Skip to main content

The Bullies of Westminster could push Scotland towards Independence

The day is nearly upon us. On Thursday 18th September, Scotland will be making their "biggest decision of the century", a decision that will shape United Kingdom in a way that was deemed unimaginable only a few decades ago. Come Friday, Scotland, to England, Wales and Northern Ireland, could become a 'foreign country'.

As a Welshman living in London, I have been looking at this Scottish Independence referendum campaign very closely. From when Scotland's First Minister, Alex Salmond first announced his intentions in January 2012 up to today, the political arenas in Edinburgh and Westminster have never been so noisy about this issue. It has been somewhat rare to see Westminster united in the fact that they want, and need, Scotland to stay, but the Scottish National Party (SNP), have other ideas.

You would think that by now we'd see a clear indication as to where this vote will go. Far from it. Polls for the vast majority of the time since January 2012 to now show that the 'No' vote, or the 'Better Together' campaign had the majority of the votes - however, after recent debates between Salmond and Better Together's leader Alistair Darling, the 'Yes' vote has caught up pretty rapidly. Last week, YouGov showed that more Scots were going to back independence which panicked the likes of UK's Prime Minister, David Cameron.

So what have we learned in the run up to the Scottish Independence vote? Have we learned that the 'Yes' campaign would mean a guaranteed better future for the people of Scotland? Or would voting 'No' be a lucky escape for the five million citizens living there? That is what both sets of supporters have been trying to convince people. I cannot vote in this as I do not live in Scotland, but even my mind is at a spin. The media coverage has been absolutely huge about this, but doesn't read well for the 'Yes' campaign.

However, if I was living in Scotland right now, I'd be voting 'Yes'. It may sound like a surprise to people because statistics shows that those outside of Scotland, want it to remain as part of the UK. But from the outside, I think that Westminster has done so much wrong in this campaign, I feel that Scotland need to go to stay sane. The likes of David Cameron have ensured that Scots listen to their heart rather than their brain. If Scotland vote 'Yes', it would be for moral reasons, not for economical.

The 'No' vote has completely relied upon the hate campaign towards Alex Salmond and the claim that Scotland will be much poorer and culturally inept if they were ruled under the European Union rather than Westminster. We hear in the news that bigger Scottish firms are looking to "move south" as they feel that it will all be doom and gloom if Scotland decides to do it alone. These predictions are just that. I think it is plain scare-mongering, something that Westminster, and particularly the current government has done so well for the last four or more years.

In my opinion, David Cameron, and his accomplice Nick Clegg, along with opposition leader Ed Miliband, has focused so much on one side of the story, I feel that they should have concentrated on saying, "I prefer it if Scotland didn't vote for independence, but if they did, United Kingdom will be there to support you all the way". If they chose that approach, I'm sure that the relationship between the UK and Scotland would strengthen in the long term. Instead, they all travelled north of the border in the last week, and used strong messaging which made people wonder "Why do you care about what happens to Scotland now when you didn't give a damn about them in the past?" But should Scotland vote 'Yes', I don't think Alex Salmond would welcome Westminster's support with open arms. Likewise, if Scotland vote 'No', I think that Salmond would probably need to resign as their First Minister.

Of course, voting for independence would be an economic risk. Every decision an individual makes has financial repercussions, especially now more than ever. Certainly, this vote is a considerably larger risk because there are millions of lives on the line, but what I get from the 'No' vote is that they indicate that Scotland are incapable of doing it alone. To me there has been too much talk about what currency Scotland will have, where in my view, that shouldn't be so significant now. If they kept the Pound, that may not be for long. Take each day as it comes. Salmond may be many things but if he is so confident that Scotland can thrive as an independent country, then surely we should take him seriously.

However, Scottish people have had enough of the lack of share in investment they receive compared to what London gets. Having lived in the capital for nearly a year now, I know how much goes into London compared to outside of the city. It's like living in a different world. There's no signs of austerity in London but if you visit Scotland, North West of England, Wales, and so on, the cuts have clearly hit them hard. Scotland have no trust in Westminster's policies, and the people there have noticed that for a long time. They may be "better off" voting 'No', but because of the idiocy of previous British government failings in supporting those beyond London, you can see why the 'Yes' vote is gathering pace.

You can therefore see why Wales and Northern Ireland are taking this vote seriously. Wales in particular, recently voted for more devolution powers and Plaid Cymru, where recently have lost some support, are in recovery mode and can make a case themselves for Welsh independence. For me personally, I believe that the Senedd need to forge some strong foreign relations, like Scotland have with some of the richer Scandinavian nations, and prove that they have the competitive edge. If Wales wants independence, they need to follow the footsteps of Scotland. But I'm sure if there was a vote tomorrow, Wales would be an independent country too. David Cameron keeps criticising the Welsh NHS, the Welsh education system. We know there is room for improvement in these departments, but if you keep bullying and prodding, you will be ignored unless you do something about it. Yes, Welsh devolution limits Westminster's powers over what happens in Wales, but they can invest and advise without being snooty about their frailties in health and education.

Back to Scotland, and regardless of the vote, I believe that destiny and the future of the country will be positive. What I also hope, is that people don't vote for the reason that their favourite celebrity is leaning to one campaign. I'm hoping also, that the war of words between the 'Yes' and 'No' vote is just showing off and that whatever happens on Thursday 18th September, alliances would strengthen and rivalries will be set aside.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Splitting Britain to its eventual death

Londoner Mo Farah and Sheffield-born Jessica Ennis-Hill set to see their cities drift away from Westminster bubble (Image: Daily Mail) I don't know about you, but I'm loving this year's Olympics. The daunting talk about Brazil's corrupt politics, high levels of extreme poverty and the doping scandal are secondary topics for discussion while the spectacular sporting action and country's tourism boost are dominating headlines. But for me, I've been particularly impressed by UK's togetherness in pride for Team GB's overwhelming success so far. The country's dominance in rowing and cycling is something worth celebrating and hopefully they can provide a new wave of inspiration for many that London 2012 sadly couldn't. With Team GB continuing to shine in Rio de Janeiro, it's a big shame that back at home, political leaders are going out of their way in breaking up the country. In this rate, come Tokyo 2020 Olympics or whoever hosts the 2

Sepp Blatter mustn't resign, yet

Fifa President has to clean-up his mess before deciding to leave Living in Blatter-land World football governing body, Fifa's President Sepp Blatter has been under the spotlight for the second consecutive week and again for all the wrong reasons. Last week he banned British isle national sides from wearing a poppy branding the flower "political" but this time around, on countless interviews with major broadcasting companies yesterday, he controversially said that "there is no racism in football" and if racism occurred in a match, then players involved must handshake at the end of the game. This has sparked anger across the world of football including hierarchies of the English Professional Football Association (PFA), football players such as Manchester United's Rio Ferdinand and pundits alike. After hearing those comments by Blatter, people such as myself would bang our heads on brick walls. Today, the 75-year-old went to clarify his previous afterno

Settling the transgender debate like grown-ups

Flag that represents the trans community (Image: The Age) The 'transgender debate' has been hard to escape in recent years. It's impacting many areas of our lives, including in schools , work and sport . Sadly, the media narrative of these stories has made it impossible to rationally discuss how to best support people who have decided to make this life-changing decision, or how to assure their 'opponents' that they aren't being cast aside, or their rights have been taken from them. I'll try and analyse this as level-headed as possible and conclude what we (UK as a whole) should be doing, as a way of being a world leader on what is seen as a divisive matter, where it ought not to be. The current narrative is arguably led by two very different sides - one, the so-called 'pro-trans' groups, who combatively argue that people who want to transition should have easy access to basically everything; from legally changing their gender, to requiring advanced