and prescriptions – that benefited the middle classes. But there was not – and still isn’t – much in the way of real, reforming government.
Since the referendum defeat in 2014, the SNP has done little to address this failing.
There was, of course, the appointment of Deputy First Minister, John Swinney, as Education Secretary. That looked like a start.
Mr Swinney is, undoubtedly, a fine thinker and a sharp political operator, but Nicola Sturgeon’s pledge of a few months ago that improving educational standards was her priority has been forgotten following the decision by UK voters to leave the European Union.
Since June, Ms Sturgeon has devoted herself to trying to turn that decision into the trigger for a second referendum on Scottish independence.
She has, however, failed to generate any new enthusiasm for divorce from England. Her belief – or hope – that a substantial number of No voters would place their loyalty to the EU above their loyalty to the UK has proven to be unfounded.
Naturally, Nicola Sturgeon wishes her supporters to believe that Scottish independence is coming, and coming soon. She must keep happy those enthusiastic souls who signed up to the SNP in their tens of thousands after defeat in 2014.
But she is no closer to making their dream a reality.
Be warned, nationalist chums: when you ask No voters why they made their decision, you may not like the answers.
Scotland does very well indeed out of the Union