Scotland would be kicked out of the EU

FALSE

Claim:

By ending the United Kingdom, England will be seen as a continuing 'successor state' and Scotland will have to re-negotiate entry from outside the EU, losing benefits such as free trade, freedom of movement and the UK's rebate.

Facts:
There is no precedent or procedure available to Scots as guidance, as to date no EU member state has split. The EU refuse to be drawn into making any definitive rulings until after the matter, claiming they will only publish an opinion if a member state makes a direct official request. The UK refuses to do this. A few European officials in informal interviews have claimed that Scotland would have to re-negotiate entry from outside, and other European officials have said the opposite.

So, with no certainties being offered, how can we know the answer? Well, sit yourself down and ask yourself two questions. One, what sort of organisation is the EU? An expansionary organisation, built on treaty, negotiation and compromise. Two, can you envision a realistic situation where such an organisation refuses membership to a country that already fulfils all its entry criteria, has been doing so for many years, wants in, and would be a net contributor?

What is likely is that Scottish membership will have to be renegotiated. This is a good thing. We might lose our share of the UK's EU rebate - but this rebate was bought at the cost of the Scottish fishing and farming industries. As a result of negotiating the rebate, the UK is no longer eligible for various subsidies that other member states - including an independent Scotland - are. The issue of using the Euro would be another item of negotiation - which I will cover in another post.

An independent Scotland could use the pound sterling

TRUE

Claim:

After independence, the currency won't have to change.

Facts:

Although this seems astonishing, sterling is a fully convertible currency, which means that there is no barrier to anybody adopting it as their currency of convenience, even if the rUK doesn't want them to. And there is precedence for this. Australia used sterling until 1966 (New Zealand until 1967), and the Australian dollar was pegged to Sterling until 1971. Ireland, despite being completely independent since the 1920s, also pegged to sterling, decimalising at the same time as sterling and only unlinking in 1979. Smaller economies, such as Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, continue to do so to this day.

Keeping sterling in a currency union would also suit the rest of the UK. Kicking Scotland out of sterling would mean an end to it as a petrocurrency, backed up by hard assets.

This is a different situation to two vastly differing economies like Greece and Germany sharing the Euro. The overall mix and health of the Scottish and rUK economies are broadly similar, with the Scottish economy appearing, on many metrics like balance of payments, GDP per head, or post-independence deficit, to be healthier.

There is of course the issue that Scotland might have no formal influence on the policy of the Bank of England, or that it could set interest rates that do not suit Scotland. No change there then.

Whether we would want to keep sterling in the medium to long term as the economies diverge is another question, but for the first few years of independence, it makes sense - on both sides - to keep the existing arrangement.

An independent Scotland will be a socialist paradise

UNPROVEN

Claim:
Scotland is more left-wing than England. Left to its own devices, an independent Scotland would nationalise strategic utilities and services, protect and ensure universal services, massively increase tax on the rich, and run the economy into the ground.

Facts:
For some, such as Conservatives, this scenario is their worst nightmare. For others, such as the SSP or Labour for Independence, the desire for independence is driven by the belief that it makes socialism more possible. Look at respected left-wingers such as Jimmy Reid or Dennis Canavan, who did not abandon their principles: rather, they say, Labour abandoned them. These people champion independence because they think it will lead to a more equal society. And the trope of a fairer society is one of the main strands coming from the independence campaign, with testimony after testimony reported by disillusioned former Labour voters who believe independence is the only way they will see the society they want to live in.

And yet... are the people of Scotland socialist? To Gerry Hassan, socialism is one of the false narratives of modern Scottish life. There is plenty talk, but little action. Labour has not been socialist for decades. Yet the SPP, a genuine socialist alternative, has never been more than a fringe party. Scots baulk at the privatisation of the NHS but are otherwise middle-of-the-road, comfortably conservative with a small-'c', with the truly desperate having given up on politics.

Yes, independence gives socialism a chance. But given the willingness of Scots to pay lip-service to socialist ideals without ever actually voting for them, the best that socialists can hope for - and the worst conservatives can fear - is likely to be a Nordic-style social democracy. Which would not necessarily be a bad thing at all.

Scotland is poor and can't afford independence

FALSE

Claim:
Scotland gets a subsidy of £1,200 per head more than the UK average. Without this, Scotland would struggle to pay for roads, hospitals, schools, etc.

Facts:
GERS, Government Expenditure Review Scotland, was an annual report instigated by Tory Michael Forsyth showing a permanent Scottish debt to the rest of the UK. But GERS had some interesting quirks. Important streams of revenue generated in Scotland, such as whisky or oil, were not counted. And expenditure that was deemed of national importance (almost always an infrastructure project in London or the South-East) had its share apportioned to Scottish expenditure.

GERS is correct in that roads, schools, hospitals, etc. in Scotland cost more per head on average than in the rest of the UK. But take into account the missing revenue, and it turns out that the money flow is in the opposite direction. Scotland receives £1,200 per head more than the UK average. But Scotland's tax contribution is £1,700 per head higher than the UK average. The UK is the world's 17th wealthiest country. An independent Scotland, without having to make a single improvement, would be the world's 7th richest country. Yet GERS has done its job as propaganda so well, that the false impression that Scotland is in hock to the rest of the UK is endemic.

And GERS is a snapshot of Scotland in the UK. It takes no account of the finances of an independent Scotland which, even if nothing else changed, would be healthier. To take three simple examples:

• Most Scottish exports are currently invisible, as they go through English ports. 
• The tax revenue generated on the high street is reported at company HQ, often in England. But Tesco in Scotland, like Tesco in Ireland, would pay tax to the local jurisdiction. 
• The costs of running the British civil service, which Scotland partly funds, would be spent in Scotland.  

Next time someone says they would like independence but we can't afford it, send them a link to this page.

I am British, I don't want to lose my nationality

TRUE

 

Claim:

Scottish independence will end British nationality. The flag of Scotland will no longer be the Union Jack, and England and Wales will be a foreign country.

 

Facts:

If your primary identity is British, there is no doubt that Scottish independence will weaken the concrete manifestations of that identity. And if that that doesn't suit you, I respect that. I won't dictate something as personal as national identity to you. 

 

But consider this. If I can be Scottish and British in the current United Kingdom, can you not be British and Scottish in an independent Scotland? Will Britain not retain an overarching identity, the way Norway, Denmark and Sweden are collectively called Scandinavia? Worth thinking about, anyway. 

Scotland couldn't afford the bank bailouts

FALSE

Claim:
The UK promised £65bn to RBS and HBOS. Scotland could not have afforded to do this. Ergo, Scotland could not afford independence.

Facts:
The UK was not the only country to bail out UK banks. The USA also promised £285bn to RBS. Why? Because the USA is where RBS does most of its business. They key point is it's the jurisdiction where the risks are exposed that agrees to cover those risks, not the country where the bank is headquartered. And in the UK, approximately 90% of RBS business is done in the City. If a Scottish Government wanted to go down the same route, they would only have to find £6.5bn to bail out RBS and HBOS.

Not convinced? Consider the case of Belgian bank Fortis, with risks exposed across the Low Countries. It was bailed out in 2008 to the tune of £8.9bn by a consortium of the Belgium, Dutch and Luxembourg governments.

Please correct anyone mentioning this point when they bring it up.

An independent Scotland will be more racist against England

FALSE

Claim:
There have been high profile attacks on English people and symbols such as the English flag over the last ten or more years. These would increase as a result of independence.

Facts:
English people in Scotland worry about being shunned or attacked by Scots. The media fuels this worry by highlighting any such incidents. Yet they have the wrong end of the stick. When a recent annual police report indicated an increase on attacks on 'white British', the Scottish media spent a week blaming Scots for racism and ratcheting up English fears. A week later the details of the police report were released. The breakdown showed that the increase was due to attacks on 'white Scots'. No-one reported this except pro-independence website newsnetscotland.com.

When Murray Watson (an Englishman) studied the attitudes of English people living in Scotland, he discovered an interesting discrepancy. Almost everyone was concerned they might be singled out for their accent or Englishness. Yet almost none had any personal experience to report.

Let us not pretend Scotland is not racist. Any black or Asian person growing up in Scotland could tell you that. But fears over anti-Englishness are out of proportion to their reality, inflated by a media whose agenda is to sow discord.

If anything, it is Scotland's current status as a non-state that is more likely than independence to lead to frustrations against English people being vocalised. The Irish certainly used to dislike England. But how often do you hear of Irish racism towards England nowadays? They have their own lives to get on with - and themselves to blame when things go wrong.