Get Scotland sorted first - then decide whether to stay in Union

Published on Thursday 27 March 2008 19:51

The constitutional debate can wait until after we have tackled priorities such as education, writes ARCHIE STIRLING

THE debate on the future of the UK seems often fraught with difficulty. It should not be. Speaking as a Scot, the first and most important question is simply: what serves Scotland best? The choices are threefold – devolution as we have it, independence or something in between?

Let us start with a clear statement of fact: the vote for the SNP in last May's Holyrood elections was not a vote for independence; it was a vote against an incompetent, petty and corrupt Labour hegemony that had dominated Scottish life for half a century.

It was a vote against a party that had made us increasingly a nation of dependents, one that stifled individuality and encouraged the pursuit of mediocrity in all things.

It was a vote against a party that had set our education system on the road to ruin, that had overseen the decline of our health service despite the best efforts of doctors, nurses and ancillary staff, and that had failed to understand what motivated people because it distrusted them and therefore sought to control and centralise.

Now, Labour, the Scottish Tories and the Liberal Democrats intend to sit together and discuss an increase in devolutionary powers in a bid to halt the Nationalist train (although Gordon Brown might have other ideas).

As ever, Labour misses the point, just as Donald Dewar and those (including Wendy Alexander) who devised the devolution settlement, missed the point. Their aim then, as it is now, was to stop the slide towards independence. At the same time, Labour aimed to prevent the re-emergence of the Tory party as a power in Scotland. The latter is clearly unnecessary since the Tories now stand for nothing and are being treated by the electorate as they deserve; the former was clearly not thought through, as any reasonably intelligent non-politician could have told them.

Should Holyrood have more powers? Had MSPs proved during the past eight years that they were competent, and had Holyrood attracted a higher calibre of politician, then further powers might have seemed sensible. The ability to raise taxes to a greater degree than at present and greater control over most Scottish affairs could benefit us all. But the first eight years proved nothing, except that Holyrood politicians were not exactly inspiring. The jury is still out on the SNP minority government, although it is making a far better fist of it than what went before.

Full independence as dreamt by the Bravehearts would achieve nothing except a brief emotional high, to be replaced by the realities of a hugely increased bureaucracy and ever-greater taxation to pay for such necessities as our armed forces, embassies and missions around the world and our share of national debt.

The truth, though it might be unfashionable to say so, is that, as part of the UK, England, Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland benefit collectively from their joint history, their authority and experience and, certainly, as the only Union to have stood the test of time. Separate us into two or more parts and our friends, never mind our enemies, would rejoice at the chance to downgrade our influence and standing in the world. Do not listen to those who tell you that Scotland on its own would play a greater part in international affairs; life does not work like that.

Our ability to make ourselves heard as the United Kingdom is fundamentally important, not least to protect our position both within the European Union and the wider world.

Many people who are reluctant to support independence are not driven, as Nationalist supporters would claim, by fear of the unknown. Scotland is perfectly capable of running itself. Indeed, a quick glance at the power bases of government, the civil service, the armed forces and even weather forecasters in the UK shows that we occupy far more than the 10 per cent ratio that simple demographics would dictate. This is true not just in London and throughout the United Kingdom but in the far flung corners of the world.

On a practical level, independence represents a huge financial challenge, not because we are incapable, but because the legacy of previous misrule is a country where more than 50 per cent of the gross domestic product is expenditure by the state. That is no way to run a country. So, for independence to succeed, we would have to change fundamentally the way in which we manage ourselves. It renders all arguments about oil revenue irrelevant since, even were it possible to balance our books in the short term, no-one seriously believes the oil will continue to flow for ever. It follows that, unless we embrace opportunity, allow the creation of wealth without envy and surgically remove the mantra that seems currently to be the motto of Scotland – "public good, private bad" – we will never prosper as we should.

Scotland needs change in order to achieve its potential. If independence is the catalyst for such change, we should not be frightened of it, but I believe there are many steps we can take that will immeasurably improve our nation before we opt for such a radical and irreversible move. What we need is a change of approach and attitude in how we run our affairs; an understanding that equality of opportunity is not achieved by ensuring that nobody loses but by allowing the winners to achieve their potential, while ensuring that protection is available to those who do not find life so easy.

First and foremost, we need to ensure that our schools and colleges meet the needs of the country by turning out young people who have hope and ambition, and understand that opportunity is there for those who look for it. For that, we need to ensure they have the tools to succeed, whether that be academically or through apprenticeships, technical colleges or simply encouraging their talents in whatever direction they lie.

Once our children have hope for the future, then we can decide what that future might be with confidence – whether it be within the Union or through independence.

&#149 Archie Stirling is a businessman, farmer and leader of Scottish Voice, an apolitical party set up prior to last May's Scottish Parliament election.