For Scottish Independence Essays

Scottish Independence Essay

Scottish Independence and the

Referendum

A general overview of the upcoming referendum on Scottish Independence.

Introduction

Described as Scotland's "biggest choice since 1707" (McLean et al, 2013, p. ix), the upcoming referendum on Scottish independence will provide a pivotal event for the current and future populations of Scotland as voters get the opportunity to decide whether or not they are to remain a part of Great Britain or become an independent nation. As McLean et al (2013) have referenced, 1707 was a year of major importance in Scottish history because it saw the passage of the Union with England Act by the Parliament of Scotland, thus legitimising the reciprocal Union with Scotland Act which was passed by its English counterpart the previous year (Davis, 1998). The Acts of Union have now stood for more than three centuries and, although there have been proposals to challenge it in recent years, this is the first time that the Scottish public have been given the opportunity to vote on the issue in a formal referendum. This essay will examine the issue of Scottish independence by providing an insight into the historical and political events that have led to the 2013 proposal to hold a referendum on the issue. It will also look in depth at the campaigns for and against Scottish independence in order to assess the approaches that each one has taken in order to sway voters towards their individual cause. This will ultimately facilitate the drawing of the conclusion that Scottish independence has the propensity to fundamentally alter the political landscape of the entire international community rather than being limited to a British and European context. However, although both campaigns relating to the referendum are fundamentally flawed, the choice made by the Scottish people will decide the nation's fate for the foreseeable future.

Historical Background

Although this referendum is the first in/out vote to be held in relation to Scottish independence in the 21st century, votes have previously been held over the issue of devolution. In both 1979 and 1997, Scottish devolution referendums were held with varying outcomes (Deacon, 2012). In the 1979 case, the yes vote did gain a majority but failed to attract 40% of the total electorate and therefore failed to achieve change (Dardanelli, 2006). However, in the 1997 referendum, there was clear majority support for both devolution of the Scottish Parliament, which was achieved in the Scotland Act 1998, and Parliament establishing the base rate of income tax (Dardanelli, 2006). In both instances then, there was significant support for the devolution of Scotland and important powers. As such, sovereignty has been an issue for...

Loading: Checking Spelling

0%

Read more

Devolution: Compare differences between Scottish Parliament and Westminster

1209 words - 5 pages Labour's Landslide Victory in the elections of 1997, led to a referendum being held in September 1997 at which the vote for devolution for Scotland was secured. Elections were then held in May 1999 and the newly created Scottish Parliament gained Power in July 1999. This essay will explore Scottish Devolution and compare the differences between the different political systems that have developed in Westminster and in Scotland. Voting systems...

Scotland's Referendum 2014 Essay

2918 words - 12 pages n September 15th , 2014, the people of Scotland will vote in a referendum asking the question, “Should Scotland be an independent country?” (The Scottish Government, 2013) Despite numerous invasions, Scotland has endured, retaining its own culture and traditions. Separate from England, Scotland has also made large contributions to the world through scientific discovery, ideas, and philosophies. For centuries, relations between Scotland and...

William Wallace.

1319 words - 5 pages William Wallace, popularized in the 1995 movie "Braveheart", was a Scottish patriot and national hero. He was a fierce advocate for Scottish independence from the English, who had taken control shortly after the death of the 8-year old "Queen" Margaret, called the "Maid of Norway". Their rule was widely resented among the common people and, after many of the

"Braveheart" Movie Review

525 words - 2 pages The movie "Braveheart" is an epic based on Scottish independence for the fierce grips of English control. Mel Gibson directs and stars in this movie. The film also won five academy awards; including best picture, director, cinematography, makeup as well as sound effects. The major theme through out this movie is freedom and destiny. That one should always fight for what they believe in and nothing can stand in the way of love. Though sometimes...

Scotland's Future Finally in the Hands of the Scottish

1838 words - 7 pages The Acts of Union were signed in 1707, uniting Scotland and England as one , forming one of the most admired countries in the world, Great Britain. England, until now, has been the most powerful sovereign state of Britain and holds nearly all control over Scotland and its neighbouring countries, Wales and Northern Ireland. Scotland, having previously once been its own country, would now like to gain control and take care of its own affairs again....

William Wallace

807 words - 3 pages William Wallace is one of Scotland's greatest national heroes, and leader of the Scottish resistance forces during the first years of the long and successful struggle to free Scotland from English rule at the end of the 13th Century. Records of Wallace's life are patchy and often inaccurate. This is partly because early...

Braveheart

1118 words - 4 pages Patricia Nelson Limerick is one of the country's most outstanding historians. She is a revisionist historian who revises the usual stories that we believe are true. Limerick especially focuses on the American West dealing with accounts of the "Cowboys and Indians". While writing about these historical events, she has to take into account...

Ebola essay

547 words - 2 pages Jonathon PannulloAmanda HauserCivics & Economics30 September 2014Scotland Votes No For IndependenceMany people this week did not know that history might be changed forever. On Thursday, September 18, Scotland voted and decided to stay as part of the UK. The voting was done by getting the vote of each person in all of the...

William Wallace

1723 words - 7 pages William Wallace (c1270-1305) William Wallace has come to be known as one of Scotland’s many heroes and the undeniable leader of the Scottish resistance forces dying for their freedom from English Rule at the end of the 13th century.      Most accounts of Wallace have been passed down through the generations by word of mouth, making Wallace somewhat of a Scottish folk hero. Most accounts are merely tentative, and in part...

Analysis of William Wallace using the “Psychoanalytic Approach”

714 words - 3 pages William Wallace Hero or Herod?An Analysis of William Wallace using the "Psychoanalytic Approach""William Wallace, a murderer, a runaway, a patriot, or a thief?" William Wallace led one of the first Scottish revolts against the English in the early 14th Century. His army defeated a much larger and much more powerful English army at Stirling Bridge, they captured Stirling Castle, and then ravaged northern England,...

The Scottish Parliament

1290 words - 5 pages For more than three hundred years, Scotland has been an active member of a union with Wales, England and Northern Ireland but recently this partnership has come under threat due to nationalist views from a group of deluded self-serving failed councillors better known as the SNP. The ideals of these individuals threaten the very fabric of this hub of culture and enterprise that we know and love as Scotland. With the tricentennial anniversary of...

Source: Alamy

No to independence

Why are our universities in the same box as Johnnie Walker and the Loch Ness Monster? Why is the independence prospectus so mean and timid?

Eric Hobsbawm knew its dark side. Nationalism was his subject when he gave the Wiles Lectures at Queen’s University Belfast in 1985.

In his subsequent book, Nations and Nationalism since 1780: Programme, Myth, Reality, he wrote: ‘No serious historian of nations and nationalism can be a committed political nationalist…To be proudly attached to Ireland is not in itself incompatible with the serious study of Irish history. To be a Fenian or an Orangeman…is not so compatible.”

I am a patriotic Scot, induced so by domicile, but not, I hope, the kind of benighted nationalist also famously depicted in George Orwell’s essay Notes on Nationalism. So here goes.

The unions between England and Scotland – which began with the Union of the Crowns in 1603 and culminated in the 1707 Treaty of Union – brought British money to Scottish universities. The stronger the union, the more secure the funds. The first donation for building a “librarie within the colledge of Glasgow” was a 1633 promise of £2,400 from Charles I; a note in the donation book says “This soume was payed by the Lord Protector anno 1654”.

King’s College in Aberdeen still uses the Cromwell Tower, built in 1658 with help from General Monck; and a 1659 building appeal by its rival in Aberdeen, Marischal College, raised £2,200 from Eton, £320 from the University of Cambridge and £641 11s from the University of Oxford.

In 1889 the nine existing English and Welsh universities received their first grants from the Treasury, totalling £15,000. But Scottish universities had been regularly getting such funding since the 1830s; in 1889 the total for the four was £42,000.

And Scottish universities still get lots of British money. In 2012-13, they won UK research council grants worth £257 million: 13.1 per cent of all awards went to a nation with only 8.4 per cent of the UK population. Research Councils UK and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills say the system that delivers this could not continue if Scotland left the UK, and unionist academics see this as a very big reason for remaining part of the UK. They predict that proposed negotiations to keep research funding arrangements in status quo after a “yes” vote are as hopelessly optimistic as the failed 1783 fundraising trip to London by Princeton University president John Witherspoon, formerly minister of the Laigh Kirk in Paisley but, more pertinently, a signatory of the US Declaration of Independence.

The Scottish National Party government’s White Paper, Scotland’s Future, rightly extols the excellence of Scottish universities, although its claim that Scotland “has been an educational leader since the early part of the 15th century” is silly: at that time it had only one small university (St Andrews), while those at Bologna, Cambridge, Montpellier, Oxford, Paris and Salerno all had 200-year-old international reputations.

But puffing past achievements is normal for a nationalist production. Such a document would also be expected to promulgate plans based on the benefits flowing from independence. But the White Paper doesn’t do that. Only 10 of the 42 paragraphs it devotes to universities and research describe post-independence plans. Five deal with tuition fees and the wish to continue charging students from the remaining UK countries; three propose continued access to RCUK funding; one indicates that levels of public investment in university research will be “at least maintained”; and one proposes post-study work visa reform. And the 39-page supplement, Higher Education Research in an Independent Scotland, published in April, adds nothing new.

The White Paper lists 22 “gains from independence”. Only one mentions higher education and research, namely “an economic policy that can be tailored to take advantage of Scotland’s world-class universities and key growth industries like food and drink, life sciences, and tourism”.

Why are our universities put in the same box as Johnnie Walker and the Loch Ness Monster? Why is the independence prospectus so mean and timid? The reasons relate to politics, presentation, parsimony and philosophy.

Politically, the White Paper is all about persuading undecided referendum voters that independence will be without risk. There will still be a pound in your pocket, you can still watch Strictly and there will be no border guards at Gretna.

At very best, the short-term offer for universities on Independence Day is the status quo. But for science the outlook is bleak

Presentation is as much about being silent about the bad as trumpeting the good. Science gets no mention in order to avoid embarrassment since it is currently one of only two areas of public spending from the Scottish budget that receives less per head (£47) than in the UK as a whole (£56) and there are no plans to change that after independence. Nor is there any mention of the continuation of Scottish funding for research in UK facilities that have big science programmes from which Scotland benefits, such as the Met Office.

The White Paper’s authorship is anonymous, but the parsimonious hands of Edinburgh civil servants are all over it. Don K. Price’s characterisation of the British administrative class in his 1954 book, Government and Science, is still relevant: “a profoundly conservative force – not in the sense of being opposed to left-wing economics, but in the sense of looking on the government and its programme as a single coherent machine in which inconsistency cannot be permitted. Any novel idea is an inconsistency that could cause temporary waste and disorder and inefficiency and would probably detract from the current programme.”

As for philosophy, the influence of the late Sir Neil MacCormick looms large. The son of one of the SNP’s founders and the only public intellectual that Scottish nationalism has ever had, the onetime University of Edinburgh law professor, SNP MEP and adviser to Alex Salmond from 2007 until his death in 2009 moved from his 1970 view that “if devolution worked well we could abandon the notion of proceeding to independence”, to “independence-lite”: in practical terms, joining a European “commonwealth” of nations.

At the White Paper’s launch in November 2013, Nicola Sturgeon, the SNP deputy leader, described it as “a comprehensive guide to an independent Scotland” and “without parallel as the most thorough and detailed blueprint for an independent country ever produced”. Yes, a 649-page document did not precede the independence of South Sudan, induce the break-up of the Soviet Union or lead to the collapse of Yugoslavia. And it certainly passes the nationalist grievance test with honours: exactly half its 332 references to Westminster are pejorative. But comprehensive it is not.

Its description of Scottish universities is cursory and misleading. For instance, its statement that they “receive a third of their research income from the Scottish Funding Council and a further quarter in competitive funding from the research councils and national academies” is just an average for all Scottish universities. The five that are in the top 200 in Times Higher Education’s latest World University Rankings received, in 2012-13, a combined total of £203 million from the Scottish Funding Council for research and £497 million for research from external sources, including £194 million from the research councils. But many other Scottish institutions receive tiny fractions of this. So the analysis is as useful as a weather forecast that gives only an average temperature for the whole country – which could, incidentally, be all an independent Scotland will get, as it parsimoniously plans to purchase its forecasts from the Met Office in England.

At very best, the short-term offer for universities on Independence Day is the status quo. But for science the outlook is bleak since leaving the UK means leaving a research system that ranks second to the US in achievement and is the world leader in delivery per pound because of intense competition in a big system that gets significant support from its state sponsors. The SNP does not even intend to have a minister with a science portfolio, unlike those planned for sport and the Gaelic and Scots languages.

Worst of all will be the lack of opportunity to challenge government policies – on science, higher education or anything else – by democratic process. The parliament of an independent Scotland will be unicameral, so holding the executive to account will rest with parliamentary committees. But their track record at Holyrood is feeble. Their membership reflects the representation of political parties in the Parliament. After deliberating they divide along party lines, the party with the parliamentary majority wins and the executive is safe. The interim constitution published in June is silent about this.

Sir Neil is greatly missed. His reaction to the disarray into which the European “commonwealth” has been plunged by the rise of nationalism would be very instructive. As an expert on constitutional matters, I think he would also have reminded the authors of the White Paper and the interim constitution of Lord Justice Salmon’s 1966 Royal Commission on parliamentary committees. In 1679, one such committee found Samuel Pepys guilty of “Piracy, Popery and Treachery” and committed him to the Tower of London. But the evidence from professional informers was so suspect that he had to be released. Salmon said that the committee “had no claim to impartiality. It was actuated solely by party political motives. This is a characteristic defect of such committees…which has persisted throughout their history.”

The Treaty of Union “Ordains That the Universities and Colledges of Saint Andrews Glasgow Aberdeen and Edinburgh…shall Continue within this Kingdom for ever”. I see no good reason to repeal it.

Hugh Pennington is emeritus professor of bacteriology at the University of Aberdeen. He has given evidence to parliamentary and assembly committees at Westminster, Edinburgh and Cardiff and participated in the 1998 Northern Ireland Assembly Transition Programme. He chaired an inquiry for the Secretary of State for Scotland and a public inquiry for the Welsh Assembly Government into E. coli O157 outbreaks in 1996 and 2005 respectively.

Yes to independence

What’s going to make the difference are things that are far harder to present in White Papers and other reports. I’m talking about hope and rage

The approach of the “no” campaign is typically to set out various nightmare scenarios into which an independent Scotland would be plunged. Regarding the academy, these involve the loss of international prestige and research council funding, and a potential flood of undergraduates fleeing high fees in the rest of the UK.

While the Academics for Yes campaign has provided pretty sound rebuttals to these scenarios, I believe the pro-independence movement could take a much more enlightened approach to the latter issue, which would greatly strengthen the case for independence as it relates to the academy.

Whatever the legal grounds for charging £9,000 fees to students from the rest of the UK while Scottish and other European Union students retain the right to free Scottish higher education, the SNP’s intention to preserve this status quo even after independence is morally and politically indefensible.

This issue is important not so much because what the campaigners say now will definitely transpire. Like everything else, it will be up for negotiation in the 18 months after independence, and in subsequent Scottish general elections. It is important because of what it represents. It is one of the few issues in the higher education debate that actually strikes a moral and political chord – and it is on those terms that independence will be embraced or rejected on 18 September.

However well researched the facts and figures are on each side of the debate, what’s going to make the difference are two things that are far harder to quantify and present in White Papers and other reports. I’m talking about hope and rage: hope for the possibilities an independent Scotland would bring with it, and rage at the current state of the union. This is as true for universities as it is for healthcare, immigration and foreign policy, to name but an important few.

But is there much to be hopeful about in the Scottish academy? Despite the reintroduction of free tuition for Scottish-domiciled students, haven’t Scotland’s universities generally gone in much the same direction as those in the rest of the UK? Haven’t they been as implicated in what causes so much genuine rage and heartfelt despair among academics? Haven’t they embraced metrics and participated just as avidly in the research assessment exercise and research excellence framework, and the National Student Survey? Haven’t they been just as likely to use zero-hour contracts while pushing their senior managers’ salaries into the stratosphere? Was it not University of Aberdeen principal Ian Diamond who recently suggested that academics be employed on nine-month contracts?

So the Scottish higher education system is little better than that in the rest of the UK: this is the rage. The hope lies not in maintaining Scottish universities as they are, as the SNP would like, but in using the powers a sovereign Scotland would have to create a genuine revolution. It would be futile to propose blueprints now, but the “yes” campaign needs to define some of the parameters within which higher education in an independent Scotland could be fairer and more progressive than it is today – and than remaining in the UK allows it to be.

Free tuition must be not only maintained as a point of principle, but also extended to include students from all parts of the world. The fees charged south of the border are damaging not only to students’ future financial autonomy but also to their role as learners. As universities increasingly rely on income from tuition fees, boosting their reputations becomes imperative because this is what they sell to students.

Staying in the UK would extinguish hope for a system that doesn’t dull students’ potential and hope that higher education can be open to all

One way to do this is to embrace metrics such as student satisfaction scores, which can be manipulated by making students feel as though they’re getting a good education at a good institution regardless of its actual quality. Institutions can also inflate grades and provide flashy experiences in place of facilities that genuinely support learning. Whether this happens or not (and by many accounts it does) is beside the point – as is the question of whether it happens more in the rest of the UK than it does in Scotland. The point is that the current system in the rest of the UK incentivises this type of mercenary behaviour.

A further consequence of the status quo is that students no longer work solely for their own benefit as learners; the university also has a stake in it. Every second a student spends studying can be seen as increasing their chances of obtaining high grades: a product the university will package as reputation and sell back to school-leavers and their parents. So, contrary to the popular narrative of students becoming consumers, which is bad enough, they are in fact becoming university workers – and paying for the privilege.

In many ways, Scottish universities are currently forced to charge fees to students from elsewhere in the UK in order to meet financial holes that would otherwise open up in their budgets. An independent Scotland, with full tax-raising powers, would have the authority to cut fees for all students and to fund universities properly through income and business taxes. It could even write free education for all into its constitution and thus hold true to the ideal of education as a process of individual and community development and empowerment, rather than simply another way to make money.

Immigration is another issue regarding which the higher education sector in an independent Scotland could be fairer and more progressive than elsewhere in the UK. With the looming prospect of a Conservative/UK Independence Party coalition following the next UK general election, we face an increase in immigration controls and a restriction of access to higher education to all but a moneyed international elite. Even now, those applying for student visas are required to have £7,200 (£9,000 if studying in London) in their bank accounts and to be able to come up with as much as £80,000 over three years (or more for a four-year Scottish degree) to support themselves during their studies – excluding visa and registration fees.

In addition, academics in UK universities are forced to be complicit in what many see as this unjust and racist system. As a teacher in a UK university, I have no choice but to work, unpaid, for the UK Border Agency by taking attendance in seminars. Make no mistake: attendance sheets have nothing to do with pastoral care and everything to do with controlling foreign students once they are in the country.

This, then, is the message of hope: hope for a higher education system that doesn’t dull students’ potential as learners by making them slog away for the reputation of the university; and hope that higher education can be open to all, regardless of race, nationality or income. These are things that remaining in the UK would make impossible.

And to those who would say that these are romantic ideas that couldn’t be put into practice, I say let’s at least try. Romance and hope are what is needed in a country, as a driving force for real progressive change. For all aspects of life in Scotland, a vote for independence will be just the beginning: the beginning of a push towards a country and a university system that embodies the values of equality and freedom that, in contrast to Westminster, lie at the heart of Scotland’s current centre-left political consensus.

Another Scotland is possible. Another university is possible.

Thomas Swann is a PhD candidate and graduate teaching assistant at the University of Leicester’s School of Management, and social networking manager at its Centre for Philosophy and Political Economy. He has donated his £500 prize money to the Women for Independence campaign group.

0 Replies to “For Scottish Independence Essays”

Lascia un Commento

L'indirizzo email non verrà pubblicato. I campi obbligatori sono contrassegnati *