Scottish National Party ousts Labour in political upset
0 
Scotland has fresh water and renewable energy sources in abundance – two resources that are in worryingly short supply in England. And it is clear that revenues from North Sea oil – most of which would be in Scottish waters if the country was independent – have for decades provided a life-support system to Britain's badly-skewed economy and its unhealthy dependence on the financial maneuverings of the City of London.
Scots now cast increasingly envious eyes across the North Sea towards Norway. This small coastal country bears many similarities to Scotland – the populations of the two countries are almost identical – and it too had the good fortune to be blessed with the discovery of substantial North Sea oil reserves in the 1960s. But Norway has husbanded its reserves carefully, and now possesses an "oil wealth fund" amounting to some £400 billion. In contrast, Scotland currently "owns" one tenth of a UK national debt estimated to be at least £2 trillion. This public per capita debt of £40,000 causes Scots to shake their heads ruefully and observe that Scotland is "the only country in the world to have discovered oil, and got poorer".
The impact of Scottish independence on the political scene in England might be dramatic. Without the Scottish MPs who form the base of its Westminster presence, the Labour Party would be faced with a struggle to ever again win a majority in London. The Conservative Party might enjoy decades in power.
And there are major geopolitical ramifications too. Scotland's seas host the submarines that carry Britain's "independent" nuclear deterrent. But the SNP is opposed to Britain's Trident missiles both for economic reasons and for reasons of principle. And England has no deep water ports suitable for nuclear submarines. What future for England as a world power, without this military status symbol? And what might the USA have to say to Scottish demands that new homes be found for its UK-based Trident missiles?
The SNP's manifestos in 2007 and again in 2011 contained a commitment to a referendum on Scotland's constitutional future, including the option of independence. This would be a bold move. Opinion polls repeatedly demonstrate that support for independence runs no higher than 40 percent. But the SNP believes that in a structured debate in the lead-up to the referendum it would win over many doubters. Its supporters hold that the unionist case is largely based on demonstrable falsehoods, and that ultimately the unionist campaign would be reduced to a feeble mantra: "We can't be independent because we're too wee, too stupid, too feart…" (too small too stupid, too frightened).
Following the result of the election the three London-based Unionist Parties, which previously set their faces against any such referendum, have begun to perform an abrupt volte-face. Some are even advancing the breathtakingly cynical argument that the Scots should now be forced to hold an immediate referendum, at a time of London's choosing. These include prominent conservatives and a number of their otherwise implacable political opponents – MPs from the Westminster parliamentary Labour Party.
The prospect of London politicians forcing on the people of Scotland a referendum that they have previously done everything in their power to oppose might cause glee in the hardline unionist camp. But it is unlikely to earn anything but contempt from a less partisan audience, and it could have the opposite result from that intended – a breakthrough for the SNP whose shock waves might resonate much farther from Scotland's secluded mountains and glens than the results of last week's election.
The author is a Scottish writer working in Beijing.
Go to Forum >>0 Comments