Return to: Home | Politics | Economy

Scotland the Broke

Rob Brown

Published 27 November 2008

Uncertainty and anxiety are the presiding moods north of Hadrian’s Wall as much as anywhere else. Scotland the Brave has become Scotland the Broke, reports Rob Brown

Capital gain: a Saltire flies in Edinburgh

On an official visit to New York in October 2007, Scotland’s nationalist First Minister, Alex Salmond, merrily trumpeted how his former employer, the Royal Bank of Scotland, was a “global giant” and would play an important part in making his nation the economic success story of the next few years. “You’ve heard about Ireland’s Celtic tiger,” Salmond said breezily on the CNBC business channel. “What you’re about to see is the emergence of the Celtic lion of Scotland.”

Now there is no more talk about tigers or lions. Uncertainty and anxiety are the presiding moods north of Hadrian’s Wall as much as anywhere else. Scotland the Brave has become Scotland the Broke.

“The condition of the economy, the fears of our people, the state of the financial sector, are a staggering condemnation of the state of the United Kingdom,” Salmond told Scottish National Party delegates at their recent annual conference.

In truth, “Smart Alex” wasn’t smart enough to spot the reckless deficiencies in UK financial regulation before the crash. He never raised a peep about Gordon Brown’s long love affair with the pinstriped brigade; the former bank economist simply preferred the pinstripes of Edinburgh’s Charlotte Square to those of the Square Mile.

Every bit as much as Brown, Salmond was perfectly content to swoon over the bankers’ buccaneering so long as they were contributing substantially to the projected GNP of an independent Scotland. His proposed solution to the present crisis is similar to Brown’s: the state must spend and borrow, and the banks must be bullied back into pre-credit-crunch lending levels, so that we can all once again perform our great patriotic duty to shop and spend.

Salmond’s short-termism is driven by his dream of becoming prime minister of an independent Scotland by 2010. Ludicrous as it might seem, amid all the current turmoil, that is the target date the SNP leader has set, and says he is sticking to, for a referendum on the nation’s constitutional future.

After a full decade of devolution, and having slugged it out on the front line of Scottish politics since 1987, Salmond is in a hurry to make history. But party members should be wary of his impatience, because this inveterate gambler wouldn’t just be risking further economic instability and his own political legacy with an ill-timed referendum.

He would be risking the very future of the self-government cause. (Salmond himself has stated that defeat would kill aspirations to statehood stone dead for a generation.)

Though one survey has suggested that support for independence might surge from 31 per cent to 40 per cent if the Tories came back to power, that would still leave a substantial majority in favour of the status quo. Moreover, history has shown that the SNP languishes during economic downturns.

Ever since the discovery of North Sea oil first put fuel in its tartan-trimmed bandwagon in the 1960s, the SNP has transmitted a more narrowly materialistic outlook than most other nationalist movements. In part, this has been a response to the realisation that Scots have been seduced every bit as much as their English neighbours by money, status and possessions. Narcissism has been as rampant as nationalism in Scotland, as has nihilism.

Those who are serious about not just acquiring symbols of statehood, but summoning a new spirit of community and common purpose, a more healthy and wholesome set of national and individual values, ought to put off plans for a plebiscite and face up to these inconvenient truths.

“Nations and peoples are largely the stories they feed themselves,” wrote Ben Okri. “If they tell themselves stories that are lies, they will suffer the future consequences of those lies. If they tell themselves stories that face their own truths, they will free their histories for future flowerings.”
Truth is what will set the people of Scotland free, not worn-out rhetoric and an ill-timed referendum.

The writer is a member of the SNP

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

12 comments from readers

mitchy
28 November 2008 at 11:54

Well, it wouldnt be the first time the bumptious wee shite has opened his mouth and let his belly rumble. I'm as chuffed as the next Scot to be Scottish, but not for the obnoxious reasons Salmond would have us adopt.

Heh, not that it wasnt obvious before, but its even clearer now whyTrump's SSSI-destroying golf compound got conditional planning approval.

First Minister by 2010, Hah! that'll be right...

Johanes
28 November 2008 at 14:35

Disappointed by the "worn out rhetoric", negativity and "ad hominem" line taken in much (not all) of this article (we're too wee, too puir, etc.). The SNP is indeed a broad kirk, but I didn't know how broad.

And the comment above seems to belong to the same school, although curiously in this case, the writer does not claim to be an SNP member ...

SisterKaff
28 November 2008 at 14:51

Independence for Scotland would be lovely. I'm all for it.

written from the shire of Oxford

Alex
28 November 2008 at 17:22

If the author really is a member of the SNP, then he's one of the more intelligent nationalists I've encountered.

The referendum was never on with any chance of "success" for the independence movement. The SNP has never got more than 33% of the vote in any election. In 2007 it got 32.9% of a 51.7% turnout, fewer than 17% of registered voters.

There is no way that any respectable majority of Scots would support independence in any forseeable circumstance.

As for "the truth will set you free"...the truth is, nobodies enslaved, except maybe the SNP to it's own foolish delusions...

Alex
28 November 2008 at 17:55

Oh dear "nobodies"...

Observer
28 November 2008 at 21:26

This really is a very silly article which has been trailed in other papers as a sign that there is division in the ranks over the timing of the referendum. There isn't. The only division is between fundies and gradualists. Salmond is a gradualist.

Observer
28 November 2008 at 21:34

Alex I am impressed at your omnipresence, and here is me thinking that your duties as a Councillor (Labour) would be keeping you busy.

Let's analyse this a bit further. Scotland the brave is no more Scotland the broke than the rest of the UK is Broken Britain. The collapse of the UK banking system says nothing whatsoever about Scotland's ability to manage as an independent country - it was on Labour's watch that the banks went bust, not the SNP's.

I think it is blindingly obvious that all the mainstream political parties need to live and learn from this experience.

The SNP are no exception.

The other mistake the writer makes is to associate the desire for independence exclusively with the SNP, and further to imagine some kind of role for Salmond as the great helsman. That is rubbish.

And if the writer is an active member of the SNP who speaks for anyone other than himself, then I am the Queen of Sheba.

He's a troll.

Alex
29 November 2008 at 10:29

Observer, thanks for the vote of confidence.

The writer is described in the Scotsman as "the media commentator and academic Rob Brown, a former media editor at Scotland on Sunday and a member of the SNP". Seems quite respectable qualifications to me.

BTW a "troll" is not just someone you disagree with, a troll is someone who infects a thread with the intention of disrupting or destroying the exchange of rational argument on the thread. Rob Brown wrote that article on which this thread is based. He is the opposite of a troll.

And he points out that the SNP is likely to lose a referendum on the question of independence, if it is held in 2010. That's his opinion. In the Telegraph Jim Sillars and Chris Walker are quoted in similar vein.

It's fairly obvious that the SNP has failed at Holyrood (Student Debt, First-time Buyers, Futures Trust, Local Income Tax... they have been in power for 19 months and they have not commissioned one new school!!!).

And it is fairly obvious that previously loyal and silent nationalists are gettting fed up with the current "strategy".

The referendum was just another rash promise made by the SNP when they thought that they would not have to deliver... Rob Brown is right, sticking to the tactic of having a referendum now will set the independence movement back a generation... bring it on!

Gerry Myer
29 November 2008 at 17:18

When will they learn? Hadrian's Wall does not mark the border between England and Scotland. Most of the large English county of Northumberland lies North of the wall. In particular the wall is about an hour's drive South of the English town of Berwick.

Roland Baker
29 November 2008 at 17:55

To TROLL or not to TROLL, that is the question. Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous currency parity with sterling or to appropriate, perchance to dream, that which international law would allow from your oil reserves to enure entirely for your exchequer, that is the question.

The arc of prosperity is built on rolling up your shirtsleeves and contributing, not on standing outside, disputing what you will get out, before you put anything in. Scotland used to be good at that. Can it recover?

Observer
29 November 2008 at 21:42

Alex - The Scotsman and the Telegraph trailed this story as showing some kind of division in the SNP ranks about the timing of the referendum. Try as hard as I could, I couldn't find any evidence that anyone other than the writer thinks the referendum needs to be put back because of the banking crisis.

It's a manufactured story, which is why I suggest that Mr Brown is a troll. He is masquerading as a spokesman for a point of view, which appears to be his, and only his.

Jim Sillars just said what Jim Sillars always says in the Telegraph, and Chris's contribution was lifted verbatim from a letter he had published in the Herald. As you know, Mr Walker's position is the same as mine - full speed ahead to independence.

My only quibble with SNP policy is that they concentrate too much on demonstrating good governance - very difficult to do within the constraints of devolution. I think they should discard that policy , for as Sillars says, you can't win a referendum campaign in 3 weeks.

Which seems to put me on the same side as Sillars, Chris, and the SNP in thinking that the banking crisis is no impediment to independence (quite the contrary) and leaves Mr Brown on his own.

mitchy
03 December 2008 at 13:29

@Johanes: Try reading my comment again, I think you'll find I'm being realistic, rather than spouting worn out rhetoric or negativity for the sake of it, as you, wrongly, suggest.

Or perhaps you are an SNP supporter and dont like what I have to say?

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before your comment is displayed on the website

You may enter up to 2000 characters (about 300-350 words)

Characters left:

We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.

Also by Rob Brown

Read More

Vote!

Will China rule the world?

Suggest a question

View comments

© New Statesman 1913 – 2009

Tracker