Cute Cat Friday 2014-09-26: Belle

Belle gives a regal wave of the paw from her throne on the sofa.

Scotland's Vote 27: Demanding the Impossible

The post-referendum article by Irvine Welsh, which I quoted in the previous entry, also has this to say:

A devo max that gives Scotland the power to raise taxes to pay for welfare programmes, but not reduce them by opting out of Trident and other defence spending, while maintaining the oil flow south of the border, without even an investment or poverty alleviation fund, is a sham, especially as it was denied at the ballot box. It may be perceived as setting up the Scottish parliament to fail, and undermining devolution. 

[Emphasis mine]

Opting out of Trident? How is that supposed to work?

Scottish voters have decided to remain part of the UK, and the armed forces are an intrinsic part of that package.

The UK government is responsible for defence policy in Scotland. It has chosen to make nuclear weapons part of that policy. Trident missiles are deployed by the same Royal Navy which recruits from Scotland, defends Scottish waters, and answers to a Parliament which includes Scottish MPs. It's a single organisation, and Scots can't point to the Trident submarines and say, "oh, no, that bit doesn't belong to us."

Vanguard-class Trident missile submarine.
Source: Wikipedia

This will be the case under any realistic form of devolution. Even in the most maximal versions being contemplated, Scotland would not have its own separate armed forces.

The most the UK government could do would be to offer Scotland a financial rebate, based on the estimated cost of the nuclear program. So the Scots would symbolically cease contributing funds to Trident, while still enjoying the (dubious) benefits and suffering the (considerable) infamy of having nuclear weapons deployed on their behalf. From a moral standpoint, this isn't much of an improvement.

Many English people are opposed to Trident, and many Scots are not. Why is it that each and every Scot must be paid off with money from England (and Wales, and Northern Ireland), to appease anti-nuclear feelings north of the border? Taxpayers in the rest of the UK would have very good reason to resent this arrangement. Trident is at least a relatively distinct budget item; how does Welsh plan to identify the "other defence spending" that is surplus to Scotland's requirements?

Moreover, if Scotland can pick and choose which parts of the UK budget it wants to fund, why not England? What if England decides it doesn't want to fund unemployment benefits for deprived parts of Scotland, and demands a rebate of its own? This would be an insane way to run a government, and nobody is going to put it into effect.

Irvine Welsh is the one setting up devolution to fail, at least from his perspective. By demanding the impossible, he guarantees the reality will be what he considers "a sham".

I know Welsh is a novelist, not a policy expert; and he speaks only for himself, not the independence movement at large. Even so, I suspect his views are not unusual among committed independence supporters. To the extent they agree with him, it casts into doubt whether they are willing or able to make a positive contribution to devolved government.

Scotland's Vote 26: Fear did not win

Referring to the No campaign as Project Fear started off as a clever bit of marketing by the Yes side. It has become something dangerously close to an article of faith.

Some independence supporters now put forward this reasoning:

1. The No side is Project Fear.
2. Anyone who votes No is a coward, at best.
3. Scotland's chance at independence was lost because of a lot of No-voting cowards.

For example, Irvine Welsh wrote (emphasis mine):

The no voters should take a bow: they delivered the UK establishment a reprieve the enervated, confused and weak campaign of their masters certainly didn't deserve. They have bought time for the union, and many of them, people who will habitually support the status quo at almost any cost, will simply be relieved.

The prominent Yes campaigners Wings Over Scotland are less circumspect:

... if the Scottish people willingly allowed themselves to be frightened and cowed they have nobody but themselves to blame.

In the language of the school playground: If you voted No, you're nothing but a great big jessie.

Source: USA Today

Scotland's Vote 25: Immediate Reaction

The vote is a decisive No:

Final result of Scotland's Independence referendum #indyref NO 2,001,926 (55%) YES 1,617,989 (45%) Turnout 84.59% pic.twitter.com/A6TZonWupd
— BBC Breaking News (@BBCBreaking) September 19, 2014

The referendum has been a massive event. It will take weeks, months, and years for the consequences to be fully understood. Nevertheless, I'm going to add to the many sleep-deprived immediate reactions on the Internet.

Cute Cat Friday 2014-09-19: Dexter

Here is a double feature of Dexter, facing the news from Scotland with natural poise and style.

Scotland's Vote 24: Party On

Good luck, Scotland. I'm hoping for a good-natured and untroubled vote, with high turnout and a clear result for Yes or No. In the immortal words of Bill and Ted, be excellent to each other and party on.

For anyone still undecided, I have written a summary of what I see as the key issues. I'll be Twittering as @iainrobertsblog this evening / tomorrow morning.

On a personal note, thanks to all my readers, especially for the words of appreciation and occasional arguments.

(I don't know the original source for this photo, but it was too excellent to pass up.)

Scotland's Vote 23: Yes or No

We are close to the end of the road, where Scotland must turn one way or another. It's been more than three years since the SNP's election victory paved the way for this referendum.

It has been a long, exhaustive, and sometimes ill-tempered campaign. It has been commendably peaceful. Scotland has had a valuable, enthusiastic conversation about what sort of country it wants to be. No matter which way the vote goes, the Scots have given thorough and serious consideration to the question before them.

Source: Freefoto

I tried to go into this with an open mind. I'm from Canada, and I have no problem in principle with small, independent northern nations. I've followed the arguments closely. On balance, I do not think independence would make Scotland a better place.

If I still lived in Scotland, I am about 90% certain I would vote No. If I was 99% certain, then I might come out for the No side and be done with it; but I can still sympathise with the Yes campaign.

Some time ago, I promised to write posts making the cases for Yes and No. As it happens, I've been distracted writing about foxes and hedgehogs. Others have put the opposing cases as well as I could and probably better. The best personal accounts I have run across are by Alex Massie and Irvine Welsh for No and Yes respectively, and well worth reading.

For my part, I'm going to give five brief points, which strike me as the most powerful reasons to vote for each side.