Brian Monteith:

Published on Friday 10 February 2012 12:00

‘HONESTLY, I really don’t know what all the fuss is about,” my Auntie Jean said to me the other day. “It’s not as if independence is going to make any difference, is it?”

“Why do you say that?” I enquired politely, not wishing to influence my great aunt’s answer with my own notions of the pros and cons.

“Well, Mr Salmond has said we’ll still be in the United Kingdom because we’ll still have Her Majesty the Queen as our monarch, we’ll still be in the Common Market, we’ll also still have the pound and not that horrible euro, and we’ll still get BBC programmes like EastEnders. It really doesn’t seem very different from how we are now so what’s all the fuss about?”

My Auntie Jean had a point. What is all the fuss about if nothing is really going to change?

There are two ways to look at her remark – the first is to take Mr Salmond at his word and say, yes, it would appear there won’t be much difference, and the second is to challenge the great tipster’s assertions and see if they are more than a side bet but are in fact a great gamble – one that could leave us wishing we had never placed that bet.

The difficulty with the first approach is that the more Mr Salmond tries to tell us there will be hardly any change the more it begs the question: “Why, if there is so little difference, does it matter so much to Mr Salmond?”

Surely there must be more to this malarkey than just giving Holyrood the power to levy corporation tax? Surely having a seat at the United Nations must mean something will be different?

If so-called “independence” leaves us with all the baubles of being British then why have the vote at all? Why go to all that expense? Why even have a Scottish National Party?

The answer must surely be because it will make a difference.

Scotland will still have Her Majesty as our monarch? Of course we shall – for Mr Salmond to suggest anything else would alienate a large number of people who recognise her dedication to public service; the real question is, will Scotland still have a monarchy after she leaves the throne?

Is Mr Salmond not just being sleekit by postponing the question of monarchy versus Scottish Republic until Charles the Duke of Rothesay should take the throne?

This is the mother of all deceptions – that because we shall have the same monarch as England we shall be in the United Kingdom. This is a lie.

We shall need a different passport and it shall not say, “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland” because we shall no longer be part of Great Britain and thus no longer part of the United Kingdom.

The UK is not defined by Her Majesty being head of state of a nation – are Australia, Canada or Jamaica members of the United Kingdom? Of course not. Is the Republic of Ireland a member of the United Kingdom because it is in the geographical area of the British isles? Of course not.

The truth is an independent Scotland will not be a member of the United Kingdom – for good or bad. The fact that nice Mr Salmond makes this claim must ring alarm bells to all reasonable people – and to nationalists that want independence – because it will be different.

Scotland can choose to keep the pound? Of course it can, but with our central bank suddenly being in a foreign country and utterly unaccountable for its actions (except to Westminster where we shall no longer have any politicians) things could begin to get very different when it starts making decisions that don’t consider the needs of our economy.

When we need interest rates to go down they could go up. When we need them to go up they could go down.

When we need tight monetary controls the bank could be debauching the currency with quantitative easing (the modern term for printing money without any assets to back it up).

The truth is that keeping the pound will become very different, especially for those pensioners on fixed incomes like my Auntie Jean.

The there’s the idea that we shall still get EastEnders and any BBC programmes we currently want (and Corrie too). A new Scottish Broadcasting Corporation will be able to buy Eastenders and include it on its schedules – but let me explain what will be different.

Any production of British programmes made in Scotland such as Question Time will go south. Any BBC and ITV programmes that have British entries will not include anyone from Scotland. British programmes will be just that – with Scots excluded. No Scots on Masterchef, no Scots on antique, fashion or makeover programmes – unless they live in England.

Britain will become sans Scotland, it will be smaller and we shall be excluded – but able to watch.

I think my Auntie Jean will notice the difference to all these things. But will it be too late before she understands what the fuss is all about? Thankfully, I don’t think so.

Comments

There are 3 comments to this article

Order by:

• Newest first
• |
• Oldest first

Page 1 of 1

• 1
• Show all

3

mallus12

Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 11:00 AM

Kobi-Couldn't agree more.AS you have plainly noted Nats can only rant on but give no answers .Abuse,and an increasing urge to intimidate (we'll sort you out after the vote) are their chosen path. In their rose tinted opinions it will be all gain and no pain.My own,as someone who cannot vote,is that the SNP has already reached it's high water mark. The SNP supporters instinctively know this but think treble the level of abuse will silence any opponents--they never think to try persuasion.

• Report Unsuitable

2

mogatrons

Tuesday, February 14, 2012 at 10:37 PM

Sorry to disappoint Kobi, for I am neither demented nor outraged. I'm merely posting to correct some misrepresentations on Brians part;..............1) After Scotland becomes independant there ceases to be a Union of Parliaments, however the Union of Crowns remains, therefore the United Kingdom continues as a monarchy, but not as a political state. The political enties remaining after independance will be the country of Scotland, the country of England with her principality of Wales, The Isle of Man, The Channel Isles, and a yet to be determined status for Northern Ireland, as it was formed under the Union of Parliaments treaty which has no provision for the treaty being dissolved. ........................................................................................... 2) Under the current arrangements with the Bank of England, Scotland has no say on monetary or fiscal policy whereas, after independance Scotland will have complete control over fiscal policy as part of a Sterling currency, so clearly an improvement on the current situation................................................................. 3) regarding that bastion of unionism the BBC, see point 1)................................................................................................... The real point all unionists (with the possible exception of Lord Tebbit of all people) seem entirely unable to grasp is that after Scottish independance the geographical archipelago of the British Isles remains, but the political state of Great Britain does not. The monarchy of the United Kingdom remains, but the political state of the UK does not......What the remaining states wish to call themselves is no concern of an independant Scotland, but it won't be Great Britain or the UK.......................please do try to keep up!

• Report Unsuitable

1

Kobi

Friday, February 10, 2012 at 02:03 PM

Expect a flurry of demented nats on here, outraged at you having pointed out these unpalatable truths, and having a go at you, not at their deceitful leaders.

• Report Unsuitable

Order by:

• Newest first
• |
• Oldest first

Page 1 of 1

• 1
• Show all

Logged in as:

Comment here. Start typing your comment here:

Post comment

Please adhere to our Community guidelines

Your view

Please sign in to be able to comment on this story.