The following letter was published on the Kinross Newsletter prior to the Scottish Independence Referendum.
Dear Editor,
REFLECTIONS ON REFERENDUM DEBATE AND PROCESS BEFORE HISTORIC VOTE 18TH SEPTEMBER
Edinburgh Agreement
A flawed document. The question being put invites negativity from the unionist side. If the questions had been: Should Scotland remain part of the UK? Do you support a Devo Max/Federal solution for Scotland within the UK?; positive debate could have ensued.
There should have been a threshold percentage for the vote rather than a simple majority. Whilst I support the lowering of the voting age, it should be for all elections.
Historic mistakes by Westminster politicians.
The lessons of history are not learned. The loss of Ireland and its arbitrary division was the first casualty of the failure to introduce the home rule concept, following party disagreements. The failure to agree a ‘home rule package’ for Scotland that should be on the table if a ‘No’ vote is secured is a mistake that could lead to the loss of Scotland.
The SNP often refer to the period of independence before 1707 but are silent on the benefits of being part of the UK, from the enlightenment to the present.
Liberal Federal Model
I support this for Britain. There should be home rule parliaments for England (outwith London), Northern Ireland, Scotland & Wales with full tax raising powers to fund their domestic programmes whilst a reformed Westminster retains control of currency matters and financial services, foreign affairs and macro-economic policy. The current constitutional shambles results from the Labour Party’s piecemeal approach to necessary change that is long overdue.
SNP Rhetoric
I have never known a time when an issue (Referendum) has so divided communities families and organisations. The debate has been divisive, full of enmity & intimidating and I think Salmond’s legacy will be the politician who divided Scotland more than any other. The SNP suggest that if you don’t share their vision of ‘a land of milk & honey’ following ‘a seamless transition from the union’ you are somehow unpatriotic towards Scotland. The debate has been an interminable national self-obsession with little regard for the rest of the UK watching from the sidelines; to be followed by another 18 months of difficult negotiations if there is a ‘YES’ vote, that is irreversible.
Government in Scotland on hold
Rather than use the extensive powers they already posses to make a difference, the SNP have spent money from the public purse advocating that only independence is a cure for all ills. Their track record on several issues invites scrutiny.
Unanswered Questions
I do not believe it is necessary to break up Britain in order to tackle Scotland’s problems. Both sides in the debate produce experts to support their viewpoint so it is not surprising there are many undecided voters. I still have questions on citizenship/nationality, currency/financial services and the effects on the markets we’ve already seen, economy (why create a competitor of our largest market?), land ownership reform and pensions/welfare.
I don’t believe that separatism is in the best interests of our islands; it is surely crazy to divide our armed forces in a very uncertain world. Why would you do this unless wanting a different foreign policy? (I suggest if Scotland had been in the Republic of Ireland’s position in 1939, we would have lost the war). I don’t want vast sums spent on a nuclear deterrent either, but I would keep the minimum and negotiate it away on the world stage. Salmond wants open borders and significant immigration, England has had too much so border controls are inevitable; also if you want reform of the EU a ‘No’ vote will mean you have a say in that promised referendum, as opposed to a negotiation on Scotland’s membership that may not secure anything.
For all these reasons I’m casting a ‘No’ vote on Thursday.
Michael A. Barnacle (Independent Councillor for Kinross-shire)
‘Moorend’, Waulkmill, CROOK OF DEVON, Kinross-shire KY13 0UZ.
Tel: 01577 840516