I’m heading up to Scotland tomorrow to give a talk in Edinburgh, and I’ll be scurrying home on Wednesday before the independence vote on Thursday.
I’m an Englishman born of an English father and Welsh mother but I had my first job in nature conservation in Scotland (before university), met my wife in Scotland, changed the course of my university studies after doing fieldwork in Scotland in my first university vacation, have a PhD from a Scottish university (Aberdeen), joined the RSPB staff in 1986 to study moorland issues in Scotland and regard the closure of the Shetland sandeel fishery as one of my (shared) greatest ‘wins’ in nature conservation. So I am not Scottish but not disinterested in the result of Thursday’s vote.
I’m pretty sure it will be a ‘No’ vote but that is on the basis of the betting. Betfair have the odds at 1.26 on a ‘No’ vote as I write this post – and that means that the current market opinion is that out of every 5 goes at this referendum it will be a ‘No’ four out of five times. Since this view has been established by people risking their money, and it’s quite a lot of money overall, then it isn’t like an opinion poll where you can lie without consequences. Although, obviously, there is no ‘form’ on this particular issue, the betting odds prove over and over again to be reliable indicators of what will happen. We’ll see, very soon. I would be surprised by a ‘Yes’ vote, but not completely amazed.
I care about the result of the referendum because I care about quite a lot of people in Scotland (many of whom are also Scottish); family and friends alike.But I also care because the result will deeply affect how I, an Englishman, feel about my country and my future. And by ‘my’ country I mean, at different times, the UK (which surely will need a different name if there is a ‘Yes’ vote) and England. Because that is what it means to be part of a united kingdom – I can rightly feel English sometimes and British (or UK-ish) at other times (and yes, it would probably help if we English realised which were the right times for each more often than we do).
I completely understand why I have no say in this vote but I can’t help feeling a bit miffed that I have no say at all in something that has enormous implications for me. I can’t think how any government could give me a say, but it still feels very uncomfortable knowing that my country may be changed fundamentally without me having a voice in the decision.
If I put myself in the place of a Scottish voter then I know I would be tempted by change. I would be attracted to the possibility of living without right-wing politics for the foreseeable future and I would be attracted to independence. I know that every time I heard someone telling me not to vote for independence it would make me think , just a little, that I’d give it a go. It would be a little like the temptation to touch something as a child when you are told not to…or was that just me?! But I don’t get a vote so I’ll just have to wait and see.
When I wrote last week about some of the results of the BBS in different UK countries several people opined (in various ways and places) that they hoped that the BBS would carry on unaltered after a ‘Yes’ vote. Well, it probably would for a while but I can’t see that it would exist in its current form in 20 years’ time as new generations of politicians, civil servants and NGO staff grew into power with less memory of the UK than the current generation. Independence for Scotland does feel a bit like a divorce (and divorce is sometimes the best option for one or both partners) but it doesn’t leave everything the same (obviously!) – in fact it rarely leaves anything the same. This would be true about something as tiny in importance as the BBS and its reporting.
An independent Scotland, and an independent WINE (Wales, Ireland (North) and England), would inevitably grow apart. They would have different priorities for nature conservation, different spending priorities, different timetables for decision-making and a whole host of other different differences. We saw plenty of signs of it as devolution came into effect and the implications would be all the greater under independence.
Take the BBS cover – it has the logos of three organisations on it: BTO, JNCC and the RSPB. None would be unaffected by independence. My prediction is that JNCC would soon cease to exist, the RSPB would have to split (as a land-owning and campaigning organisation it couldn’t straddle two countries) and even though the BTO might maintain its identity for a while I imagine the SOC or something similar would eventually become the ‘Scottish BTO’. This might be done with great friendliness and cooperation (or not) but the world would have changed. There would have to be six not three logos on the front of that report.
Take a look at the websites of the BirdLife International partners in the Czech Republic and Slovakia and see how many traces of Czechoslovakia (1918-1993) you can see in them. And while thinking about that, wonder how high BirdLife Scotland would be in the priorities of the WINE Birdlife partner.
Flick through the pages of the BBS report (which is always worth doing anyway) and try to spot what would be different if Scotland and WINE were to split. Would there be a single report anyway – why in the more distant future, would future birders be more interested in Scotland than Ireland if they didn’t live in Scotland (a foreign country)(or, Scottish readers, swap England for Scotland in the sentence)? How would the funding be split? In which order would the data be presented?
After the divorce things might be better – they might be much better. But little would, in time, be the same for either party. So, voters in Scotland, think hard about what you want (and give a little bit of thought for the impact on we Welsh, Northern Irish and English too – for not to do so would simply be selfish) and we’ll all be living in a changed world whatever you vote on Thursday. But the biggest changes will inevitably follow a vote for ‘Yes’.
[registration_form]
Certainly not UK-ish Mark!
You make some good points though.
I will be voting YES on Thursday. I am doing it because I wish to see Scotland progress as a mature democracy in the European family of nations. I am doing it because I don’t wish to see my country dragged downwards to the lowest common denominator of right-wing xenophobia increasingly prevalent at Westminster, where all three main parties are obsessed with appeasing “white van man” in a mad rush to the bottom, evidenced by the rise of UKIP. When we vote for independence on 18th, indeed it will herald a new political background for the other countries in the UK, hopefully one based on partnership and regional democracy, and not as we are now, kowtowing to the right wing press, big business and the money markets. Government for the people.
I well understand the frustration and even anger of the rest of the UK that they have no say in this vote. We are having this referendum because in 2011, we elected a Scottish government who have actually fulfilled a manifesto commitment! I hope that after we vote “yes”, we can have a strong partnership with rUK, as equals, rather than the current situation where many Scots, rightly or wrongly, feel that they are the victims in an abusive relationship. The voters of rUK will get the chance to have their say on the government’s performance in May 2016, and thereby determine their future relationship with Scotland.
As for nature conservation, there are already significant differences. We have different, arguably stronger, legislation. We have not had buzzard licences or badger culls. We have vicarious liability. We have a government that doesn’t bend over backwards to appease the landowning lobby. We have different habitats and different populations of different species. We have some different priorities in conservation, as we do in life generally.
But, birds don’t recognise borders. Scotland’s hen harriers die on grouse moors in N England too! We have summer migrants and winter visitors, so our bird populations are dependent on their protection in many, many countries.
You suggest the BBS will change. I see no need. Birdtrack is already an international partnership – why should the BBS be any different? Personally, I regularly work with colleagues in Malta, Hungary and even England. We are all working in a European context, with an EU birds directive. There are fantastic partnerships for conservation in much of Europe over conservation of species such as Saker, Eastern Imperial Eagle and many others.
If Scotland votes yes on Thursday, we won’t be disappearing off into the sunset! We are still going to be here on Friday, and next year, and next century. Our summer migrant birds are now heading south through England. Next spring they’ll fly back to us over England. That won’t change however we vote.
As for you Mark, I hope you have a great visit to a vibrant Edinburgh. You shouldn’t “scuttle” back south, but stay and enjoy the (hoped for!) party on Friday. And, like our summer birds, you’ll be very welcome back in years to come.
Ian – thank you very much for your comments. I’m looking forward to coming to Scotland.
I agree with Ian. There is a lot of concern South of the border about the changes this will cause, some may be realistic but many not. One of the key issues for me is that the landowning situation here seems to be more critical for us. We have a small, rocky country that if we are not careful, could become a playground for the rich, and a dormitory for all of us who had to leave to get jobs and return when we retire.
In terms of NGO’s and environmental groups, in my ignorance I can’t see how we can’t continue to cooperate across many fields, understanding that constitutions may change. But I believe if we vote yes we have the power to be a beacon of conservation and environmentally conscious land use.
Patrick Harvie of the Scottish Greens has been a clear voice in the debate.
If the vote is no we will have real challenges North of the border. Ian is right, we have laws and the will to improve, but we are not making the progress we should. We still have persecution here and a vibrant shooting and golfing culture. Changing that will be a challenge if we don’t have independence.
Mark, stay and enjoy this sometimes turbulent rise in democracy. We do hear some concerns but remember this opportunity is unprecedented and a wee bit scary. Just like real democracy should be!
Eileen – there are quite a few of us who might be considering moving to Scotland if you leave us with UKIP and a referendum to leave the EU!
I a sure you are right about the betting being a good predictor of the outcome of elections but, whilst the placing of a stake makes it likely that the gambler will be ‘honest’ it does not necessarily follow that his bet will reflect his voting intentions. I may wish and vote for one outcome (actually I don’t have a vote at all in this referendum) but expect – and bet – that the other outcome will win. The winnings may help to drown my sorrows!
With regard to what will happen to the BBS and other UK conservation initiatives, there will no doubt be some changes but, like Ian Thomson, I hope and believe that many things will continue on a cooperative basis. The birds couldn’t give a flying f- about our our national boundaries and Scotland and the residual UK will share many of the same conservation concerns and will mutually benefit from a cooperative and coordinated approach to managing them.
Jonathan – good comment (as always, thank you). Yes, financial institutions could use betting to hedge if they wanted to!
Unfortunately, it isn’t the birds who are in charge of the scheme!
Scotland is having a mature debate, developed over years, about the governance of the UK and the relationship between the constituent countries. The emphasis, in the event of secession, is on continuity and cooperation, the retention of the many valuable links between the countries.
That debate has barely begun in the rest of the UK, hence the emphasis on frontiers, on ‘foreign’ countries, on ethnicity, and on the idea that continuity means Scotland ‘having its cake and eating it’. Underlying that rejection of continuity is the assumption that UK institutions, from the Central Bank to the BTO, are not common property and that Scotland will either be excluded or will choose to walk away from them. The assumption is also that shared British values and assets are dependent on the continuance of a UK state which is incapable of democratic reform.
Britain has a unique 200 year old naturalist tradition, embodied in organisations like the BTO, to which Scotland has contributed. Comparisons with other European states with separate traditions is not really relevant, far less comparisons with former colonies. If Scotland develops environmental policy appropriate for its situation why should that endanger the established and essential UK monitoring role of a non policy organisation like the BTO ?
If you reduce the issue to a financial one, i.e. by saying that UK NGOs would be subsidising Scotland you are ignoring environmental ‘value’ and assuming that the rest of the UK holds all the cards. Is there a common British interest in investing in the environment of the whole island ? Is Scotland’s environment a ‘tradeable’ asset of value to the rest of the UK in the kind of hard nosed calculation envisaged ? Would a separate state make that value unavailable to the rest of the UK or would it be available on mutually agreeable terms ? The RSPB recently advocated the idea of the British uplands as a ‘lung’, producing a range of environmental goods from wildlife to ecosystem services. A vision like that transcends frontiers. It needs a common purpose and there is every reason for UK NGO’s to adapt to different circumstances and advocate that common purpose. It would be very odd if advocacy of the international nature of conservation suddenly stopped and NGOs took their ball away because Scotland decided it had had enough of Westminster.
It all depends on how you see these islands and on how adaptable you are prepared to be.
stevenson – good comment thank you.
I’d say it doesn’t depend on how adaptable I am prepared to be – unfortunately it depends on how adaptable those people who get elected to run the country will be. If faced with a political choice then it is wiser to imagine how badly it could go rather than how well it could go.
I don’t get a vote as whilst my father is Scottish and has returned to Fife in the last 10 years, I am English.
That said, if I was to get a vote, I have always been in the “no thanks” camp.
But today for the first time, after reading your blog Mark and Ian’s inspirational “indeed it [a “yes” vote] will herald a new political background for the other countries in the UK, hopefully one based on partnership and regional democracy, and not as we are now, kowtowing to the right wing press, big business and the money markets. Government for the people” quote in his comment above, I think I am actually beginning to change my mind.
Not that that matters of course, as I’m not voting.
Mark when you write:”So, voters in Scotland, think hard about what you want (and give a little bit of thought for the impact on we Welsh, Northern Irish and English too – for not to do so would simply be selfish) and we’ll all be living in a changed world whatever you vote on Thursday.“… do you think that voters whether in Tenements in Glasgow or large, country houses in Perthshire will give much thought to people in Tunbridge Wells or Deganwy or even North Down, generally when heading to the ballot box?
I don’t and I don’t think that’s a bad thing.
Is it?
I don’t see why many Scots should be thought of as “selfish” if they don’t give much thought to the English, Welsh or Northern Irish in this (their) vote on Thursday.
In fact the majority of non-voters (in England for me) that I’ve spoken to (or with) about this subject are have been candid enough to suggest that its actually them who “selfishly” hope Scots don’t vote “yes” – as that would probably increase the likelihood of a never-ending series of Tory (or similar) governments following future general elections south of the border, where they live.
Doug – thank you for your comment.
If your actions have consequences for others, then ignoring those consequences is selfish, isn’t it?
It is facile to discuss major historic forces in terms of selfishness. The ‘solidarity’ issue has been aired in Scotland for quite some time. The ‘Yes’ side are not abandoning progressive opinion in the rest of the UK. They are challenging the democratic deficit in the UK, a deficit which has entrenched an unsustainable economic model and produced massive inequality. Scotland, which has been, since the Union, a state within a state, has the foundation for that challenge which other parts of the UK lack. The debate in Scotland rarely mentions England, not because no one cares, or because it is anti English, but because the target is Westminster.
You’ll thank us in the end……..
Stevenson – interesting comments and I agree some of what you say.
Maybe we will thank you Scots ‘in the end’, but personally I find it hard to take such a long-term view, knowing that a ‘Yes’ vote will leave the future hopes and aspirations of a whole generation (or indeed generations) of young people in the economically deprived areas of Northern England at the mercy of a neo-liberal Tory government for the foreseeable future.
Consideration for the future of those young English people that live ‘in a state within a state’ should never be considered facile. Somehow I doubt they will ever find themselves brimming with thanks for the Scottish electorate.
Despite all the bad politicians inflicted upon us by Scottish voters, including the last, the worst Prime Minister ever, I do hope that the result is ‘No’. Can you imagine future history books recording that our country (the United Kingdom) was destroyed, without the involvement of most of its citizens, by a brainwashed rigged electorate including 16-year-olds (and many younger, if we believe the recent stories) who have never yet had to take responsibility for anything except perhaps how to spend their pocket-money?
However, I wonder if separation would have as big an effect on nature conservation organisations as Mark suggests. The BTO and RSPB have for many years been Scottish charities as well as UK ones, with a reasonable presence of offices, staff and lots of volunteers in Scotland. And as for Mark’s prediction ‘that JNCC would soon cease to exist’, the only reason that JNCC exists at all is to bring together some of the scientific aspects of the nature conservation quangos of four countries (Natural England, Scottish Natural Heritage, Natural Resources Wales and Northern Ireland’s Council for Nature Conservation and the Countryside), plus the UK’s Overseas Territories. If Scotland votes to break up the UK, surely the JNCC would be needed more than ever? Wouldn’t the Scottish government, already more enlightened than the other countries in some of its wildlife and nature conservation legislation and practice, see the benefits of that?
And just to attempt to even up the debate I’ll be voting NO with equal conviction, passion and patriotism to the Yes campaigners. I’m voting in the firm believe that the ties that bind are infinitely more important than our political differences and that solidarity and friendship are far more important than division. We have all the protection we need from right wing politics in Holyrood. We’ve heard a lot about past Westminster lies in this campaign. I firmly believe that the core argument of the Nationalist campaign will prove to be the biggest lie ever perpetrated on a British electorate. That lie being that we stand to lose nothing good by tearing the UK apart, we lose only the bad and keep all the best things. Anyone who believes that a 300 year marriage with a myriad of custody battles can be divorced without bitterness is a much bigger optimist than me. I have lived in Scotland all my life and it has always been a broadly united country. I suspect the bookies are wrong and that will change on Thursday. Salmond will waltz down to England full off triumphalist pomposity and his almost pathological inability to see any view point but his own. He will demand this, that and the next thing and three other proud nations will tell him to raffle himself. 50% of Scotland will cheer them to the echo. The seeds of bitterness will be sown for a long time. PS Not to mention one million voices being lost for Scottish conservation. I don’t hear those one million voices campaigning much in Ireland but they do here at the moment. Vote No Scotland and God Bless the bookies!
Colin – many thanks.
Good to see the “we’re all doomed, I tell ye” shining through!
Fortunately an increasing number of folk living in Scotland, and I include our English, Welsh & Northern Irish friends, neighbours, and work colleagues in that, haven’t been “brainwashed” by reading the hysterical rants of the Telegraph, the Daily Mail or even the Scotsman. Folk have gone looking for alternative viewpoints and made their own decision, knowing that we have Scottish elections in 18 months where we can elect our own Tory government if we want one.
I’m not sure quite how Scottish voters inflicted “the worst Primeminister ever” on the UK! Given we send 59 MP’s to Westminster, our influence there is pretty minimal. Surely it is the party elected to form the government that “inflicts” us with the leader of their party as Primeminister. The word “Thatcher” springs to mind….
Why should one million voices be lost for conservation? As I said earlier, birds don’t stick within borders on maps. That’s why organisations like RSPB work across national boundaries, even as far away as Indonesia, Sierra Leone and the islands of the South Atlantic. That’s why BirdLife International exists, to foster partnership. If it is a yes vote, and it’s a big if, I don’t for one minute think that the majority of rUK birders will stop caring if Scottish golden eagles are poisoned. We care if vultures are killed by diclofenac in India and I hope as much as anyone that we will see those 300 pairs of Hen Harriers breeding successfully in England.
Whatever the result of Thursday’s vote, the vast majority of folk working in conservation, wherever they are in the UK, will keep on doing what they’re doing to try to improve things for nature. Wildlife will face challenges in Scotland, the rest of these islands and indeed our planet whether it’s yes or no. “Seeds of bitterness” will do nothing to address those challenges.
Well it will be a sad day if they vote yes and I think we have all benefited from being together and we will all be losers if Scotland separates.
Love Scotland and the people there are great when we holiday there.
Annoyingly we have no say in it and I just wonder what the ordinary Scot would have thought if we had a vote a year or two ago and said we do not want you lot you are now a separate country,my guess is they would have been very angry that we decided we were better off on our own.
Mark
A series of fair, honest points.
This referendum debate has been exciting, frustrating and difficult. I have no vote, I live in Wales. I thoroughly dislike nationalism, which like religion has fostered more strife than mankind has needed but without any mollifying goodness that may come in the name of religion.
I only wish that – whatever the outcome – the pressure for, as Ian T, above, says ‘will herald a new political background for the other countries in the UK, hopefully one based on partnership and regional democracy, and not as we are now, kowtowing to the right wing press, big business and the money markets. Government for the people.’
Conservation, surely, is in the heart of many and would withstand better without the the battering from the neoliberal right.
Ian – thank you. I think conservation would do better without the battering from the neoliberal right. So that won’t be in WINE if Scotland leaves the rest of us! Can you imagine the level of cooperation between a further-to-the right Westminster government and a further-to-left Scottish government when there is no particular reason, except common sense, why they have to get on well together?
You have to ask why, by current polling, one half of the Scottish electorate is prepared to dissolve the UK and why a sizeable section of the remainder is still prepared to consider that as an option. It is an option which was once considered eccentric and is now considered normal. That is a staggering situation for a major European state. There has been a massive shift in perception. You can see it in the street and you can smell the confidence and optimism that goes with it. You can see it in the widespread ridicule of the BBC’s biased coverage of the debate and the contempt for the threats from Westminster. Whatever the referendum result the Union is no longer a given. It will have to justify itself in the future – on both side sides the border.
You cannot explain that change, which has been building for 40 years, by idiotic demonising of Alex Salmond or by puerile comments about a brainwashed electorate. So why not engage with it constructively.
Thanks for this post — been trying to understand the issues, as an uninvolved yet interested American.
Karla – well, I’m not sure that this dip into the issues will have helped you very much! But thank you.
On the issue of the betting odds, I understand that 85% of bets made in Scotland have been for a Yes vote, but that these are all relatively low value and have been countered by a small number of very large (six-figure) bets made in London. I wonder who might have done that?
Paul – if so, you (and anyone else) should pile in to the 11/4 available on a ‘Yes’ vote.
11/4? That is tempting (in a two horse race)