New Internationalist

Would Scottish independence be good for radical politics?

September 2014

Writer and activist Adam Ramsay and professor and author Jim Gallagher go head to head.

Every month we invite two experts to debate, and then invite you to join the conversation online.


Confusing centralization with solidarity was a disaster in the 20th century. Where given the opportunity, we need to start bringing power closer to people. The Scottish referendum is the biggest chance in a generation to do just that.

YES: Adam Ramsay is co-editor of OurKingdom, the UK section of openDemocracy, and author of the forthcoming ebook 42 reasons to support Scottish independence. Before this, he worked for student activist network People & Planet.

It’s an opportunity for much more, too. While neoliberal economics exist almost everywhere, Britain’s constitutional, class and cultural systems have provided it with particularly fertile soil. They have led Britain to be the most unequal country in Europe, to privatize more than almost anyone else in the Western world.

Centralization has allowed the same families to wield disproportionate power across these islands for literally a thousand years. Holyrood [the Scottish parliament], on the other hand, is much more normal for a western European parliament. With proportional representation and without Westminster’s culture, it at least vaguely reflects the wishes of the people who elect it. Independence is also a chance to push broader reforms of a political system in Britain which has for too long failed to act as an effective vehicle for the aspirations of almost all of the people who live here. It opens a space, a chance for a newly empowered people to push for more radical changes.

That’s not an opportunity I’d want to miss.


The confusion is to equate independence with social justice. Nationalism is about one thing only: creating a separate state. It suits nationalists to let progressives hope independence would reverse inequality. But they are just as keen to encourage the neoliberals who support and fund them to develop a vision of Scotland as a tax haven, and the SNP [Scottish National Party] are already promising even deeper business tax cuts than [UK Chancellor of the Exchequer] George Osborne. So, at least one group is sure to be disappointed.

NO: Jim Gallagher holds a fellowship in Nuffield College, Oxford, and is a Visiting Professor at Glasgow University. He was formerly Director General for Devolution in the UK government. He now advises the Better Together Campaign and is one of the authors of Scotland’s Choices: the Referendum and what happens afterwards.

The one guaranteed result of creating a separate state is to end social solidarity inside the UK. No more pooled risk for pensions, benefits or public spending. If, like me, your ambition would be to widen, rather than narrow, social solidarity, then this can only be a backward step. As it happens, it also looks as though this would be contrary to the interests of Scottish voters.

Of course there is a lot wrong with Britain, and I’ve some sympathy with those who, in despair of making progress, clutch at the straw of independence. But don’t be fooled: independence means no more, and no less, than it says on the tin. Decentralization, on the other hand, is something we can pursue, by giving more powers to the Scottish parliament, including powers to decide on the balance of taxation and spending, and to let Scots make a choice about social justice.


‘Social solidarity inside the UK’ is just nationalism by another name. We should stand with people in Corby, but equally with people in Cork and Kabul. Solidarity is international or it is nothing, and it certainly doesn’t depend upon the unity of a kingdom.

We need to start bringing power closer to people. The Scottish referendum is the biggest chance in a generation to do just that – Adam

Of course, independence doesn’t guarantee social justice, and a seat at the UN doesn’t make you a good global citizen. But to have significantly less inequality than Britain, significantly lower rates of child poverty, significantly less privatization, and to be significantly less warmongering, Scotland wouldn’t need to be special. It would just have to be an average western European country. It is post-imperial Britain, with its anachronistic parliament, ancient class system and a wealth gap twice as wide as any other EU state, that is bizarre. This is not because of the beliefs of the people who live in the country, but because our constitutional framework and post-colonial nationalism are used by neoliberalism to devastating effect. Independence would be a blow to both.

You highlight the SNP’s misguided call for a three per-cent corporate tax cut but ignore that [Labour’s Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Blair government, 1997-2007] Gordon Brown cut it by five per cent and [current shadow Chancellor] Ed Balls has suggested going even further.

You propose more powers for Holyrood within Britain, but this means leaving decisions over Trident [nuclear missile programme] and foreign wars to a post-imperial Westminster that retains a culture of trigger-happy interventionism. We should of course collaborate across these islands and across the world, but that doesn’t mean we must all have the same prime minister.


You fall into an error much encouraged by the SNP: that is, to see the independence referendum as a competition between two different nationalisms, a Scottish nationalism and some sort of British nationalism. Competing identities, if you like. I see the choice quite differently. It is between two different Scottish visions of Scotland’s future. One in which Scotland is an entirely separate state, severing all our political links with the other parts of Britain, or the better vision in which we choose to opt into the multinational state which is the UK.

It is no part of my argument that the United Kingdom is perfect, but the nature of that multinational state is highly relevant to these questions of social solidarity.

I agree with you that social solidarity ought to cross national boundaries. Sadly, it seldom does. International fiscal transfers are contingent and subject to unpredictable political choices – as in international aid. Or they are grudging and conditional – as, for example, the transfers within the European Union [EU] from richer northern nations to Mediterranean countries like Greece, in deep fiscal doodoo.

The confusion is to equate independence with social justice. Nationalism is about one thing only: creating a separate state – Jim

In Britain, by contrast, fiscal transfers between the different parts of the country – notably for things like pensions and benefits – are unconditional and needs driven. No German taxpayer guarantees Greek pension payments. So if Greece is in fiscal trouble, pensioners there are in trouble too. But within Britain, pensions in Cardiff, Liverpool or Glasgow don’t depend on the fiscal position of Wales, the North West or Scotland. They are supported, if need be, by the resources of the whole UK – taxpayers in London or Birmingham as well as Wrexham and Dundee.

This is multinational social solidarity in practice. It does not happen in the EU, still less between Cork, Cambridge and Kabul. The world would probably be a better place if social solidarity were wider, not narrower. Since the one guaranteed result of independence would be to narrow it even further than now, I’m guessing you’ll agree separation is a bad idea after all.


The data shows that small European countries tend to be richer and recover faster from global recessions.1 This is because government intervention can be more surgical. Subsidies from another area are less important than the power to steer your own specific path out of the problem.

In any case, talk of fiscal transfers rings hollow in a society in which the main transfer of wealth is from poor to rich; from workers to owners. The important question in the 21st century is how we can build a political system capable of protecting itself from being captured by corporate power. Westminster, more than almost any other European parliament, has failed in this regard: it presides over greater inequality and more privatization, and has done so under both Labour and Conservative governments.

The governments in Europe that have succeeded more in protecting the interests of their people against the most extreme demands of global capital are those in smaller countries. There is a simple explanation for this: the best guardian against neoliberalism is an empowered citizenry. Bring power closer to people, to where they feel they can influence it, and they organize themselves. Tie it up in a distant bureaucracy, and the money merchants and faceless lobbyists will always ultimately win.

Scale matters in such questions, but this isn’t just about size. Westminster is the least trusted and one of the least democratic parliaments in western Europe. Ultimately, Scots must decide which they can more easily hold to account: Holyrood or Westminster.


This has been an interesting exchange, and it has shed a little light on the choice Scots face.

The data [you quote] doesn’t really back you up in whether size makes a country more nimble rather than more vulnerable. Over the years, Scotland has done economically as well as the average small country. In both the length and severity of the recent financial crisis, Scotland fared slightly better than the small European countries the SNP likes to compare us to. So that argument does not hold up.

The revealing thing about this exchange is how negative the arguments for independence are – you seem to see it as an escape route from things you don’t like (and many of them I don’t like either). That’s wrong for so many reasons. The SNP tells us (not you, but they are the ones who might govern) it’s not really much of a change at all – keep the Queen, the pound, the BBC… and even the Department for Work and Pensions. Both can’t be true, and I fear it’s you who’d be disappointed. Independence isn’t a cure-all for everything that’s wrong with the world, though it suits nationalists to say that it is, so you’ll vote for it. Don’t be blinded by wishful thinking.

In the end, this is a choice between a nationalism that is determinedly negative, and by definition inward; or – as I prefer – a commitment to a Scottish future as part of something larger, whatever its faults.

  1. ‘Scotland Analysis: Macroeconomic and fiscal performance’. UK government, 2013.

Front cover of New Internationalist magazine, issue 475 This feature was published in the September 2014 issue of New Internationalist. To read more, buy this issue or subscribe.

Never miss another story! Get our FREE fortnightly eNews

Comments on Would Scottish independence be good for radical politics?

Leave your comment


  • Maximum characters allowed: 5000
  • Simple HTML allowed: bold, italic, and links

Registration is quick and easy. Plus you won’t have to re-type the blurry words to comment!
Register | Login

  1. #1 Greg S 29 Sep 14

    Here we see Jim Gallagher - a Better Together adviser - resort to the usual tactics so often deployed in the recent independence referendum. Firstly - depict the decision as a selfish/ obsessive choice of the SNP alone. No one else in Scotland is in favour of independence other than saltire face-painted 'nationalists'.

    Jim and the BT campaign were spectacular during the entire debate in being unable to recognise the wider progressive forces ALL aligned behind independence. There was Women for Independence, The Green Party, The Scottish Socialists, Solidarity Party, Generation Yes (16-17yr olds) and the very active Radical Independence Campaign. These groups were all active under the central purposes understood very well by Adam Ramsay in this exchange. It seems like they don't exist for Jim Gallagher. Admittedly this point didn't specifically come up but seeing how Jim and other BT spokespeople conducted themselves in TV debates or interviews I imagine he would simply dismiss them as being led along by Alex Salmond's fantasy/ obsession with independence or better still, actually orchestrated by the SNP at Supreme Allied Headquarters.

    It would be astonishing to note how glibly Jim brushes off the key points made by Adam about massive inequality in the UK, anachronistic parliament, heavy corporate lobbying etc. if it wasn't actually done by him and other Labour/ Better Together people with a dull predictability throughout the entire campaign.

    What is also evident in this exchange is sheer lack of vision coming from Jim Gallagher. Effectively: 'Stay in the Union, let's all work together and things will be ok. Better the devil you know, put those idealistic fantasies back in the box and grow up'. Because that's REALLY worked wonders for inequality and poverty levels in the UK over the last 20+ years hasn't it Jim?!

    The intellectual bankruptcy of Gallagher is actually quite sad. It echoes the narrative of the once great Labour Party in Scotland. Sadly now post referendum they are a hated party in Scotland with rapidly diminishing support / members with a correlated drop in Union member payees.

    I suspect Jim, like many other Labour supporters, is blinded in this entire debate due to his deep resentment of the SNP, who - in Labour's eyes - deprived them of their natural seat of power in Scotland.

    He fails to comprehend the one way direction Scotland faces by being wedded to the Westminster Parliament. Indeed it is illustrative that post indy ref there are still no meaningful powers scheduled for Scotland.

    Ultimately it was people like Jim - who I would say are apologists for the British State - that helped persuade thousands of people that separation was simply too risky for Scotland and should be dismissed as a narrow minded 'nationalist' dream. His last point is also highly illuminating. He states that during the last financial crisis Scotland fared only just better than the small countries the SNP compares them too. Really? Like Norway Jim?

    The obvious point missing here - which I have no doubt most of the NI would graspy - is that IF Scotland had been independent it could have set it's own economic direction in the first place and potentially i) avoided the severity of the 2008 crash, thanks to Gordon Brown's 'light touch' policy in financial regulation and ii) recovered much faster due to being able to utilise ALL the economic levers the Scottish Government needs to stimulate the economy.

    Anyway, I do agree with his last point - it was an interesting exchange. I thought Adam was very well informed about the whole debate and had this debate gone on longer you would have seen the further evaporation of logic and sense from Jim Gallagher.

Subscribe to Comments for this articleArticle Comment Feed RSS 2.0

Guidelines: Please be respectful of others when posting your reply.

Get our free fortnightly eNews


Videos from visionOntv’s globalviews channel.

Related articles

Recently in Argument

All Argument

Popular tags

All tags

This article was originally published in issue 475

New Internationalist Magazine issue 475
Issue 475

More articles from this issue

  • Sweden faces far-right election gains

    September 1, 2014

    Despite anti-fascist protests, Adam Bott fears the Sweden Democrats could double their tally in the general election.

  • Stop the gold rush!

    September 1, 2014

    Our appetite for the shiny metal is both pointless and dangerous, argues Richard Swift.

  • The myth of ethical gold

    September 1, 2014

    Certification schemes notwithstanding, clean gold is a bit of a scam, says Stephanie Boyd.

New Internationalist Magazine Issue 436

If you would like to know something about what's actually going on, rather than what people would like you to think was going on, then read the New Internationalist.

– Emma Thompson –

A subscription to suit you

Save money with a digital subscription. Give a gift subscription that will last all year. Or get yourself a free trial to New Internationalist. See our choice of offers.