For a list of the current Friends of the Scottish Review, click here
The Act of Union, 1707
Scotland never really has been, or could be, independent in an isolationist sense. Before England, we were allied for even longer with France. But Britain today is a very different entity to the nascent imperial power of 1707.
It was the age of the horse and the beginnings of empire (royal proclamations are still made in Edinburgh two days after London because that is the time it takes for a rider to get here). Today we have high-speed travel, instant communication and a global economy. No one can argue that the act is not due for re-examination and reform to suit the modern world.
Britain no longer stands alone as an island. It is part of wider groupings such as the EU and NATO. Yet within these alliances, it still claims sovereignty as an independent country. In the same way, could not Scotland be an independent country within the UK?
So far, readjusting the Westminster relationship has involved nibbling piecemeal at centralisation to devolve a bit of this or a bit more of that. And the results have been beneficial. But to comprehensively rethink the relationship is it not easier to start from an intellectual standpoint of saying, ‘Suppose we were separate and were looking at union for the first time, what would we want to retain and what would we want to develop differently to the mutual benefit of both countries?’.
Is that what a vote for independence means? There are clearly elements which the majority wish to retain (eg the Queen as head of state, the £ sterling). We do not want to throw out the baby with the bath water. The ‘North Britain’ experiment in subsumation failed. England and Scotland have different economies and cultures and there are clearly areas where both countries would benefit from different strategies for different priorities. Devolution has made this apparent in Scotland but England has been slower to react.
Why should Scottish MPs continue to vote on English legislation? There are clearly areas where both countries would benefit from a basic rethink. If, for example, England wants to develop nuclear and fossil fuels for power generation, why should Scotland not pioneer wind and wave power? The power produced by either country is mutually exchangeable but perhaps Scottish technological development is better suited to partnership with say Denmark, while England might cooperate more closely with say France.
When I was making films in Scotland, I was initially beyond. and latterly just within, the periphery of a highly centralised London-based industry. Today’s budgets for network television are still only available for programmes which the London controllers believe will be of interest to the 90% non-Scottish network audience. I was never really able to produce anything major for the London networks. But I could sell to them. I made series in and from Scotland, working with a range of international co-producers, uniting sometimes as many as 10 counties and a similar range of international talent. The English networks could then either buy in to a fait accompli or opt out. This allowed me, and other Scottish producers like me, to work in our own country and operate on an international scale irrespective of English taste and their reticence for foreign involvement.
If Scotland were to receive a proportional 10-12% of the network budget, with a matching autonomy to commission its own network programming, our broadcasters would, like our independent producers, be able to also look abroad and break free from the straitjacket of London taste and financial control. If London subsequently decided to opt out of transmitting a Scottish-originated programme within the rest of the UK, would it matter providing Scotland covered the production costs with non-UK financing? Does opting out have to be one way? The Scottish license fee is after all Scottish money. Extending the principle, and if applied to other areas of our economy, would these same kind of benefits accrue, allowing us the freedom to maximise our full potential?
The Scottish debate represents a reassessment across the entire range of government responsibilities. The detailed scrutiny of 300 years of custom and practice and the formulation of in-depth proposals for reform cannot be achieved within the two-year time-scale of the referendum. But a Yes vote would allow us the opportunity to consider our future on equal terms, rather than cap in hand, and to create an alliance fit for purpose in the modern age. This can only strengthen Scotland and its relationship both with England and Europe and vice versa.
Robin Crichton is an independent producer
