We’re in the home stretch now, but there aren’t enough
painkillers in the world to ease my referendum headache. Living in Scotland has been interminable for
the past two years, but lately the debate seems to have descended to bar brawl
status as the two opposing sides pine for our votes. But you can’t expect anything less from this
debate. It’s momentous. Everything is at stake and every single vote
will count; I really mean literally, when I write everything, because when you
say yes this country will be changed forever.
For good or for bad, the future holds.
So it’s left to the voters to decide (with the information they have available) whether Scotland and its people would be better off in an independent country.
Unfortunately, this immediately presents a problem for the nationalists and their campaign: we can’t see into the future. Salmond’s rhetoric aside, nobody can say with total certainty what sort of country Scotland would be and if its people really would be better off economically and socially with independence. An undecided voter can only speculate: read the papers, watch the news, and try to imagine Scotland as a nation state on its own – the key word being ‘imagine’. The nationalists are preaching for a fairer and more just society which is all well and good, but Salmond cannot respond to the important questions on Scotland’s economy after independence because he doesn’t know the answers. I think the nationalists are hoping (praying even) that Scotland’s economy post-independence can operate in a way that serves the people because realistically they cannot say that it definitely will.
This is where the
Yes campaign falters. Like myself, most
people find the economics of running a country esoteric and confusing; so we
leave it up to the politicians we elect, trusting them to manage it in our
interests. Nonetheless, the 2008 global
financial crisis has taught people that economics is precarious, capricious,
and often dependent on external factors especially the political situation - and
it also reinforced to the electorate that politicians aren’t as good at
managing the country as they ought to be.
Those at the forefront of the Yes campaign have failed to reassure
undecided voters over Scotland’s economy and its economic future with
independence is too ambiguous for people to take the risk of a Yes vote.
The vision of an
independent Scotland the Yes campaign has proffered is idealised: built on the
intangible hopes and dreams of nationalists.
Salmond’s rhetoric of “capturing hearts and minds” is ultimately a facade
because a country is founded on the stability, security, and certainty of its
economy, health service and military.
Obviously Salmond has never read The
Great Gatsby and before Thursday I wouldn’t be surprised if he invites us
to his ‘promised land’ or ‘utopia’.
Quite often, the No campaign has been accused of scaremongering
(definitely Salmond’s favourite word) when actually they were just being
realistic. Gordon Brown (who I think has
been one of the No campaigns best assets) spoke sense the other day when he
said: “you can try to dismiss some of the warnings some of the time, but you
cannot dismiss all of the warnings all of the time.”
I never indulge
in criticising Scottish independence because, although I have decided that I’m
voting no, I can still see a lot of potential in the idea. It seems to me that the main benefit of
Scottish independence is that we could finally elect a government
democratically. Westminster has failed
Scotland. They might have doled out some
extra powers but time and time again Scotland is controlled by a government 400
miles away that it didn’t even ask for; and again, I mean literally didn’t ask
for: Scotland currently has 1 Conservative MP in the UK parliament out of a
total of 59 representatives from Scotland. Whatever
the outcome of this referendum the old establishment of Westminster needs
serious reform to keep it in line with 21st century liberal democracies and
starting, in my opinion, with its flawed first past the post voting
system.
It was bold of
Alex Salmond to stand up to the established order; to look them in the eye and
say in true Bravehreat style: the Scots are part of this union and we will be
counted - or we’re out. Salmond has
always struck me as a politician who genuinely cares about people – a trait all
too rare in politicians these days.
Quite rightfully, he recently won GQ magazine’s politician of the year
award. This was obvious at the TV
debates when Salmond approached the audience as he spoke and he also addressed audience
members by their first name when they asked him a question. His demeanour was a contrast to the arrogance
and condescension of Alastair Darling, leader of the Better Together
campaign. There are few politicians that
Scotland would welcome as a figurehead for unionist arguments, it seems like
Darling was the lesser or many evils. 
For a long time I
was an undecided voter. Both sides were engaged
in wrangle of contradictory facts, pointless polls, and dogmatic opinions from
some very boorish people - while I and thousands of other Scots were stuck in
the middle afraid to lift our heads above the parapet. Truthfully, I was intimidated by billboards
confronting me in the street telling me that my children will suffer if I vote
a certain way; or letters in the mail asking why I didn’t want to be part of
one of the richest countries in the world.
With my experiences over the past two years, I think the debate has overall
been successful but very divisive – I hope the two sides can accept the result
whatever it is. 