The positive Case for the Union

Banner image
Published on 9th Nov 2024

The “positive case for the Union” is a familiar refrain echoed by pro-Union advocates, seemingly promising stability, security, and prosperity for Scotland within the United Kingdom. Yet, when we unpack this rhetoric, what emerges is a narrative less about genuine benefit and more about dependency and control. This “positive case,” upon closer examination, serves Westminster’s interests more than it serves Scotland’s, casting Scotland as a beneficiary of the Union rather than as an equal partner. In essence, the positive case for the Union collapses under scrutiny, revealing a framework sustained by fear, misrepresentation, and a persistent downplaying of Scotland’s potential.

Unionist discourse surrounding the Union consistently presents itself as rational and measured, casting pro-independence Scots as misguided idealists. This condescending tone does more than dismiss; it signals a refusal to engage sincerely with Scotland’s aspirations. Beneath the surface lies a dependency model that Westminster has woven into the fabric of Scotland’s economic, cultural, and political life. Unionists paint themselves as guardians of stability, while independence supporters are depicted as jeopardising Scotland’s future. But if there truly were a positive case for the Union, why are unionists not celebrating it??

Economically, the Unionist argument centres on what is dubbed the “Union dividend” an alleged sum of billions directed from Westminster to Scotland each year, supposedly sustaining public services, social welfare, and infrastructure that, Unionists claim, would be unsustainable in an independent Scotland. But how accurate is this picture? Scotland generates approximately £88.5 billion annually for the UK Treasury, largely through its oil, renewable energy, and whisky exports industries that, as part of the Union, Scotland cannot fully control. Westminster’s block grant to Scotland, at about £41 billion, does not reflect the total wealth Scotland produces. Unionists label Scotland’s fiscal situation a “deficit,” but much of this so-called deficit funds UK-wide costs with limited direct benefit to Scots. Were Scotland to manage its resources independently, evidence suggests it could run with a fiscal surplus rather than the supposed deficit as portrayed by supporters of the Union and Westminster.

This revelation begs the question: if Scotland contributes more than it receives, who truly benefits from the Union? The “Scottish dividend” is real, but it flows south to bolster the UK Treasury. Far from a dependent partner, Scotland is, in reality, a net contributor. If the Union is so indispensable, why does the economic model hinge on obscuring Scotland’s contributions rather than celebrating them?

Turning to defence, the “positive case” contends that Scotland would be vulnerable without the UK’s military infrastructure, particularly regarding NATO membership and nuclear deterrence. Unionists argue that independence would jeopardise Scotland’s security. However, this argument disregards Scotland’s unique defence needs, which differ significantly from the UK’s global military agenda. An independent Scotland could focus on regional maritime security, environmental protection, and peacekeeping priorities that align more closely with the values many Scots hold. Wouldn’t a defence policy rooted in Scotland’s specific security concerns better serve its people than a nuclear arsenal stationed against public will?

Unionists portray the UK’s military presence as a safety net, yet it’s Scotland that bears the burden of hosting nuclear weapons on its shores. Independence could empower Scotland to determine a defence policy that genuinely reflects its values.

Unionists often argue that Scotland would lose global influence without the UK’s standing in institutions like the UN Security Council and the G7. But how aligned are Scotland’s values with Westminster’s foreign policy direction? Scotland’s vision on the global stage leans towards diplomacy, human rights, and environmental stewardship values often at odds with an increasingly insular UK. Since Brexit, the UK has distanced itself from Europe, aligning more with the US and adopting policies that clash with Scottish public sentiment, such as abstaining from votes on Palestinian protection. In what way is Scotland’s influence strengthened by being tied to a foreign policy agenda it fundamentally disagrees with?

Rather than providing a gateway to influence, the Union seems to constrain Scotland’s voice. Rejoining the EU as an independent nation could enable Scotland to pursue a foreign policy that reflects its progressive values, collaborating on pressing issues like climate change and social justice. If the Union is so beneficial, why is Scotland’s voice often drowned out by Westminster’s conflicting interests?

Culturally, Unionists argue that independence would fracture Scotland’s ties to the UK, disrupting family bonds and business relationships. Yet, does independence require severing these connections? Many pro-independence Scots advocate for a “social union” a collaborative relationship based on equality and mutual respect. Historical ties between Scotland and England are undeniable, but recent political divergences suggest that these ties need not rely on a hierarchical Union. The Thatcher era accelerated Scotland’s social and economic divergence from England, and recent shifts in England’s political landscape fueled by conservative policies and the far-right further reveal a widening values gap. Why cling to a political union when Scotland could foster relations with its neighbours as an equal, rather than as a subordinate?

The final Unionist economic argument often centres around the UK internal market, stressing that seamless access to this market is vital for Scotland’s economy. This view presumes that independence would impose rigid trade barriers, a prospect Unionists claim would damage Scottish businesses. But the nature of much of Scotland’s trade is already global, with goods like whisky and petroleum routed through English ports, falsely inflating Scotland’s dependency on the UK. With EU membership, Scotland could negotiate its own trade agreements, balancing both its EU and UK trade relations. The recent decision to close the Grangemouth oil refinery highlights the risks of dependency on UK infrastructure; by 2025, Scotland will rely on English refineries for oil processing. Could Scotland not better secure its economy by managing its infrastructure and trade agreements independently?

At each juncture, Unionists choose fear over substance. Discussions around independence often devolve into aggressive, dismissive debates where Unionists rely on belittling rather than engaging. This dynamic reflects a psychological resistance to questioning the Union itself. Some Unionists exhibit cognitive dissonance, clinging to the Union despite evidence of Scotland’s suppressed potential. Others exhibit learned helplessness, doubting Scotland’s ability to thrive without Westminster’s oversight. Why, if the Union is truly beneficial, does the positive case rely on reinforcing Scotland’s dependence rather than acknowledging its strengths?

Such behaviour might even resemble Stockholm Syndrome, where captives defend their captors. Unionists often seem to defend Westminster’s control as benevolent, ignoring the Union’s exploitative elements. It is difficult to consider these behaviours a sign of genuine confidence in the Union. In fact, they hint at a subconscious recognition that the Union lacks substance, a recognition disguised by toxic discourse. When presented with data on Scotland’s economic or social strengths, Unionists deflect, resorting to fear-based arguments rather than substantive dialogue.

Currency is a prime example of Unionist fear-mongering. Unionists often demand, “What currency will you use?” as though an independent Scotland would be incapable of establishing its own currency. Yet countries with fewer resources have successfully managed independent currencies. Scotland’s economic foundation anchored in energy, export revenue, and resources could support a stable currency. Unionists’ insistence that Scotland would need the British pound reflects a refusal to engage with Scotland’s economic potential. Why rely on threats when Scotland has the tools to forge a stable financial future?

Even the supposed inevitability of euro adoption in an independent Scotland is a red herring. EU membership does not require adopting the euro, as seen in countries like Sweden. If other nations retain currency autonomy within the EU, why wouldn’t Scotland have similar flexibility?

Unionist arguments on borders also fall flat. They depict independence as synonymous with restrictive borders, disrupting trade and personal connections. But modern trade agreements and technological solutions offer ways to maintain smooth cross-border movement. Scotland could model arrangements after the Northern Ireland Protocol, preserving trade relations without sacrificing its independence. If Unionists valued Scotland’s connections with England, why do they reduce independence to a closed-door scenario when pragmatic solutions are available?

Ultimately, the so-called “positive case” for the Union rings hollow, relying on dependency narratives rather than Scotland’s strengths. Genuine discussion about the Union’s benefits rarely occurs; instead, we see deflection, condescension, and scare tactics. Unionists seem less concerned with presenting a hopeful vision for Scotland within the UK and more preoccupied with discrediting the independence movement. If the Union were indeed beneficial, it should inspire trust and confidence, the benefits should be obvious, not steeped in fear and control.

The reality is that Scotland possesses the resilience, resources, and vision to thrive as an independent nation. Independence would empower Scotland to shape its policies, invest in its economy, and forge foreign relations that align with its values. Scotland’s place within the UK is not essential to its prosperity but, rather, an impediment to reaching its full potential. Independence offers Scotland the opportunity to retain connections with the UK from a position of equality while pursuing a future grounded in Scottish priorities and values.

If a genuine positive case for the Union existed, surely it would focus on celebrating shared successes and Scotland’s unique contributions. Instead, it focuses on fears and constraints. Scotland deserves more than a Union sustained by intimidation and dependency. Scotland deserves to stand as an equal on the global stage, forging its path with confidence and self-determination.

As we envision an independent Scotland, one question remains: if the Union truly serves Scotland’s interests, why are its defenders unable to provide a case beyond fear and subjugation? Independence doesn’t reject our shared past; it builds a future that honours it. Scotland is ready to choose this future one defined not by dependency but by the strength and potential to stand proudly as a sovereign nation.