Scots are in a no-win situation. They are damned if they vote yes and damned if they vote no in next year's independence referendum
For the past year, the Better Together campaign for a No vote in next year’s referendum has been running a series of shrill public warnings about the dangers of independence. It is called ‘Project Fear’. At this year’s SNP conference, we had the Yes campaign’s version of the fear agenda – ‘Project McFear’, you might call it.
Nicola Sturgeon, deputy leader of the SNP, warned Scots that if they rejected independence, Westminster would ‘turn the screw’. Nasty English Tories would take revenge on Scots for having had the temerity to question London rule.
However, the odd thing about the respective scare agendas is that they have many similarities.
The unionist Project Fear says if Scots vote Yes, they will lose their pensions, face savage public spending cuts and could be forced out of Europe. Project McFear says that if Scots vote No, they will lose benefits, face savage cuts in public spending and could be forced out of Europe. Well, they can’t both be right.
Except, of course, they can: unionists say Scotland would be thrown out of Europe because EU nations like Spain would try to block Scotland’s membership. Nonsense, say the nationalists – Scotland could equally be forced to leave after David Cameron’s in/out referendum in 2017.
The Better Together campaign says public spending will be squeezed after independence by the SNP’s proposed oil fund; Yes Scotland says that, on the contrary, the cuts will come from Tory austerity economics. Project Fear says that Scotland will lose green-energy subsidies, infrastructure investment and possibly the pound if Scotland votes Yes. Project McFear warns that oil revenues will go to pay for Tory tax cuts, green energy will be sidelined in favour of nuclear and you’ll have had your HS2.
And those aren’t all of the similarities. Without independence, say the SNP, the Bank of England will continue to set interest rates at levels favourable to the South East of England; the unionists say that independence would also leave Scotland under the heel of the Bank because, in a currency union, key decisions will be left with an Anglo-centric Threadneedle Street.
First Minister Alex Salmond likes to quote statistics that show Scots trust the Scottish Parliament more than Westminster to take decisions on taxation, welfare and pensions. But even after independence, Scotland would still be subject to Westminster law in a number of obvious areas – defence, currency, energy and that nebulous ‘social union’ Salmond is always talking about.
Most people assume important elements of the social union include a continuation of welfare rights, NHS entitlement and pension equality, as well as free movement across the borders. Indeed, the SNP leader now insists that Scots will not be leaving the UK if they vote Yes, but creating a new improved Union of good neighbours.
It will only be in specific areas that Scotland departs from UK law – most obviously in taxation, the Crown Estate, broadcasting and nuclear defence. Most of the rest of domestic legislation is devolved to Holyrood – health, justice, education, environment and housing.
So, what does the voter make of it all? Looked at through the prism of game theory, the referendum looks like a lose-lose, or in chess, a zugzwang – where the player is unable to make a move that doesn’t worsen his or her position. If Scots vote Yes, they risk Westminster’s wrath, while if they vote No, they risk being dropped off the map.
Which is worse: Westminster resentment or Westminster indifference? Scots are damned if they do; damned if they don’t. At present, most Scottish voters, according to the polls, seem to favour indifference.
Iain Macwhirter is political commentator on the Sunday Herald
This opinion piece was first published in the November edition of Public Finance magazine
