The Last Golden Summer?

In late March, I bemoaned the absence in the discussions of the past 2 years during the Scottish referendum of any “serious attempt to develop different political, economic and social scenarios for Scotland which might arise from a yes vote after 18 September.

Of course there have been many calculations about the economic impact and assessments of the social even psychological effects of independence - but I haven’t actually seen any attempt to sketch out possible scenarios of the future knock-on effects.

The point about futures is that they surprise! It is one thing to have an opinion about the inherent righteousness of a future move. Quite another to assess its likely consequences.

This great tongue-in-cheek piece which Martin Kettle produced has only now come to my attention -

Looking back from 2024 at that last golden summer of the old Britain, it all still seems hard to believe. How did the country’s rulers not see what was about to happen? How did such an articulate and sensible people as the British let such a thing creep up on them?And then one remembers how easy it is for nations to stumble into the unforeseen. By rich irony, many in Britain were unusually conscious of such dangers in 2014. The centenary of the first world war, when a supremely confident imperial Britain collapsed into war in another golden summer, was on many minds. Appropriately, one of 2014’s bestselling books about 1914 was entitled The Sleepwalkers. Yet few realised, even when the Queen travelled to Glasgow to lead the post-imperial nation in remembrance on 4 August, that history was about to repeat itself.

There were signs, for those who paid attention, though too few did. No one disputed the vote-winning skills of the nationalist leader, Alex Salmond, reinforced in a televised debate the day after the Glasgow service. Passion for independence among writers and artists helped fan the mood that the time had come. The Glasgow Commonwealth Games in late July made Scots feel good. And the opinion polls, which had seemed to stabilise after a move towards yes in the spring, began to narrow again as the 18 September vote neared. 

Nevertheless, the announcement of the referendum result at the Royal Highland Centre in the small hours of Friday 19 September was a political earthquake. As dawn rose over Edinburgh a few miles to the east, Mary Pitcaithly stood in front of the cameras (her rostrum is now in the Alex Salmond Museum in Linlithgow) and announced that 1.707 million Scots had voted for independence and 1.603 against. After 307 years, the United Kingdom was no more. By a 52%-to-48% majority, Scotland was an independent country. 

The result stunned a London that had consistently ignored events in Scotland ever since devolution in 1999. While Salmond stood against a Forth Bridge backdrop to announce “Scotland is a free nation once again”, and total strangers embraced in Princes Street, the UK prime minister, David Cameron, emerged from 10 Downing Street to say it was a profoundly serious day for Britain, but the result must be respected. In London the Labour leader Ed Miliband phoned Cameron and demanded the emergency recall of parliament. Cameron agreed, adding that the autumn party conferences should be abandoned in favour of one-day rallies to be addressed by the party leaders. Cameron then rang the Queen, who was at Balmoral, and advised her to return to London. Not amused, the Queen said no. An hour later Gerry Adams gave a press conference in Dublin to call for a referendum in Northern Ireland on unification with the Irish Republic, to take place at Easter 2016. The Northern Ireland government began to totter. Cameron rang Balmoral again, and this time the Queen agreed to return. 

Fearful of a leak that would hand a propaganda coup to Salmond before 18 September, Whitehall had done no formal contingency planning for the negotiations that now began, though the cabinet secretary, Jeremy Heywood, had made some back-of-an-envelope notes. Once a venue was agreed – the meetings were held in York and may have triggered the rise of the Yorkshire Independence party, which won the 2016 Doncaster North byelection that followed Miliband’s appointment as director of the London School of Economics – the talks were soon bogged down. Salmond’s timetable, which optimistically foresaw completion and full sovereignty by March 2016, was soon binned. Partly this was because the talks, led by Nicola Sturgeon for Scotland and William Hague for the remaining UK, trod water as the May 2015 UK general election approached.

Further delays were caused by the failed coalition negotiations between Labour and the Liberal Democrats that followed the election of a second hung parliament.But the main reason for delay was the increasingly uncompromising attitude of the new Cameron minority government, which was permanently under pressure from the Tory grassroots following the “Don’t give the bastards a bawbee” by the new Ukip leader Boris Johnson in May. The second was the dawning that no formal handover could take place until both parliaments had processed the 400-page Scottish independence bill which finally emerged from the York negotiations in March 2016 – the month in which Northern Ireland voted narrowly to join the republic, thus reigniting the Ulster civil war. 

By the Scottish elections of May 2016 Salmond’s star had lost its sheen. Opponents of the York agreement abandoned the SNP over Salmond and Sturgeon’s compromises on Trident and the currency. The Real SNP took enough votes from the nationalists to bring a Labour-led government back to power at Holyrood headed by Jim Murphy, one of Scotland’s Labour MPs who had not decamped to an English constituency after 2014. Salmond duly stepped down.With the Scottish bill increasingly bogged down in the Commons, Cameron accelerated the promised referendum on EU membership. But the hurt caused by the 2014 vote and increasing media bitterness in England towards Scotland had an unexpected flipside. Insecurity about the future meant that voters took fright at the prospect of a broken UK going it alone.

The referendum was a triumph for the Better Together campaign, which won the vote to stay in the EU by the same two-to-one margin as in the 1975 referendum.But it was a pyrrhic victory for Cameron. When his party split over the result, the prime minister resigned and Labour’s Douglas Alexander, now MP for Holborn, took office at the head of an all-party government comprising Labour’s pro-Europe majority and a rump of pro-Cameron Tories.

The upshot for Scotland was that weak Labour governments in Holyrood and Westminster, both led by unionist Scots, were left to push through an independence package that neither agreed with, and from which support had ebbed in Scotland.Looking back at 2014 10 years afterwards, it all seems a terrible waste of energy and time. This spring, as the collapse of the pound finally forced the Alexander government to begin negotiations to join the eurozone – with the Murphy government meanwhile urging the UK to keep the pound – the new European commission president, Nick Clegg, was caught on a microphone warning: “Be careful what you wish for in politics.” It is hard not to agree.

Now, that’s what I call imaginative reporting!

Separating - the book

It’s not every day that one’s home country decides to separate from the larger state which has been a crucial part of its identity for 300 years – so my readers (particularly in the US and Ukraine let alone in Bulgaria, Poland and Romania) will understand why I have chosen to focus my posts of the past week on what appears to be this imminent event.

One of the problems with a blog is that you are reading backwards – from the last post to the oldest. And you do lose what narrative there might be. So I’ve decided to collate them – unedited – starting with the oldest……
All I've added is a Preface and a final section for hose of you who want a reading list.

I’ve called the little book - Separating – home thoughts from abroad

It is simply a record of the reverbations of the debate which has reached someone who loves Scotland but who has been absent for 24 years.At the best of times, we hear what we want to hear; and, in my case, I am hearing the debate via the internet….with echoes from the memory chamber of the 1970s and 1980s.

Collating the posts I thought might be useful as a historical record –

- to give a sense of how a Scot expat had responded to the (growing) prospect of separation

- to list the readings which I had found helpful as I struggled both for myself and for my foreign readers to identify (and comment on) the key issues

- to link all this to the experience I have had since 1968 of leading and managing people involved in systems of government

In Praise of Doubt

Expect productivity in Scottish industry and commerce to decline dramatically in the next 10 days as those living and working in the country renew their arguments (in some cases with themselves!) about the precise nature of the “independent country” to which the ballot paper entices them on September 18^th. The arguments – after the latest poll – are now for real.

In March I sensed we were drifting apart 

As an ex-pat who has no vote (no residence) but who follows the various discussion threads, I am amazed at the self-confidence of all who take part. Where is the agnosticism and scepticism which such a portentous issue requires…..??Donald Rumsfeld is not normally someone I would quote, but his comment about “unknown unknowns” deserves respect and understanding.  In all the discussion, I have seen no serious attempt to try to set out the different political, fiscal and social scenarios for Scotland - let alone for England. Wales and Northern Ireland - which would follow from a “yes” outcome on 18 September.

It is obvious that a highly- developed country of 5 million people could operate as a nation state – there are about 40 members of the United Nations and a quarter of EU member states with smaller populations.The real questions are more on the following lines -·         How independence would affect the dynamics of trade, currency and investment (public and private) in Scotland - and in the residual (disunited) Kingdom
·         With different scenarios for relations with Europe and the Euro
·         What precise additional benefits will independence give - which the traditional and post 1999 measures of Devolution don’t
·         How these benefits measure against the risks suggested in the first two sets of questions….
·         And the distractions which negotiations (and the subsequent settlements with international organisations) will bring to those in charge of negotiations on the Scottish side  

 Outsiders with no obvious axe to grind have reduced all the academic analysis and political rhetoric to the following -

Where the nationalists are still on very boggy ground is convincingly describing what would happen the morning after Scotland woke up to find itself independent. The two sides have now shelled each other with so many rival claims about oil revenues, currency and borrowing that they have numbed each other and probably the electorate as well.

What should be telling is that the only tax cut that Salmond has promised is one which will be of most benefit to large companies: an independent Scotland would set its corporation tax rate at 3p in the pound less than George Osborne. On his Glasgow walkabout, the SNP leader was stalked by no campaigners baiting him with placards bearing the slogan: "Tax cuts for the rich!"

Whatever he says about job creation, making a priority of handing more money to multinationals sounds like a funny way of laying the foundations of a more egalitarian country. The big hole in the nationalist prospectus is that it promises Scots that they can have Scandinavian standards of public services with American levels of tax. 

The other disingenuous element of their case is about sovereignty itself. An independent Scotland would obviously be free to make more choices about its future: gone would be the Trident nuclear subs. But many of its choices would still be constricted within parameters set by major external forces. Those forces would include London, a city with more people and money than the whole of Scotland put together.

If Scotland did somehow manage to retain the use of the pound, its interest rates would be set by a bank governor and a monetary policy committee appointed by a Westminster chancellor. If it was readmitted into the European Union – which, after some aggro, I expect it would be – an independent Scotland would have to negotiate many of its choices through Brussels.
The value of its oil and gas would be determined by decisions made in Riyadh, Tehran, Moscow and Beijing. The cost of its borrowing would be set by bond traders in New York and Frankfurt

And three weeks ago, one of Scotland’s most disputatious intellectuals (who favours independence) expressed things well with this piece on the power and absence of doubt in the nationalist case

I have never actually very sure about Gerry Hassan. His voice has been an engaging one in Scotland in the past decade and, at one stage, I thought he had something interesting to offer in the fight against neo-liberalism. But then I discovered that he was one of them! But his piece echoes some of my thoughts all of 6 months ago – and also reminds me of Brecht’s great poem – In Praise of Doubt which you can read as it is meant to be read in the link.....(the formatting is too complicated here)

Deafened by commends, examined For his fitness to fight by bearded doctors, inspected by resplendent creatures with golden insignia,admonished by solemn clerics who throw at him a book written by God Himself Instructed by impatient schoolmasters, stands the poor man and is told That the world is the best of worlds and that the hole In the roof of his hovel was planned by God in person Truly he finds it hard To doubt the world

There are the thoughtless who never doubt Their digestion is splendid, their judgement infallible They don’t believe in the facts, they believe only in themselves When it comes to the point The facts must go by the board. Their patience with themselves Is boundless. To arguments They listen with the ear of a police spy.
The thoughtless who never doubt Meet the thoughtful who never act They doubt, not in order to come to a decision but To avoid a decision. Their heads They use only for shaking. With anxious faces They warn the crews of sinking ships that water is dangerous....

You who are a leader of men,

do not forget

That you are that because you doubted other leaders

So allow the led

Their right to doubt

Clarity…..but Confusion

The reverbations resound loud and clear this Sunday morning the length and breadth of Britain – as people south of the border wake up to the realisation that, in little over a week, the Scots will have probably voted for independence.

The Yes or No choice on the ballot paper seemed clear – if you’re not with me, you’re against me. But things in real life are never that cut and dried – particularly in matters of national identity and statehood. As long as Yes seemed a simple protest option, what harm was there in going for it. Who indeed wouldn’t??

But some Scots will certainly this morning be reviewing the situation – and asking themselves what Yes actually means….

Earlier this year one of our constitutional lawyers gave us 11 reasons why a Yes vote left so much up in the air 

But in fact it was 13 months ago when the waters become really muddied – with Scotland’s First (ie Prime) Minister suggesting that we had six Unions only one of which would dramatically change in the event of a Yes vote.

This political union is only one of six unions that govern our lives today in Scotland – and the case for independence is fundamentally a democratic one."A vote for independence next year will address the democratic deficit which sees policies like the punitive Bedroom Tax, the renewal of Trident or Royal Mail privatisation imposed on Scotland against the wishes of Scotland’s democratically elected representatives."But that will still leave five other unions intact.  We will embrace those other unions while using the powers of independence to renew and improve them.

"We will remain members of the European Union – but with a seat of our own at the top table, and without the uncertainty of a referendum on membership, as proposed at Westminster.

"We will still be members of Nato – co-operating with our neighbours and friends in collective security. But we can still decide not to be a nuclear power – like 25 out of 28 current members of NATO.

"We will be part of a currency union with the rest of the UK – but we will finally have the full taxation powers we need to promote jobs and investment.

"And we will retain the monarchy – making the Queen the Head of State of 17 independent countries, rather than 16. However, we will adopt a new constitution, written and endorsed by the people, asserting rights as well as promoting liberties and enshrining the ancient Scottish principle that ultimate sovereignty rests with the people.

"The final union does not rely on the choices made by politicians and parliaments – the social union unites all the peoples of these islands. "People in England will still cheer Andy Murray, and people in Scotland will still support the Lions at rugby. People will still change jobs and move from Dundee to Dublin, or from Manchester to Glasgow. With independence, we will continue to share ties of language, culture, trade, family and friendship. The idea that these ties are dependent on a Parliament in London are and have always been totally nonsensical."

 Most Scottish political parties (except the Nationalists) now support Dev-Max – fiscal federalism. But these parties have lost all credibility with Scottish voters.

No Way Back

For the first time this morning, the polls show a majority of voters in Scotland voting for independence and has Westminster politicians in panic mode - now apparently poised to offer a Constitutional Convention. 

But it was an article in yesterday’s paper which expressed things most clearly for me

The debate has intoxicated Scotland. Feeling involved in something BIG has intoxicated Scotland. People have seen the opportunity to seize power. It has become worthwhile to take an interest in political issues, achieve an understanding of them, discuss your own understanding with others, start formulating your own ideas…… The saddest thing is that what most Scots want – what I want – isn’t even on the ballot paper. I don’t want the UK to break up. It’s a unique institution in which four individual countries operate in concert, as a single state, in comradeship. It’s a beautiful thing. Or it should be.

But the democratic deficit across the UK is highly problematic, and likely to become more so. Supposedly apathetic voters often say during general election campaigns that “however you vote, you always get the government”. It didn’t occur to Westminster that this referendum could be the exception – that this vote might shatter the status quo

 It was the British Prime Minister apparently who removed a third option (“DevoMax”) from the ballot paper and who created the stark choice Scottish voters have faced during this 2 year campaign. At the moment he did that, the polls showed – as they had consistently for years – that only one third of voters actively wanted independence……..a referendum was therefore conceded in full confidence that the independence option would be rejected……

But the question on the ballot paper asks simply whether people “agree that Scotland should be an independent country”. That was what we Scots call a “No brainer” – who in his right mind would vote for “dependence”?? And no one has ever denied that Scotland is a country or, indeed, nation. Everyone considers themselves “independent”   

Hardly surprising that, during a conversation which has lasted at least 2 years (more like 4 – since the last General Election), a slow shift in opinion has taken place. Indeed what is surprising is that it is only now that “Yes” voters seem to have reached the majority.

 

But – and it is a very big but….. the Leader of the Scottish National Party has made it clear he wants to leave only one of the six unions Scotland apparently belongs to. He has been widely mocked for actually not wanting independence at all – but for wanting something the papers have called “independence-lite”

Things are now going to get very confusing….…..if this strongly-touted, last-minute concession of a constitutional convention is announced, the distance between the British and Scottish Governments will become very small…It will be the “Yes “ voters who may well be left behind.
If Salmond, the Scottish Leader, had argued for a clearer break – no pound, no European Union, no “social union” (whatever that meant) – then things would have been very clear. But he has fudged the issue very cleverly – way back in 2011 he talked about “fiscal autonomy within the UK” as his preferred option – what others have called “Devo-Max”. But this was ruled out. It is not on the ballot paper – although it has been the consistent line of Salmond’s talk during this campaign when his line has been that there would be no difficulties in keeping the pound and membership of the European Union. Big questions were raised about this – but in a manner I commented in February which would not satisfy the voter

My inclination this past year has been to vote yes - like the vast majority of Scots, I simply feel the political class in London is a different ideological race. And the tactics these past few weeks of the Westminster (and Brussels) "so-genannten" leaders certainly make me feel a bit “stroppy”. The suggestions of cretins such as the EC President (Barroso) and the UK Finance Minister that there could be no currency link between England and an independent Scotland ; or easy negotiation to EU membership  is pure shock tactics…..and so counterproductive.
These idiots don’t know my countrymen – who will simply come off the fence – and vote yes. The only reason the “No” vote (which a few months ago was so strong) is collapsing is because the UK is now ruled by neo-liberal feudalists who, for Scots, are aliens at 2 removes. 

Yesterday’s Guardian article continued

Yet something strange, even sinister, has come to light during the referendum debate. It’s that pro-unionist politicians are the ones who seem least willing to change the union in order to preserve it. They scoff at the idea of a shared currency, of a single market, of a shared membership of the EU. They say that they won’t co-operate with any of that. They want only the union they’ve got, not the union they have the opportunity to create, one held together by what they have in common, yet one in which members are able to go their own way, if and when they wish to.These people cling to this clapped-out, 300-year-old union, even though it’s clear that reform is long overdue.

Weird anomalies abound. Embarrassing anomalies. Only in the UK and Iran do religious prelates automatically take a seat in the legislature, with the established church, the Church of England, by default in effect the church of the UK. 

As for the downright perverse situation, in which Scottish MPs have the right to take part in votes that shape the future of England but are irrelevant to their own constituents, under devolution, what’s the plan on this glaring example of democratic deficit – to let it drift for ever? Scotland has become impatient. It wants the UK to start taking democracy seriously. If it won’t, then Scotland is perfectly capable of doing that for itself, alone.

England’s electorate is starting to see that a referendum it doesn’t have a vote in could change England for ever. This, it is generally considered, is not very fair. But the unfairness doesn’t emanate from Scotland. It emanates from a Westminster that assumes the political passivity of the UK and everyone in it. David Cameron wasn’t too bothered about giving Scotland a vote on the future of the UK. It was easy to ignore the fact that the rest of the UK was being excluded, simply because he didn’t think it was going to come to anything.

Even if Scotland doesn’t vote yes, and merely comes close, it will still have called Westminster’s bluff. Many politicians ask sneeringly what Scotland would gain from the“independence lite” that Alex Salmond is suggesting – an independence that does not break up the UK. They miss the point for a simple, awful reason. They are unused to thinking too much about the electorate, other than at election time, so they cannot see that the revolutionary change would be in how people felt about government, how much greater a stake in government the individual would perceive herself as having.

Members of the establishment see voters as giving them a mandate. They are not interested in sharing the mandate with the people who have granted it. 

The Better Together campaign says: “Leave it to the big boys. It’s all too complicated for you lot to understand. Get on with your work. Look after your kids. We know best.” The Yes Scotland campaign says: “Think about how government impacts on your own life. Understand it. Reflect it back. Don’t be intimidated. Get involved. Get your workmates involved. Get your kids involved. We can work out what’s best together.”

One campaign says: “Be quiet.” The other campaign says: “Speak.” Is it any wonder that yes has gained converts, while no has not?Scotland got its referendum because it asked for it. Westminster’s been “asking for it” for a long time. It underestimated the Scots, and it underestimates the rest of the people of Britain too. Everyone in the UK can seize the initiative, as Scotland has. Start thinking about possibilities, instead of accepting stasis. Start seeking conversation, instead of putting up with pontification. Start talking. Start hoping.

 So far, so good. But the article’s final paragraph had me a bit confused……

Developed and sophisticated democracy can thrive in our four countries, replacing a tired old adversarial system, built for days gone by and resting on its withered laurels. Join Scotland, people of the UK, and liberate yourselves. For that, paradoxically, is the only thing that can keep us together.

 But that’s no longer on the table.

Time for some culture

For almost 25 years I lived directly across from the American nuclear submarine missile base which was established on the River Clyde in the 1960s. I could see it from my bedroom window. At weekends, on my way to a caravan I had bought at Loch Eck, I would pass the huge obscene structure floating on a small loch which was actually called the Holy Loch! Although the Americans dismantled it in the early 90s, the British nuclear submarine (Trident) system has simply moved a mile further east and is one of most powerful and visible points in the independence case……

Hardly surprising that, as a political activist in the 70s, I got into the habit of reciting radical verse at the anti-nuclear demonstrations - Adrian Mitchell was the favourite, particularly with his Tell me Lies 

Tom Leonard’s The Six o’clock News didn’t quite seem to fit the crowd’s requirements in those days – but I’m sure has been heard in recent gatherings…

Apparently one poem – Vote Scotland – has gone viral in the cybersphere – but was unknown to me until a couple of days ago. Its tone gives a very good sense of how a lot of Scottish people feel these days -
I can only give the first part - since the formatting f***s up a bit....... 

People of Scotland, vote with your heart.

Vote with your love for the Queen who nurtured you, cradle to grave,W

ho protects you and cares, her most darling subjects,

to whom you gavethe glens she adores to roam freely through, the stags her children so dearly enjoy killing.

First into battle, loyal and true.  The enemy’s scared of you. 

That’s why we send you over the top with your och-aye-the-noo Mactivish there’s been a murrrderrr

jings! Crivvens! Deepfriedfuckinmarsbar wee wee dram of whisky hoots mon there’s a moose loose aboot this smackaddict

Vote, Jock.  Vote, Sweaty Sock.  Talk properly.

Vote with those notes we scrutinise in our shops.(might be legal tender but looks dodgy to me)

Vote for the Highland Clearances. Baaaaaaaaaa.

Vote for nuclear submarines in your water.

Vote for the Olympic Games you didn’t vote for(but you’ll pay for it, you’ll pay for it).

Vote Conservative. Vote Lib Dem. Vote Libservative. Vote Condabour.

Vote with the chip on your shoulder.

Vote Labour.  New Labour. Old Labour. Scottish Labour.

(Get back in line, Scottish Labour, HQ in Solihull will issue their commands shortly,

Just keep the vote coming in from up there thanks goodbye,

Subsidy junkie).

The Sirens

I think I can now empathise with Ulysses’ problem, all these centuries ago, with the Sirens. Drip by drip, names I respect – Tariq Ali, George Monbiot, Joseph Stiglitz for example have come out (from their non-Scottish redoubts) in favour of Scottish independence. 

The latest name to give his endorsement is someone my radical friends really do need to be careful of…..  (Sir) Simon Jenkins has now kissed the ring.  For those who specialise in discourse analysis, this is a classic - which I have to let speak for itself - in full... 

I sit overlooking Cardiff Bay as seven warships, including the destroyer HMS Duncan, manoeuvre gingerly into position. They join an army of 10,000 assorted police and guards to lock down the city so that Nato can eat a banquet in Cardiff castle. ..From the castle walls, statesmen hurl empty threats at Russia and Islamic State, who are currently dismembering Ukraine and Iraq, two nations the west claimed only recently to have “liberated”.

No one notices that their host, the UK, also faces dismemberment. Nato’s response to a global revolt against over-centralised and insensitive states is to quaff champagne and gobble canapés.Whatever comes of Scotland’s impending independence referendum, Britain owes that country a vote of thanks.

For six months (note – it has actually been 2 years - Jenkins hasn't been paying attention!!) it has staged a festival of democracy, an Edinburgh tattoo of argument. Not a politician, not an airwave, not a town hall, not a wall, tree or road sign is free of the debate. If, as predicted, turnout tops 80%, that is a triumph in itself. Political participation is not dead when it matters. 

How would I vote? As a British citizen residing in London, I would vote no. I would be shocked at how England’s rulers have incurred the loathing and distrust first of most of Ireland and then of half of Scotland. This incompetence reached its climax in the no campaign itself, the jeering, patronising, money-obsessed “project fear” designed to warn the Scots to stay close to nurse. The assumption that independence is all about cash is bad enough. Worse have been the expatriate celebrity endorsements – why have they all left home? – and scares that Scotland will lose its monarch, its missiles, its brains and the BBC, getting only poverty and terrorists in return………………….The shock of the past year might warn the English establishment to embrace constitutional reform. It might put stuffing into David Cameron’s empty localism and avert the humiliation of a collapsed union. 

But as a Londoner I have no such vote. I have to go to Edinburgh and imagine myself a Scot. In that case there is no argument. I would vote yes.I am sure the outcome of the referendum, whichever way it goes, will be nothing like the alarms or promises made by both sides.

Pick apart the no vote’s “devo-max” and the yes vote’s “independence-lite”, and the practical differences are not great. Both will deliver a distinctive Scotland yet one still close to England. Whatever deal follows whatever vote, there will be joint citizens, open borders, a common currency, joint banking, arrangements on welfare, security, tax-gathering and broadcasting. Scotland may set its taxes differently, but the scope for drastic change will be limited. It can already raise or lower its income tax but has not dared to do so. 

As for money, the issues are fiercely contested and wildly out of line. But the consensus appears to be that the £10.5bn net transfer to Scotland could be roughly balanced by Scotland’s notional oil revenue. An independent Scotland would lose a billion a year in windfarm subsidies from English energy consumers and might have to carry over £100bn of debt. It would certainly be tough, but that is what independence is about. Poll evidence suggests that Scottish voters are unmoved by the no campaign’s economic alarmism, leaving money as a matter for politicians to sort out. 

I would vote yes because the no campaign has offered merely stasis. Its leader Alistair Darling’s vision is of union as sole guarantor of prosperity. Yet this paternalism has trapped Scotland in dependency and lack of enterprise for half a century. Nor is it clear what his offer of devo max really means. If Scotland were able to raise more of its own taxes, the risk is that the Treasury would offset them with cuts in the subvention. Scotland might see a more adventurous future, but it would remain in political shackles. 

Alex Salmond’s vision is equally flawed. His socialist heaven of tax and spend, floating on a lake of oil, must be rubbish. He offers voters an extra £1,000 a head after independence, when the reality must be public sector belt tightening. Scotland’s budget would lose Treasury underpinning. Its borrowing would be at risk. Its ministers would be on their mettle. Financial crisis would lead to Greek-style austerity, whereupon voters would chuck Salmond out. The Tories might even revive as the party of discipline and offshore capitalism. 

I would vote yes because, though I disbelieve both Darling and Salmond,Salmond’s lies would precipitate a crisis that would have to lead to a leaner, meaner Scotland, one bolstered by the well-known advantages of newborn states and more intimate governments. Scotland’s whingeing and blaming of London would stop. It would be driven towards true self-sufficiency, capable of resembling Denmark, Norway, Ireland or Slovakia as a haven for fleet-footed entrepreneurs. 

I have lost count of the referendum debates I have attended. They are dominated by expatriate Scots who have no intention of returning home but who enjoy telling Scotland its business from the fleshpots of London. They see union much as their grandparents saw empire, as a historical inevitability to be defended against all argument. Many are blind to the hypocrisy of deploring Britain’s subservience to Brussels yet insisting on Scotland’s subservience to London. 

The United Kingdom really ended with the departure of Ireland in 1922. In the past half-century the drift to self-determination has been remorseless. In the 1970s, 40% of Scots saw themselves as “British”; now only 23% do. To them, arguments about currencies, subsidies and oil are not the issue. They have been debating the essence of democracy – by whom should they be ruled? They are arguing constitutions, not spreadsheets. 

Most Scots know that independence could only be partial, but half-wish to negotiate it as between sovereign peoples. This craving for ever greater regional autonomy is rampant across Europe, from Spain to the Russian border. It slides into partition only when, as in Yugoslavia, central government is deaf to its demands. Whether or not Scotland votes for independence, it will have made its own decision in its own way. To that extent, it is a sovereign state in embryo.

Methinks the man has a point!!