Joe Middleton is Press Officer of Independence First, creator of the Scottish Independence Guide and a ubiquitous CyberNat.Posting on this blog last night as freescotlandnow, he said:
Scotland is outvoted by a factor of 11-1 in the UK parliament.Here is my somewhat less succinct reply...
Joe,
Good morning. It’s actually about 10:1 (587:59 MPs). But the exact ratio is largely irrelevant.
I don’t accept your notion that Scotland is “outvoted”. There’s no anti-Scottish bloc voting against our interests. Scots are no more “outvoted” than any other identifiable subgroup: elderly people, non-Caucasians or gay people, for example. Geography is only one distinguishing factor. But I’ll use inverted commas around the word “outvoted” and tackle you on your own terms.
Consider this: there being about 70,000 voters in the Glenrothes constituency, each individual is massively “outvoted” when it comes to electing the local MP.
Even within the Kingdom of Fife, Glenrothes is only one of four Westminster constituencies, so could perhaps be said to be “outvoted” by a factor of 3:1.
And Fife itself is “outvoted” by a factor of 642:4 (about 160:1) in the UK parliament.
Being “outvoted”, as you put it, is in the nature of representative democracy.
So why are you seemingly unconcerned about Fife being in such a position, but telling anyone who will listen that Scotland is “outvoted by a factor of 11-1” within Britain?
I would suggest that your nationalism, rather than any argument about democratic representation, is at the root of your thinking. You see Scots (not Fifers) as separate, are outraged that we aren’t, and so that nationalistic tail wags your political dog.
After all, Scots – unlike Fifers – form a “nation without a state”, not unlike the Sioux, Bretons, Tamils, Sardinians and many others. Can you see yet where your argument breaks down? Should they all be independent? Should the USA, France, Sri Lanka, Italy and other nations cease to exist in their current forms as a result? But I digress.
In your terms, Britain is similarly “outvoted” in the European Parliament – by a factor of 9:1 (in fact 707:78). But do you see me fretting about that? Of course not, because I’m a Unionist!
Not a British nationalist. I’ll leave that to those on the fringes: to the likes of UKIP.
But a conviction Unionist. So I’m Pro-Scotland, pro-Britain and pro-Europe.
That means I’m at ease with the idea of distributed sovereignty. I’ll consider what powers might best be exercised at Scottish, British or European levels not just on the basis of uncritical subsidiarity, or what’s thought to be best only for “us” (however defined).
Rather, the Unionist ideal is to pool resources, to come together whenever, on balance, it serves our common good. And if at times that cuts across narrow ideas of “our” versus “their” interests, then so be it – even for your hobbyhorse issues of defence and foreign affairs.
Anyway, we already cede some such powers to the EU, NATO and UN (and even to the US) and while you and I could probably bicker all day about the appropriateness of the current distribution, the internationalist principle is an important one which nationalist doctrines inevitably undermine.
And that’s why, as David Cameron rightly said, unionists will win this battle of ideas. Your rhetoric may be pithier, but our vision is far more forward-looking, generous and inclusive.
But of course, in our relations with the rest of the world, Scotland’s and Britain’s interests are our primary focus, and there’s no contradiction between that statement and the foregoing. The distribution of sovereignty, rather like the decision-making dynamic within a healthy marriage, must work to all its parties’ net advantage, if not to each individual partner’s in every respect.
And on that score your argument falls apart completely. An independent Scotland would be “outvoted” in the European Parliament probably by 771:14 (roughly 55:1).
So again I’ll ask: why doesn’t that vex you? Where’s your consistency? Why is being “outvoted” 10:1 in Britain such a concern, but being “outvoted” 55:1 in Europe such a welcome prospect?
Sincerely,
SU.
Joe Middleton may not have got the point across to you very well SU - doing what is correct for the UK and doing what is correct for Scotland can often be different.
The North Sea fishing issue is systemic of this.
It is not the politicians fault; if they are 'UK politicians' they act in the interest of the UK. When they are 'Scottish politicians' they act in the interest of Scotland.
Scottish politicians cannot possible win a vote in Westminister; conversely, if independent Scotland will be in a stronger position in Europe as we need not be fed the 'this deal is good for the country (UK)' line.
Ah, fish.
Bsh - what would you have preferred the UK to do differently?
And what do you imagine an independent Scotland would do differently?
Surely it's obvious that Scotland would have to sign up to the entire "acquis communautaire" - including the CFP - just to get into the EU.
Bsh,
The problem with that analysis is that, as SU said, there is no single or uniform 'Scottish interest' or 'English interest' - to most MPs, their Englishness or Scottishness is, as he again alluded to, about as significant to the discharge of their duties as their other identifiable subgroups. MPs are elected to represent their constituencies, not some wider areas, and in that context all are outvoted 658 (?) to 1. Whilst perhaps the Scottish Executive or ministers in the Scotland Office could fall into your idea of representing Scotland, the average MP does not.
European politics is not the place for simply expressions of national interest. Even an independent Scotland would have to negotiate from a position of what is in the best interests of the people of Europe. At the moment, the SNP seem unable to tell us what they'd do differently with the fishing issue, short of pie-in-the-sky nonsense like having the Common Fisheries Policy repealed.
I really do think SU has hit the nail on the head with this post.
Mr Middleton dropped by my blog as well with exactly the same comment. I don't think he's waiting around to read either of our answers to be honest.
I do believe the problem with the common fishing policy is quite simple.
The Scottish fleet was mothballed almost instantly with little compensation.
Why? Because the U.K government at the time wanted to be 'in first' 'leading Europe' etc.
The French and Spanish governments did little to force their fleets out of the water. Result: 2007: Angry Spanish and French fisherman who can't afford fuel, but are allowed to fish in Scottish (and UK) water when Scottish/UK fishermen are not.
10 Points to the man in Westminster and his smart ideas.
Simple problem: The UK thinks the EU is a suicide pact. The other members of the EU don't.
An independent Scotland would not be so bloody stupid to say the least.
BSH
Fishing is one issue on which I think there is some truth (though not merit) in the nationalist argument that Scotland doesn't always get exactly what it wants.
But while an independent Scotland might not have to balance so many factors, it would undoubtedly have far less clout in Europe generally: perhaps 14 MEPs versus the UK's 78.
bsh
"I do believe the problem with the common fishing policy is quite simple.
The Scottish fleet was mothballed almost instantly with little compensation.
Why? Because the U.K government at the time wanted to be 'in first' 'leading Europe' etc."
OK, I see.
That's not really a "Union" issue, though. It's been apparent for a while that the UK is simply far too eager to implement and enforce EU legislation even when it hurts us, while the French, Italians, Spanish etc are much more realistic about turning a blind eye.
I would say that this has been primarily a feature of the current Labour administration, but I suspect it happened under the Tories too. We Brits are just like that.
Good response SU.
The distribution of power is, as you point out, involved in all democratic systems, and the nationalist claims of being 'outvoted' in Westminster therefore fall down.
But the approach does demonstrate what would happen in an independent Scotland. The SNP thrive on the basis of conflict with other bodies - currently Westminster is the bogey man who can be blamed for all of Scotland's woes. However, an independent Scotland in the EU would be equally outvoted and would not always get its own way - we would therefore see the conflict move from between Edinburgh and Westminster to Edinburgh and Brussels.
Furthermore, the argument that Scotland is outvoted and somehow bullied by England is somewhat shallow looking given the influence of Scots in the Cabinet over the past few years and the ongoing issues related to the West Lothian question. Scotland does quite well for itself, and for the situations where Scottish issues diverge from the rest of the UK, we can expect our MPs, MSPs and MEPs to work to represent us - being part of a democracy means that you don't always get your own way though.
Total Number of British MP's at Westminster: 646
Scots MP's: 59
Giving a factor of 11-1 (actually 10.949-1) but close enough I think.
England on it's own has 529 MP's.
This means that English MP's heavily outweigh all the other countries in the British state and it means that the union is highly unequal as a result.
A majority of Scottish MP's voted against Trident but the British Government is pushing ahead anyway.
If we were independent we would have our own direct voice in the EU and UN. We would have a seat in the Council of Ministers, we would have our own European commissioner and we would have more Euro MP's.
Most importantly our flag would fly at the United Nations and we would have our own seat there.
We would control our own defence, foreign policy, benefits policy, broadcasting and pensions which are currently controlled by Westminster.
So if we voted against Trident it wouldn't happen and we wouldn't be wasting billions on an unusable deterrent which is intended to prop up the old fiction of Britain being a world power.
Scotland doesn't want to be a world power but we do need to have the same powers as every other country around the world and that can only happen with independence.
If the Scots in the cabinet worked in Scotland's interests that might be an advantage but it is obvious that they don't. Look at the HBOS takeover for a current obvious example.
Scotland would benefit if HBOS remained an independent bank based in Scotland. Brown wants it to be merged with Lloyds TSB which is likely to result in the HQ moving south and the loss of thousands of Scottish jobs.
To do this he is using Billions of borrowed pounds, much of which will be raised from future taxation on Scotland. So we're paying for the wrong decision to happen to our bank with the added rider that Mr Brown believes this indicates that Scotland is too poor to have independence and has the cheek to compare oil rich Scotland with tiny Iceland which was in part destabalised by the actions of the British Government! So much for the 'union dividend'.
I have replied in detail to your post here:
http://politicalnewsfromscotland.blogspot.com/
freescotlandnow / Joe
Your ratio demonstrates innumeracy. You have included MPs representing constituencies in Scotland among those whom you claim are “outvoting” Scotland!
And who cares that there are more English MPs? That’s as it should be, based on the relative populations. But it doesn’t make them “anti-Scottish”. They’re not “out to get us”!
Now, you’re right that a majority of Scottish MPs voted against Trident, but that’s an accepted part of the overall arrangement. Most people acknowledge that Scotland benefits greatly from being part of the United Kingdom. Evidently you see the pooling of sovereignty (within the UK, if not the EU) as a negative. I can understand that view, but fundamentally disagree – as explained above.
The rest of your reply (before the off topic rant at the end) is predicated on your unshakable worldview that Scots are “us” and English etc are “them”. I simply don’t see it that way, so I doubt that we’ll make headway.
There are eleven times as many British MP's as Scottish MP's in the UK Parliament.
It is obvious then that when an issue of national importance comes up that Scotland's MP's are heavily outvoted and the union is therefore clearly unequal.
I suspect if the USA or Russia offered such an 'equal' union with the UK you would reject it. In the EU no one country has a massive advantage over the others. That's the difference.
There are approximately twice as many adults (men plus women) as there are women. But that doesn't mean women are outnumbered 2:1 by men. Check your arithmetic.
Now, imagine this hypothetical: that England was split into ten toughly equal parts. So we would have a UK of thirteen component parts, each of which would have roughly the same population, so that in respect of your concerns the UK union would now more resemble that of the EU.
Would you then start favouring the continuation of the United Kingdom? Clearly not! So I have to ask: are you being honest with yourself about your actual motives?