IT’S interesting these days to watch the changing narratives now that polls are showing a majority of Scots supporting independence.
It’s not just the usual suspects shouting about “federalism” now. Arch Tories are joining in the chorus. And what’s this “four nations” approach to Covid? It seems to have replaced the “one nation” approach. Perhaps Mr Biden, with his Irish roots and mindful of the Good Friday Agreement, has got the Bullingdon boys telt. Who knows.
READ MORE: Wee Ginger Dug: F-word being trotted out means one thing: panic from the Tories
The “F” word is annoying though, isn’t it? We knew it would be rolled out again, just like it was in the week leading up to the indyref in 2014. It is intended as a spoiler, a stick in the spokes of the independence campaign. Of course, federalism is not in our gift. It would have to be accepted by the rest of the UK. It also somewhat neutralises nationhood and is but a band aid over the deep gash afflicting this so-called Union. If we reject the possibility of a third question, we are accused of being “fleg” wavers and blood-and-soil nats or something along theses lines.
Perhaps, however, there is a better “third” option. Not one that is on a ballot paper, but an option as a prelude to a referendum, or one that avoids the need to have one at all. As the “four nations” approach is being ramped up and driven into our psyche, how about we take that narrative and turn it into a “last-ditch” proposal that would not only preserve the UK but improve it immeasurably?
READ MORE: Henry McLeish: Boris Johnson is waging a calculated war on Scotland
Stay with me here. What would a “four nations” UK look like?
Picture each nation of the Union having full control over its policies and sovereign resources, each with its own treasury. The Bank of England becomes the “UK Central Bank” and each nation has an equal controlling presence in its day-to-day monetary operation. The central bank represents all four nations the same way as the European Central Bank in Brussels is mandated to support all 27 nations in the EU. Each nation has full control of its defence policy and spending. If Scotland decides to leave Nato, so be it. Austria and Italy are members of the Eurozone. They share a border. Italy is in Nato, Austria is not.
So who would be happy with such an arrangement and would it be realistic?
Well the English public should be happy. They have been told repeatedly that they subsidise the rest of the Union. Just like Eurozone members, each member nation would have their own account at the UK Central Bank and run their own debt/deficit denominated in sterling. England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would have autonomy over the funding of their own infrastructure.
The SNP should be happy. This is a more powerful option than that proposed by the Growth Commission. As a member of a formal sterling zone and having a lender of last resort, we would also have much less exposure to risk.
Would Yes voters be happy? Well in the unlikely event that the Tories agreed to this, it is a country mile better than what we have at the moment. There are also a number of other reasons to get behind this idea.
It demonstrates to the international community that we have put forward a perfectly reasonable proposal to maintain the Union, albeit a fairer one
than exists at the moment. It wouldn’t be “all about Scottish nationalism”, because it would involve a “family” of nations of the UK working together to make the Union fit for purpose. There would be absolutely nothing to stop the UK Government starting to implement this now, and we wouldn’t be faced with the risk of a “Vow 2” or “devo to the max” promise which would likely be broken.
Lastly, what reason could the opposition parties have for opposing the idea? If they were to vote against it they would likely face political extinction, along with the Union. So would the Tories support the idea? Probably not. But that would simply confirm their preference for dominion over partnership and provide the catalyst for a two-question referendum.
So how about it? What do we have to lose?
Scott Egner
Aberdour
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel