Hebridean Journal April 2014: Part 1 - Some thoughts on the wing about the Independence vote

It seems that everyone is being asked what they feel about the forthcoming referendum on Scottish independence. Although I don't live there and won't be voting, I do have an opinion on the matter as it could have serious implications for the rest of the UK. And as we are just about to spend a few days on Benbecula in the Outer Hebrides, what better time could there be to inflict my opinion on you?

I'll start by making my position clear: if I were a Scot faced with the binary choice on the September ballot paper, I'd be voting "yes" to independence. But I'd be holding my nose as I did so. Why? Because I'd be voting "yes" to escape from an England (Wales and Northern Ireland do not feature in the debate at all) likely to be dominated by a right-wing London-centric view for a long while yet. But I wouldn't be voting for the constitutional model that I think should be on offer. Whereas I accept fully the need to move decision making closer to the people, I don't accept that forming a new nation state, as would be the result of a vote for independence, is the best way of bringing this about. I believe, very strongly, that our present mode of government is flawed and is no longer truly in touch with the electorate. There are many reasons why this is the case but I'll mention only one: the UK is now too populous and too varied to be governed effectively from the centre. I think that we should be seriously considering moving towards, for want of a better description, a 'federation of UK units'. Let Scotland have more say over its affairs, by all means, but extend the same consideration to Wales, Northen Ireland and, for example, the North East, the South West, the Home Counties etc. Under this model, many of the functions of government would be devolved to 'regional parliaments' and there decisions could be made which would better reflect the views and needs of that particular region. I'll admit that I haven't thought this through completely or researched it to any depth but I am certain that it offers a viable alternative to the present 'one size fits all' orthodoxy emanating from London.

And what's so wrong with that, I hear you ask? Well, the London orthodoxy is that markets should drive social and economic development, that competition is the primary engine for that development and that the role of the state is to give the market its head and merely moderate its worst failings. We have seen the cost of those policies. We have seen a huge gap develop between rich and poor; we have seen the promotion of low-pay industries and poor-quality jobs but high corporate profits; we have seen governments of all shades (hang your heads in shame, Blair and Brown) bow to the demands of the bankers; we have seen markets and the profit motive introduced into the provision of fundamental, essential services, such as health and education, to their detriment. We have seen the privatisation of utilities on the promise of competitive pricing, only to find that we are captive consumers to price-fixing cartel. We have seen virtually everything turned into a commodity and completely forgotten the concept of the common good. Hooray to Scotland for holding out on university fees and for still providing excellent social care for the elderly. Is it any wonder that they want to do more of the same without the right wing shackles of the masters of the neo-liberal doctrine from south of the Border? To come back to the referendum, the reasons may be right but the choice is wrong - but that's all that's on offer. Under the circumstances, I would have great difficulty voting "no".

(Finished on the flight from Glasgow to Benbecula)