For some time I've asked people from the unionist side to explain why they think we are better together.
Whilst browsing this morning, I found this on the Better Together site. I thought you might like the opportunity to read it and comment upon it.
They say:
We love Scotland. We are ambitious for Scotland's people
and Scotland's possibilities. Our case is not that Scotland could not survive
as a separate country - it is that there's a better choice for our future.
I say:
I have no doubt that you love Scotland, but if you are ambitious for Scotland's people and their "possibilities" (whatever they are), why do you think it is better for us to be governed by a party that we did not vote for?
Why too, do you think that the universally acknowledged "vanity" spending on Trident, widely believed to be the UK prime minister's ticket to play with the big boys in Washington and Beijing, is more important than spending money on the desperately poor state of Scotland, for example, the lowest life expectancy in the UK, highest rate of teenage pregnancy in the UK and in Europe? All this after 300+ years in the UK.
They say:
A strong Scottish Parliament within the United Kingdom gives
us the best of both worlds: real decision making power here in Scotland, as
well as a key role in a strong and secure UK. Now and in the future Scotland is
stronger as part of the United Kingdom and the United Kingdom is stronger with
Scotland as a partner.
I say:
Yes, it has made a huge difference to our lives that we have some very important decisions made in Edinburgh. Under both Labour and SNP governments we have moved forward in law and order, health and education. However there are many areas of immense importance to the people of Scotland which are decided by a government for which we didn't vote and passed by a parliament massively dominated by English MPs, interested in the wants and needs of their constituents. Wants and needs vastly different from those in Scotland. You say that now and in the future Scotland is "stronger" as part of the UK. It's and handy soundbite to scare the pants off people, but what does it mean? Are you proud that we could, with the UK, blow Moscow off the face of the earth and kill millions of people? You say that the UK is stronger with Scotland as a partner. Why on Earth wouldn't Scotland still be a partner with the UK after independence?Surely the UK is forever bragging about its partnership with the USA, and yet the USA declared independence in 1776.
They say:
In the UK the BBC and the Bank of England were founded by
Scotsmen. The NHS was founded by a Welshman. The State Pension system was
founded by an Englishman. Partners in these islands. Working together, better
together.
I say:
Surely in the 21st century we don't have to belong to a country to "found" or use things. Facebook, Wikipedia, McDonald's, are as much part of our lives as pensions and the NHS. Of course the pension system is the worst in Europe, beaten even by Jersey and Guernsey, and in England the NHS is being taken to pieces The BBC takes in far more from Scotland than it spends here, and the governor of the Bank of England once said that unemployment in the north was a price worth paying for helping the economy in the south, so even if it was started by a Scot, it is not now working for Scotland.
They say:
We are proud that we fought together to defeat fascism, and
worked together to build a welfare state. But the case we make is about what's
best for Scotland's future.
I say:
We fought fascism together with many other countries including the Soviet Union and the USA, Poland, France, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Mexico, the British Raj, South Africa, The Netherlands, Ethiopia, Greece, Norway... and more...
The Welfare state that we worked together to create is being dismantled by the Conservative (and Liberal ) government in London, pretty much against the will of the people in Scotland Even Labour and the SNP MPs voted together against some of the measures going against the Willie Bain principle that whatever the SNP say, Labour votes against it, even if it is Labour policy.
They say:
Times are really tough at home and really turbulent
internationally. In the future Scotland's prosperity will be strengthened by
keeping the British connection. We need more growth, more jobs, and more
prosperity in Scotland. We don't need uncertainty, instability, and barriers
for our businesses.
I say:
Yes times are tough, and although different measures show different results (on the basis that statistics can be made to show what ever you want them to), the general view is that countries that have worked to spend their way out of recession/depression, have done much better than the British model which has reduced spending. In a country where three new soup kitchens or food banks open every week, it's hard to take seriously the notion that we would be better off together. Uncertainty hasn't caused us any problems so far. Barriers to business don't exist in the European single market of EU and EFTA countries. There is no need for borders. There are none between Eire and the UK.
They say:
In these tough and turbulent times, the size, strength and
stability of the UK economy is a huge advantage for Scotland's businesses.
Scotland's largest market is the rest of the UK. The UK is the world's oldest
and most successful single market and the UK has the oldest and most successful
currency - the pound.
I say:
The EU is a single market. If Scotland and the UK remain in teh EU there is no reason to fear. The age of the single market actually means very little. And frankly to suggest that sterling is the worlds most successful currency is just laughable. Would you like to provide some reference for this? The Yen, Swiss Franc, American Dollar may have slipped off your radar. The pound is barely managing to hold its own against the Euro.
They say:
Scottish businesses are increasingly having to win orders
against smart, efficient and productive firms in foreign markets. These
competitive challenges will only get tougher in the years ahead. The UK is
better placed than a separate Scotland or England to help our businesses find
and win new orders across the world.
I say:
Why? Could you explain why the UK can better crack markets in the growing economies in the East, in Africa and in South America. I see absolutely no reason that that would be true. Incidentally, maybe you should remember that the UK as it stands, is more than Scotland and England. Wales and Northern Ireland may be small, but they do exist.
....Part 2 to follow.
