From England’s Vassal State by Sandy McIntosh, author of “100 Home Rule Questions Answered”. First Published, April 1964.
FOR ENGLAND’S DEAR SAKE
In 1945 Labour found themselves entrusted with the government of the U.K. They had access to all the economic statistics and time for a careful study of the National “kitty” It was an eye-opener. We can imagine this chat:
1st Labour Leader [L.L.] : I hadn’t realised that Scotland was so rich, and that our solvency (England’s, of course) depended so much on Scotland’s monetary contributions and dollar-earning exports.
2nd L.L. : And don’t forget she has the food, coal, electricity, aluminium and steel we need, and contributes her share, or more than her share, of men to our armed forces to uphold our foreign policy.
1st L.L. : What about Home Rule being part of Labour’s policy? Did you really mean that? Now I understand why the Tories will ‘ave nothing to do with it. If you implement your promise England will be a lot poorer, and we as a Government won’t ‘ave the same prestige in world affairs.
2nd L.L. : We’ll have to renege on that promise somehow. It was a good Scottish vote-catcher when the Liberals were a nuisance in Scotland. The Liberals are finished, and the Tories will never offer Scotland Home Rule, so we are quite safe to renege. But we’ll have to be diplomatic about it and break the news gradually.
1st L.L. : Doesn’t that make us a Unionist Party, same as the Tories?
2nd L.L. : (with some irritation) Don’t say that!
1st L.L. : Sorry. I see your point. The less said about that the better. But what about the Scottish MPs?
2nd L.L. : We can handle them and bring them to heel with ease. They simply toe the Party line or end their political careers. We’ll give them the dope with which to gull the Scottish electorate.
1st L.L. : That won’t be difficult. We just tell them we’ve discovered it wouldn’t be in the National interests to change the present Parliamentary set-up. Few of them will guess we mean England’s interests.
2nd L.L. : I’m worried about the Scottish Nationalists, though. These lads are too inquisitive about Scottish finance and economy. I think they know too much, and their numbers are growing.
Only an imaginary conversation, but based on sound circumstantial evidence provided by Labour speeches on UK finance and economy, and the reasons given for Labour’s abandonment of the Scottish Home Rule pledge.
The three English political parties have shown their fear of the Scottish Nationalists by their agreement to get the Postmaster General to refuse the Nationalists time on radio or television except at by-elections, to answer a few questions.
They thus gave themselves the liberty to attack the Nationalists on the country’s most powerful propaganda medium without granting the Nationalists the power to reply. Such is Britain’s sense of justice. During the 1963 by-election in Kinross and West Perthshire, the Liberal candidate refused to appear on TV with the result that the other candidates, including the Scottish Nationalist, were also banned. As it is only at by-elections the Nationalists get the opportunity of using radio or television, the ban naturally hit them hardest.
At the Dundee West by-election the same year, the Labour candidate refused to appear on the air and the screen at the same time as the other candidates, including a Scottish Nationalist. The Scottish National Party, the Welsh National Party, the Scottish and Welsh Broadcasting Councils, and the Pilkington Committee have all drawn the BBC’s attention to this autocratic injustice, but our Scottish Tory, Labour and Liberal “representatives” do nothing about it. They are probably scared of the Scottish electorate getting the political truth. Little wonder the Scots have a movable “pirate” broadcasting transmitter. Mr Kruschev’s thoughts must be worth more than a penny.
It would tax the ingenuity of any Tory or Labour politician, or the Press, to give detailed reasons for their opposition to Home Rule for Scotland on the grounds that Scotland benefits from Westminster rule. Where they do not shield behind the device of simply ignoring the subject they indulge in ridicule.
According to them, Home Rulers are dreamers, rabid or narrow Nationalists, or something worse. Mr Noble, our Scottish Secretary in an “Honest Truth” article in The Sunday Post of 1st of December, 1963, said the idea of Home Rule was “rubbish”. Can anyone imagine a prominent member of the government of New Zealand, Norway, Denmark or Switzerland saying the idea of Home Rule for their country was “rubbish”? These countries are no richer than Scotland, but more prosperous.
The unfortunate feature of Mr Noble’s remark is that his cheap gibe will leave its mark on the minds of Scottish voters already brainwashed sufficiently to believe Scotland benefits from the unequal Union with England. Will The Sunday Post grant equal space for reply by an advocate of Home Rule? We doubt it.
Perhaps we should not take too seriously any statement from Mr Noble. He paid a visit to America with the intention of inducing American industrialists to set up factories in Scotland. From a Press conference in Los Angeles he is reported as having said: “Christine Keeler has proved that we are not an immature race”. If this is the kind of inspired leadership created by English public school education, preserve us from sending our sons there! But why associate Scotland’s name with London’s cesspool?
Here is an example of how Labour avoids the Home Rule issue. In an article on “Policy for Scotland” in the Scotsman of 5th December, 1963, Mr William Ross (Kilmarnock) dismissed the subject of Home Rule in fourteen words, thus: “We see no refuge from Scotland’s troubles in the littleness of an archaic separatism”. Is there anything “little” about a country governing its own affairs? Is not that what every advanced country, except Scotland, does?
Was it not the Labour Government that “separated” India, Pakistan and Ceylon from British control, and boasted about their operations? Can it be that Mr Ross is against Home Rule because he sees himself as Secretary of State for Scotland under a Labour Government? Why cannot Scottish MPs (or English MPs) just tell us in plain language what benefit Scotland derives from being the only advanced, and supposedly free country in the world, ruled by an alien Parliament outside her borders? They can’t, and they know they can’t.
If for any reason the subject of Scottish Home Rule is now mentioned in the House of Commons, it can raise a laugh among both English and Scottish MPs. The newspaper reports of the laughter and cheers and jeers, caused by Sir Cyril Osborne’s suggestion (on 9th December, 1963) of legislation to establish a Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh made sorry reading.
“Comedy in Parliament” one newspaper splashed on its front page. Why did the Parliament not laugh as heartily when mention was made of independence for Cyprus, Malta, Ghana, India, Pakistan and many others?
And why do Members of Parliament representing Scottish constituencies allow themselves to become the laughing stock of Parliament? Can it be that their laughter is camouflage to hide their fear that the Scots may yet recognise their vassalage and rebel? Such vassalage and blindness were neatly summed up by Mr Alexander Mackie of Montrose in the following verse:
Woe, fellow Scots, the day has come,
When supercillious Whitehall thumb,
Needs only press her bell a jiffy,
Auld Scotia runs like ony skiffy.
Are ye sae BLIND ye canna see
The picture o’ yer slavery?
Scotland’s Economy
Discussion of a country’s economy is not everybody’s cup of tea, but such is Scotland’s present economic position that it behoves every Scot to have some knowledge of how his country ticks, or why it fails to tick properly. The subject cannot be dismissed lightly. By the application of economic policies, devised by a government outside its borders, a country such as Scotland can be made a vassal or servant, of the policy-making country, by methods that are not likely to raise resentment among the mass of the people. There is no visible or declared vassalage, so they believe they are free. Their country, however, is not free to devise policies suited to their particular needs and is therefore the vassal of another; a vassalage the people must share, and be affected by, whether they realise it or not.
This little book is not written for students of political economy, and some readers may ask what is meant by a country’s economy and by economic policies. Briefly, a country’s economy is how its wealth is earned, controlled and spent. Economic policy means any action taken by a country’s government to assist or regulate trade. It may be by tariffs, quotas, permits, etc., or by financial measures affecting the public revenue, such as raising or lowering the Bank Rate, Income Tax, Purchase Tax, subsidies, grants, loans, and so on. It may also refer to government policy affecting the working of Nationalised industries. These definitions may not satisfy the expert in political economy, but they are accurate and comprehensive enough for the average reader.
In a previous section, we learned that at the end of last century Scotland was the richest part of the UK. Occasionally our politicians and Press tell us not to present a gloomy picture of Scotland. But who can deny, that from an exalted position Scotland has somehow become a depressed country in Western Europe?
What has caused the change? It is too easy to lay the blame on her reliance on the “heavy” industries and lack of initiative to change with the times. A nation that through its own business foresight and acumen was able to change from being an agricultural land with a few thriving industries into one of the foremost trading nations of the world does not lack business initiative.
Scores of cases could be cited of Scottish initiative and enterprise, on large and small scales, being stifled or hampered by London Government action, or inaction. Here are two present day examples. One concerns an old established industry and the other a new Scottish enterprise.
The Dundee jute industry spent millions of pounds on research and modernisation of plant, and in face of fierce competition from abroad was able to continue employing thousands of workers.
The London Government now threatens, by lowering of the Mark-up tariff against foreign jute goods, to make it easier for foreigners to compete with, or even obliterate Dundee’s staple industry. Further north, the Cairngorm ski grounds were developed by a local non-profit-making organisation. But funds were short. The Board of Trade actually tried to force these people to hand over the commercial interests (probably to an English organisation), by refusing development loans on any other terms. If there is money to be made in Scotland, be sure the London Government wants its share. The members of the Highland Fund were appalled at the Government attitude to this venture which had brought new life, hope and prosperity to the Highlands in summer as well as winter. The Fund stepped in with a loan of £10,000 and the local people raised a like sum. At time of writing there is word of the Government giving financial encouragement to the opening of a ‘ski village in the area, which would “steal” a share of the prosperity created, by the enterprise of the local people.
Definitely it is not lack of inherent enterprise that is responsible for Scotland’s decline. We must look elsewhere. Perhaps it would be nearer the mark to say that because of unhelpful alien government there is no real sense of Scottish “National” feeling or pride in nationhood to arouse the Scots’ dormant capabilities.
From the beginning of the present century amalgamation of industry became fashionable, in almost every case to the detriment of Scotland. Great Scottish concerns were taken over by English rivals, and if not liquidated completely were simply kept open as “branch” concerns to be closed whenever there was a recession of trade. In a vassal country, without a government of its own, there was no real sense of nationhood or National patriotism on the part of the Scots concerned, and therefore there is no use blaming the “wicked English,” though in the case of Stewart & Lloyd the London Government encouraged the transfer of the works from Scotland to England. The drift South had begun, and without a Government of her own Scotland could not take the necessary steps to protect Scottish industries, could “never enact statutes, grant the loans, adjust taxation and customs, and create the subsidies which are essential if the task is to be properly accomplished”.
With the amalgamation of the Scottish and English railways the Scottish railway workshops were closed, except for repair work. Railway control became established South of the Border with great loss of orders for rolling-stock, permanent-way material, printing, food and drink. Not least of the disadvantages to Scotland was the application of London thought and policy. And now we have Butcher Beeching to put the final nail in the Scottish railway coffin.
An English Labour Government (1945-50) Nationalised certain basic industries, including railways, aviation, coal, gas and electricity. Now, nationalisation of certain industries may or may not be a good thing, but it can never be good for any country to have its industries nationalised and controlled by an alien government outside its borders, and that is the position in which Scotland finds herself. The control of these industries is centred in London and the policies are predominantly English to meet English needs primarily.
When Scotland controlled her own railways they were as efficient as any in Britain. Likewise her private airlines, and they made a profit. Was it English jealousy that relegated Prestwick Airport to a secondary position, and even preferred Shannon in Ireland to Prestwick in Scotland, as the terminus of trans-Atlantic flights? Can anyone argue that under Scottish public ownership Prestwick could not have been made one of the finest Airports in Western Europe ?
Governments today take far more control of industries (not only nationalised industries) than would have been thought possible fifty years ago. Political control is so extensive to-day that independent activity is almost impossible, against government obstruction, or even in many cases without active government support. Without a government of her own, Scotland is at a distinct disadvantage in this competitive world. Where Scotland’s and England’s economic interests clash, as they often do. which of the two countries is likely to get most consideration from a London government ?
Scotland has forced upon her those economic policies devised by a London government to suit English, not Scottish, needs. Scottish industrialists have made this charge on more than one occasion, though they continue to support London governments responsible for these policies.
IMPERIALISM BOTH WAYS
In 1949, Mr Attlee, Labour’s Prime Minister, referring to Russia’s economic subordination of her Eastern European neighbours, said: “The economies of all these vassal States must be organised not for the benefit of their own people but to serve the turn of the USSR. You cannot have a more classic example of Imperialism”.
Perhaps he forgot that his fellow Cabinet Minister, Sir Stafford Cripps, had previously said: “The importance of Scotland to British industry is growing, and this makes it all the more important to integrate the economies of the two countries.” When he refers to Britain and Scotland as “two countries” he must mean “the importance of Scotland to English industry”. The same desire to make use of Scotland for the benefit of England was expressed by Sir Alec Douglas Home on 19th November, 1963, when he told Mr Hector Hughes (Labour) that, “Scotland should be integrated fully into the national system”.
Because Russia wanted to do something similar with the economies of her neighbours Mr Attlee made a disparaging statement about these neighbours being satellites or vassals. What about Scotland?
In the Scotsman of 5th December, 1963, William Ross, Labour M.P. for Kilmarnock, stated:
“The objective of Labour’s Scottish policy … is to harness the resources of Scotland so that our people can play their full and distinctive part in the regeneration of Britain. His emphasis seems to be on the word “Britain”. Why not the regeneration of Scotland? Must we always wait until England’s prosperity bubbles over (with our help) and then be thankful for a share of the overflow? In the same issue of the Scotsman, Mr Noble, the Tory, Secretary of State for Scotland, puts the same argument in even more blatant form.
“Central Scotland’s potential as a centre of industrial growth is a unique asset in the economy of the United Kingdom, with her seaway communications, her two major cities, and her natural amenities at hand”. What a wonderful land to help boost England’s economy! Reading these statements by Scottish representatives makes one wonder what the Norwegians had against, Major Quisling.
A Labour and a Tory Peer joined in the House of Lords on 24th May 1962, in suggesting, that since there was higher rainfall in Scotland and less industry, Scotland should make a substantial contribution to the future needs of England and Wales. “There was plenty of good, soft water there which should be brought across the Border”.
The fewer industries and more unemployed we have, the greater our contribution to England’s comfort and wealth! If ever we should strike oil it doesn’t look as if Scotland is going to benefit. Now, if we had self-government we could sell that water. The sale of our water and whisky could put a fair sum into Scotland’s National Exchequer. But puir Auld Scotland is just England’s obedient servant and milch cow.
Influential Scots are scouring the world, almost begging foreign firms to set up business in Scotland. The opening of English or foreign industries in Scotland is all very well, but the steady closing of Scottish industries and the opening of foreign ones, will soon make us a “branch” country of servants to outsiders IN OUR OWN COUNTRY without control of our own industrial or political affairs, as other countries have. I am indebted to the writer of “A Scots Diary” for the following which appeared in the Scots Independent of 7th December, 1963.
“The Senior Planning Officer of the Scottish Development Department was telling a London conference last week something about Scotland. “The assets which Scotland has,” said Mr Wylie, “are geographical compactness, particularly in Central Scotland where there are excellent port facilities on the American and European seaboards; and ease of access to beautiful country, plus a wide range of sporting facilities, and to the metropolitan attractions and shopping facilities of Edinburgh and Glasgow. There is a high degree of industrial skill and adaptability of the population; there are plentiful resources of labour; and the extent to which new growth is taking place in new towns and other places, points to what might be achieved if investment were integrated in a regional scale with the deliberate intention of promoting faster growth.”
“Sounds like a proposition to some big industrial concern for the setting up of a new venture in an undeveloped part of Africa. Here is a European country waiting for the foreigner to exploit, with a tractable population of considerable potential as a source of cheaper labour, with nothing of the nature of a native government to cause any complications, or threaten the freedom of incoming or outgoing capital, and a tamed wilderness at the back door where the foreign managers can hunt, fish and otherwise play to their heart’s content.
“You couldn’t do better, gentlemen, and it has also the other advantages of a peaceful and politically stagnant colony.”
Westminster politicians (even the Scottish ones who are thirled to London) will say it is impossible to separate the economies of Scotland and England. Not only is it possible, but it is absolutely necessary if Scotland is not to be dragged into utter ruin by having her economy perverted, to boost the tottering economy of an over-populated England. Separation of the economies of two countries does not mean isolation. Of course our trade is interwoven, for in a modern world the economy of no country is based upon absolute self-sufficiency. Every country is dependent upon other countries for what it does not grow, mine, or manufacture in sufficient quantities for its own needs. In this respect, Scotland is better placed than is England, yet Scotland alone among the nations of the world (Russian satellites excepted) has her economy controlled by another country (England) for the benefit of the needs of that other country. Even with her own government, Scotland would continue to trade with England, as she would with the rest of the world, but she would devise economic policies suited to Scotland’s needs in the first place. By so doing, and with a revived pride in Scottish nationhood, the Scots could once again put their country in the forefront of the world’s trading nations.
It should not be necessary to remind our critics that the economies of Norway and Sweden were separated in 1905, with great benefit to the smaller nation; and not very long after independence Norway had the world’s third largest mercantile fleet. Scotland is one of the world’s most important shipbuilding countries, yet not a ship on the seven seas flies the Scottish flag. The economies of many other countries have since been separated when they gained independence.
England is over-populated in relation to her food production and natural resources and must export or die, in order to exist. She must export enough to pay for her imports of food for her people, and raw materials for her industries. Scotland, on the other hand, is under-populated and underdeveloped, but able to feed herself on home-grown staple foods, and during the Hitler war exported over one million tons of beef, mutton, veal, oats, potatoes and other agricultural produce each year to England, in addition to 150,000 tons of fish. Scotland has always played a greater part in the export trade than any other part of Britain.
While the UK Government has repeatedly refused to give Scottish export figures (obviously because these would reveal that Scotland’s export balance is being used to reduce England’s deficit), it is evident from available data that Scotland under self-government would have a favourable balance of trade. Indeed, it is doubtful if any other country would have a better. It has recently been made known that Scotland, with about ten per cent of the UK population, produces about thirty-three per cent. of the UK dollar-earning exports.
According to a former Secretary of State for Scotland, Mr Arthur Woodburn, most of Scotland’s necessary raw materials come from other than dollar areas. So it looks as if the dollars Scotland earns by her exports are used to help pay for the imports of food for England’s surplus population and raw materials for her industries. Add to this the fact that Scotland gets only a one per cent. share of UK Government contracts, and it becomes clear that lack of control of our own affairs is a serious handicap to prosperity.
No one would attach the label “Scottish Nationalist” to Lord Polwarth, chairman of the Scottish Council (Development and Industry). At the annual meeting of the Council in Edinburgh, on 16th December, 1963, he said, “the Government’s huge spending on defence and civil research and development, was responsible for almost all the big breakthroughs into new kinds of products. That spending was still far too narrowly concentrated in the South, and this had been one of the root causes of the imbalance of Scottish industry, since the turn of the century”.
The Scottish National Party had been saying just that for years, and suggesting a bigger share of Government contracts and a bigger share of research establishments in Scotland. There would be no need to beg for such contracts and establishments if we had our own government.
It cannot be stressed too strongly that the Scots are not a backward race. As the Scotsman said:
“We have the people, we have the skills, we have the creative passion to get on with the task ourselves . . . just give us the opportunity”. A Scottish Government having control of Scotland’s revenue, and devoting full time to devising policies to help Scottish industries already established and encouraging new industries, would put Scotland on the road to prosperity, or Scotsmen would prove themselves to have less than average intelligence, a belief we don’t think is held anywhere in the world.
Only a Scottish Government, of course, could have the will and the power to make Scotland’s economy ‘tick’ properly, but there is something every Scot can do right now to help Scotland, and that is to buy SCOTTISH goods whenever possible. When buying groceries, ironmongery, furniture, paint, or indeed any articles, let the shopkeeper know that, other things being equal, you prefer SCOTTISH goods, and don’t be put off lightly. Remember, when you buy a non-Scottish product in preference to a Scottish one, you are not only sending money out of Scotland but helping to put a Scot out of work.
Scotland’s Revenue
While Scotland may be regarded by the London Government as a “depressed area” she is potentially one of the richest countries in Western Europe. The revenue she contributes to the London Treasury in the form of taxation is about twice the budgetary revenue of countries of comparable size, such as Denmark and Norway. These self-governing countries, with smaller budgetary revenue, and fewer natural resources than Scotland, maintain their own Throne, Parliament, armed forces, ambassadorial and consular services throughout the world, and give their people a higher standard of living than have the Scots. What, then, is wrong with Scotland?
Briefly, while these countries control their own affairs and keep their revenue to be spent mostly in their own countries, Scotland has forced upon her economic policies devised primarily for English needs, and sends her monetary wealth down the insatiable gullet of a greedy alien Treasury, outside her borders. It’s as simple as that!
Per head of population, it costs Switzerland £514 to rule herself, Eire [Ireland] £58, Norway £80, Denmark £88, and Netherlands £89. It costs Scotland £125 per head to be ruled from London. Clearly self-government pays.
In 1963, Scotland contributed about £645,000,000 to the London Exchequer, and, judging by past records, will be lucky if 6/8d in the pound is sent back to be spent IN Scotland.
The 13/4d change will be spent mostly in England or at least outside Scotland, thus creating wealth and prosperity in England, and consequent poverty and unemployment in Scotland. We are even told how we must spend our 6/8d.
Of course, London needs her 13/4d share of Scotland’s millions to keep England prosperous and help backward countries. So nice to be philanthropic with the help of another country’s money. Far from being England’s “poor relation”, it has been estimated that Scotland “subsidises” England to the tune of £150,000,000 a year. If America were to give Scotland a gift of one hundred million pounds a year it would put Scotland on her feet. Yet Scotland is “gifting” £150,000,000 a year to England. How long can a small country be deprived of its wealth in this fashion without having financial anaemia ?
Allowing London to control Scotland’s revenue and economy is equivalent to a man allowing his neighbour to spend his wages and control his household affairs, while he accepts pocket money from his own wages. This illustration was brilliantly expressed by the following letter which appeared in the Scotsman of 15th July, 1960.
“Where Britain is concerned, Scotland is like an adult son who has been tricked into agreeing to live in the family home. He works as an adult but does not know what he earns, for mother, England, collects his wages at the source. He is given board and lodging and even some pocket money. If, however, he wants a new suit he must ask mother.
Now it may not be convenient; mother has just bought a new dress or may want to redecorate her bedroom. Sonny must wait his turn. Meantime why can he not save up out of his pocket money if he feels too shabby? Even if mother does “give” him a new suit, she will decide the style and the price.
“We should admire the English, not hate them. They have so manipulated the economy that whilst they have spent Scottish money to their own advantage, they have given to the world a picture of a benevolent race who help their less fortunate brethren.
So many of our “Scots” have been brain-washed, during their formative years spent in English scholastic establishments, that they believe that England gives us all good things: her Queen, her Parliament, her bounty, and is even willing to give us her law and her Church. All she asks in return is that we should forget our manhood, agree to be called English, and take the like honours she bestows on faithful serfs.”
In Westminster, there is little chance of pursuing measures needed by Scotland, if they are not needed by England. Once England’s needs have been settled, it is assumed that Scotland’s needs have also been settled, and a portion of the sums to be spent is allocated to Scotland, though Scotland’s needs may be different. There may be exceptions, but that is the general rule.
Most of the Government offices are naturally in London, and the majority of the armed services establishments are in England. English local authorities benefit from payment of the rates, and English businesses benefit from the spending of salaries and wages of officials, and servicemen and women. Scotland, of course, pays her share of the upkeep of these offices and establishments. What a boost it would be to the Scottish economy if she had her own Government offices and establishments with the resultant circulation of money. And it should not be forgotten that we pay our share of the upkeep of London’s “National” Parks and Palaces and other “National” buildings, as well as a fee to see our own Stone of Destiny in Westminster Abbey. What a sanctuary for stolen property !
Per head of population, Scotland contributes more to the National Savings Movement than does England. In 1963, Scotland had a balance of about £240,000,000, fully £20,000,000 more than the U.K. average. Before we begin complimenting ourselves, let us consider further. The Government gives no indication of how this £240,000,000 was spent, but there is no doubt it was spent mostly in England. Of course, Scottish depositors get an average of 31% interest on this money. In return, Scottish local authorities pay at least 6% interest when they want to borrow money (Scotland’s own money) from the Government, for such things as house-building.
At a meeting in Glasgow on 8th September, 1963, attended by Harold Wilson, Leader of the Labour Party, it was stated that “only one per cent. of all Government contracts at present come to Scotland”. If this is true (and no Government spokesman has denied it) our Scottish “representatives” at Westminster have been neglecting their duty by not taking vigorous steps to bring a bigger share of Government contracts to Scotland. The U.K. estimate for defence in 1963 was £1,900,000,000 million pounds. How much of this was drained out of Scotland? Whitehall would never dream of trying to compute, or tell us if it did, but we can be sure if we got our own legitimate share of Government spending of this huge sum Scotland would be, economically, a much healthier country than she is to-day.
In an article on Government spending by Richard Bailey in the Scotsman, December 17, 1963, it was stated that “the aircraft industry has received more assistance from public funds than any other industry. This has gone mainly into the development of new civil aircraft and engines. In some cases, development cost may be very high, and no aircraft company could find the money needed from its own resources. Among the aircraft, that have received help from the Ministry of Civil Aviation are the VC 10, the Trident and the BAC 111.”
On 21st November, 1963, it was revealed in the House of Commons, that in the last twelve years the Government had cancelled about thirty major aircraft projects “at a loss to the country of more than £250,000,000.” Study that statement carefully. Which country, we may ask, suffered the “loss”? There was no financial loss to England, where practically all the work was carried out. The workers got their share in wages and the employers got their profits, and the money was mostly spent in England. Scotland paid about £25,000,000 as her share of the expenditure, and was the only financial loser.
A book could be written on this subject of finance alone, but these few examples of the maladministration of Scotland’s revenue should be sufficient to show that there are real grounds for complaint.
It goes against the grain to complain, for we never wish to be mean, but a country that takes pride in its generosity to the point of seeing its people suffer, and having to leave home to find a living, is vain to the point of iniquity. Unfortunately some Scots put their class, or social position, or immediate money gain before their country. But even they would have a more satisfactory future in a self-governing Scotland using her own money and resources to build up a lively, enterprising and happy community.
What loyal Scot can be content
Tae see hoo Scotland’s wealth is spent ?
Nae for or guid or betterment,
For things get worse,
While English votes in Parliament
Control oor purse.
We’re nae a weak inferior race,
Tae beg and plead for England’s grace:
We maun demand or rightfu’ place.
Nae less can be.
This issue noo we’ve got tae face,
We maun be free
For Scotland’s weal oor duty’s plain,
Elect a Parliament o’ oor ain,
And cut the strong enslaving chain
Dictators make,
And great prosperity we’d gain
For Scotland’s sake.
Alexander Mackie
Foreign Affairs
Some Scots favour a Scottish Parliament with control over Scottish domestic affairs, but think foreign affairs, defence, Commonwealth and world affairs should be the responsibility of Westminster, the Imperial Parliament, as it would be called. In such an Imperial Parliament the Scottish representatives would continue to sit in permanent minority of one to eight, and in these vital matters affecting Scotland we would continue to be ruled by English opinions. Further, such an arrangement would mean Scotland having two sets of Parliamentarians, and paying for her own Parliament, as well as a share of the upkeep of the Imperial Parliament. There might even be two sets of taxes.
The argument put forward for Westminster control of foreign affairs and other external matters is that Scotland’s and England’s interests are identical. Do those who put forward such an argument realise its implications ? If Scotland’s and England’s interests are identical, then even if Scotland were independent mutual interest would ensure Scotland and England making common cause, whenever it was expedient to do so. To suggest otherwise is to contend that either Scotland or England would prove deficient in common sense or that it is justifiable in order to secure unity to force upon Scotland, a policy she might not adopt if she were free. Such an argument puts too high a value on England’s wisdom, while denying similar wisdom to the Scots. In effect, such people contend that Scotland is so stupid, so incapable of, and lacking in common sense, that she must be forced to follow England’s lead whether that lead be right or wrong.
What would happen if Scottish opinion differed from English opinion? Unless we believe there are only two ways of doing anything diplomatic (the English way and the wrong way), surely we can assume the Scots are as intelligent as the English, and if they differ from the English are just as likely to be right, and should have the power to follow their convictions, always provided there was an understanding that any act of AGGRESSION against any part of the British Isles would be met with our combined strength. No one thinks Canada, Australia or New Zealand anti-English because they decide their own foreign policies. Although not bound to fight in wars declared by Westminster, they showed their loyalty to Britain in the two World Wars.
Never does a Scot reveal his “Anglification” and vassalage to England more clearly, than when, for the first time, he hears it suggested that Scotland should have control of her own armed forces. He is more than surprised; he is taken aback as though someone had suggested Scotland going to war. Such control is the inalienable right of every self-respecting country; just as natural as control of its police force. To have one’s own defence force, does not mean aggressive intentions. Norway, Denmark, New Zealand, Luxemburg, Sweden and Ireand, to name only a few countries, are responsible for their own armed forces, and no one lies uneasy in bed because of the fact. The first four countries are members of NATO, and all are members of the United Nations Organisation, and are therefore expected to put their forces at the disposal of an outside organisation in certain circumstances. Scotland alone, has no choice. Her sons in the British forces are under permanent command of Whitehall in London, and during their period of service are legally Englishmen subject to English law.
Meantime we pay our share of the upkeep of the United Kingdom armed forces without getting a proportionate share of government defence contracts. With the exception of Sweden, Scotland’s budgetary revenue is much greater than that of the six countries mentioned, so that financial ability to maintain our own defence force would present no problem. Indeed the finance problem would be eased, for let us hot overlook that the manufacturing of a country’s defence needs can help its economy (as England should know), giving employment and circulating money within the country.
In filling such needs, it is probable we would lay the foundation of a Scottish aircraft industry and resuscitate our three great rivers, Clyde, Forth and Tay. Naturally, Scottish Command would work in close collaboration with the English Command.
Let it be made quite clear, I am not advocating the making of armaments as the basis of Scotland’s economy. Armaments are a most unsatisfactory basis for industrial reconstruction, for they add little to a country’s permanent assets. In an industrial country like Scotland, however, any necessary armaments should as far as possible be made in Scotland. We need not even spend as much as our present monetary share of the grandiose schemes of our Southern neighbour. Out of the money saved (and I am sure there would be a substantial saving compared with our present contribution to UK defence programme), we could invest in more permanent assets, such as housing, roads, bridges, harbours and electrification of railways.
‘Scotland has never shirked her responsibilities in times of Britain’s peril. Indeed she has been too lavish in her willingness to make sacrifices. For far too long the Scots have been hypnotised or blinded by England’s diplomatic flattery.
We are “bonnie fechters”, we are told, when Britain (or England) is at war. The flattery works, and the Scots have marched off to the skirl of the pipes, even to fight former Allies at London’s request, or to defend the right of some small country to rule its own affairs!
“For a good killing match give me the Scots,” said Field Marshal Montgomery, “There are never enough Scots in Britain’s times of need,” said Churchill. General Wolfe was even more outspoken when, during the War with France in Canada, he said of the Scottish Highlanders: “No great mischief if they fall. How can you better employ a secret enemy than by making his end conducive to the common good ?”
From these statements by famous men a stranger might get the impression the Scots were members of a bloodthirsty, warmongering nation. True, we have been well-drilled in war but through no fault of our own.
Prior to Union with England we had few, if any, wars with foreign countries (wars of defence against centuries of English aggression excepted), and we kept faithfully any Treaties made with foreign neighbours. Since Union, however, Scotland has been involved in about ninety wars, of one kind or another, declared by the London Parliament, in each of which she has had more than her share of fighting men and casualties. In reality, Scotland is one of the world’s most democratic and peace-loving nations. Almost every Scot is a Nationalist and Internationalist at the same time. Robert Burns revealed this characteristic of the Scots when he could write, with equal sincerity, “Scots Wha Hae” and “A Man’s a Man for a’ That”.
SCOTSWOMEN AND WAR
It is natural to think of war as a man’s affair, and that certainly implies no credit to the intelligence of men in the handling of affairs. But women have to make sacrifices and suffer when their menfolk are called to war. The women of Scotland, therefore, have a vital interest in the subject of their country’s foreign policy. Whatever her politics, is there a Scotswoman anywhere who thinks an alien government outside Scotland’s borders should have the power to conscript her husband, son or sweetheart to fight in wars declared by that government?
But that is exactly part of the power every Scotswoman gives an alien government when she votes Tory, Labour or Liberal at a Westminster Parliamentary election. Such Scottish votes are interpreted as meaning, the people of Scotland desire their destiny (including the question of peace of war) to be shaped according to what the English Parliament thinks is best for them. Although this question is addressed to the women of Scotland it should be faced and answered by their menfolk as well.
It is our whole contention that Scotland should have, and the world would benefit from, her having a Government on equality with other members of the Commonwealth.
Not an unreasonable demand from a country that has contributed more than her share in soldiers, sailors and administrators to the building of the Commonwealth. To have control over domestic affairs only, would still leave Scotland in a very inferior position, with no “National” say in Commonwealth or world affairs. Such a minor role would entitle Scotland to change her national anthem from “Scots Wha Hae” to “I’m the Saftest o’ the Family”.
It would be in keeping with the democratic nature of the Scots that a self-governing Scotland would gladly continue friendly relations with England, and take part in discussions on all matters of mutual interest, internal and external.
Aims and Policy of the Scottish National Party puts it thus: “A particularly intimate relationship with the other countries of the British Isles, is enjoined by geographical and economic considerations. The creation of joint arrangements for the discussion and settlement, of matters of mutual concern, would be a measure at once natural and beneficial.”
The Civil Service
Despite the fact that small, prosperous and self-governing countries (such as Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Switzerland) maintain efficient civil services, we sometimes hear opponents of Scottish self-government say, that Scotland could not afford to keep up her own civil service.
Occasionally these critics will say England pays nine-tenths of the UK.civil service and Scotland only one-tenth, in the hope (and often successful hope) that their hearers will come to the conclusion, that an independent Scotland would have to find another nine-tenths to maintain her own civil service.
This is a specious form of argument that takes a trick with many unthinking Scots. Let us give it careful scrutiny.
There are over half a million civil servants in the UK, and since London is the seat of Government, naturally far more than nine-tenths of them are in England, including the top ranking and highest paid officials. In many cases, too, the salary rate for the same classes of job is higher in England. The spending of these salaries in England, enriches.
The fact that Scotland is paying her population share of the elaborate UK civil service is proof she is meantime pay-ing, or more than paying, the possible cost of an independent Scottish civil service.
Let us for a moment assume England has no more than her population share of UK. civil servants. To avoid astronomical calculations, and make the illustration as simple as possible, let us take a sample of 100 U.K. civil servants from a higher paid group, ten in Scotland earning £3,500 and ninety in England earning £4,000, a fair comparison of the actual difference in salary for certain similar jobs.
Altogether the UK. taxpayers have to find £395,000 to pay these salaries. Under present UK arrangements Scotland would pay approximately £39,500, which is £4.500 more than the upkeep of her ten civil servants. In other words Scotland “subsidises” England by £4,500. Under self-government, therefore, Scotland could save £4,500 or raise the level of salaries to equal those in England.
Now, the difference in salary rates stated above is a fair estimate, but England’s proportion of civil servants is grossly under-estimated.
By no stretch of imagination can the number be less than twenty, thirty or forty times those in Scotland. Suppose it were only twenty times more the figures would be:
Total U.K. salaries for 210 civil servants (10 in Scotland and 200 in England)
£835,000
Of that total Scotland would pay approx. £83,500
That is £43,500 more than the cost of her proportionate number of civil servants. And this deals with only 210 out of over half a million!
Of course, all civil servants are not earning £3,500 or £4,500.
Thousands are earning much less and many are earning much more, and those with much more are mostly in England. This example, however, is a fair illustration of the civil service money transactions, between Scotland and England.
It will be said, that under self-government, Scotland would require far more civil servants than she has at present. She certainly would, but not necessarily in proportion to the elaborate and extravagant set-up in England. With the enormous relief from not having to “subsidise” England’s grandiose civil service pay roll, and the fact that the bulk of Scottish salaries would be spent in Scotland, Scottish civil servants will get a much better deal than they presently get from London – and the top posts will be in Scotland.
In this brief chapter Scotland’s population or taxable proportion of the cost of the upkeep of the UK civil service is accurate enough, while the proportion of civil servants in Scotland and England, and the difference in certain salaries, have been estimated. Time did not permit of an exhaustive research. Such research would probably reveal that Scotland’s “subsidy” to England has been under-estimated.
This is a subject which presents scope for detailed study by the Scottish National Party or other Home Rule organisation.
peteryoung.dk 