Thursday, January 30, 2014

Back to the Future

History is a bitch.
That’s because it’s already done. There’s nothing to do to change it. It’s just fact.

Every cringe worthy mistake I have made in my life thus far is locked in concrete. Solidly fixed for all eternity and there is absolutely nothing I can do about that.

Trust me I wish I could. But I can’t. So therefore I have determined it’s a bitch.
I can say sorry. I have often said sorry. I can say it was a mistake or just lie; a big boy dun it, it wasn’t me, it was Colin over there.

But the reality is whatever I did, I did it and cannot change it.
I can take some comfort in the fact my life like the vast majority of people is pretty much inconsequential. I know this sounds a little defeatist but it’s true. In a hundred years we will all be dead and unless you are Churchill, Hitler, a king or queen or someone who might warrant a statue in Parliament square whatever you do will most likely be forgotten.

So history as well as being a bitch, is also very forgiving.
It really really doesn’t matter so why worry about it? Take someone famous today, let’s say, Robbie Williams. He couldn’t walk down any UK high street without getting mobbed. But I guarantee in a hundred years from now it will be Robbie who?

In fact Robo could walk down the high street in Ohio today and no one would know who he is. Or Christian Ronaldo. Or anyone for that matter. They will all be forgotten about.
I would argue that for all the people who have existed in my lifetime there will only be a handful of people still remembered in a hundred years from now. It’s a bar room debate who that is I accept, but my three would be; Nelson Mandela, Margaret Thatcher, Osama Bin Laden. From the last century I would argue only Churchill and Hitler will be remembered and warrant a paragraph or two in Buck Rodgers Primary three history book.

History is also something written by the victors as Churchill once famously said. Just as an aside I listened to an interesting podcast a few years ago comparing Alexander the Great with Adolf Hitler.
Both used similar tactics to further their respective causes but one is remembered as ‘The Great’ and the other well, we all know how he is remembered. The only major difference between the two is that Alexander won.
So history is a bitch and it’s not a bitch. I could do almost anything, I say almost anything because I am sure there is something which would give me a sentence in that future book but it’s most probably something I am unwilling to do. Or incapable of doing.

Whatever I do will most likely be forgotten so it’s not really that bad. But it is fact.
Another historical fact which seems to be conveniently confused right now is when Scotland 'joined' the United Kingdom. I know my history is a little sketchy at times but I do know the United Kingdom wasn’t formed in the 1970s. Some would argue that nothing good was created in the 1970s so perhaps this lends itself to their argument. But it wasn’t. So there.
No, Scotland was part of Great Britain a long time before the decade of flares and dancing queens so why is it that the vast majority of current economic studies I seen recently seem to start there?
The answer is pretty simple really. Its because the 1970s happens to be on or around about the time the North Sea started pumping out oil. And thus it’s not a huge leap to realise that pretty much all of these economic studies show that Scotland would have been better off as an independent nation.
Starting there as a stand alone nation we could have kept the oil revenues for ourselves and have grown seriously wealthy as a result. This is assuming we didn’t piss it up all the wall of course…

Ignoring the fact that Scotland had the opportunity to vote for devolution in 1979 and voted no I do like the hypothetical, what if game being played here. It logically ends with the realisation that the poor Bravehearted Scots have been economically raped. It’s just a case of how hard and where.
Come September I won’t get a say in the Independence vote so my opinion counts for nothing.

That said, I do have one. 
And I too want to play a game of historical fantasy what if.
What if, for example, we extend the economic timeline back to say the start of the industrial revolution, or what if Scotland had voted for independence at the start of the British Empire?
How would the landscape of Scotland looked then, right before the oil bonanza started?

I’ve seen pictures of the UAE before oil was discovered as I’m sure you have. It was a desert, culturally, economically and, of course literally.
Do you think the thousands of people employed building ships to support the British Empire would have voted for independence 150 years ago? Do you think if they did the ‘English’ empire would have awarded the contracts to a foreign country? How would our major cities have looked in 1965 without the industry and the commerce which had preceded oil and created the foundation for Scotland as it exists today?

It’s an interesting game.

What would have happened if it was England alone who declared war against Germany in 1939 or for that matter 100 years ago in 1914? How would Scotland have reacted to an army of goose stepping national socialists marching across Europe? Would we have joined up with the allies or would we have followed the example set by the Swiss and turned a blind eye.

How would Scotland have looked if it had never ever been part of the United Kingdom for the last 300 years?

Let’s imagine the Battle of Culloden had taken a different direction and the gay Prince had prevailed on the day. And let’s assume, given this is a just a game, that he decided marching on England again was just beyond him so they negotiated independence.

How would Scotland have looked in 1950 if this had happened?
The highland clearances wouldn’t have happened. Tartan, whiskey and shortbread production would have continued unabated.
I don’t know how it would have worked out. Maybe better, maybe worse. Who knows?
It would be bloody different though and pre 1970 probably not economically better. One thing I am fairly certain of is that Scotland has benefited from being part of the United Kingdom. At least for the period the North sea was just a blue-balled, bitchingly cold place to swim. Probably in equal measure to the extent it has been disadvantaged over the last 40 years or so.

Maybe we should stop playing this game. Historical fact makes it an irrelevant exercise anyway.
By playing the game of calculating how much the sim city version of Scotland has lost out in recent times does nothing to further the debate. All it does is add fuel to the anti-English sentiment which can sometimes border on xenophobia. And, at least for me, it’s starting to severely grate.

I read a wonderful piece from Irvine Welsh on why he would vote yes come September (if he has a vote). I say wonderful not because he is supporting the yes campaign, rather because he is a good writer and because he is managing to support the yes campaign without dropping any ‘c**ntish English’ or  ‘the no campaign are bloody liars’ into the discussion. Aside from being a sensible grown up, he also believes a cultural union of countries can exist happily within a four independent country grouping and uses Scandinavia as a prime example.
I would on the face of it agree with this but I do know Scotland, Ireland and Wales to a lesser degree are not Norway or Finland when it comes to their relationship with Sweden. They’re just not but a harmonious cultural union outside of a political union could work and could be beneficial to all concerned. Including the nasty thieving English.

I found it strange the other day when the announcement that the UK government would guarantee all sovereign debt was met with glee and high fiving by the yes campaign. I say the yes campaign but what I mean is the unofficial yes campaign. These are the folks engaged in the what if economic game.
The official yes campaign, Alex Salmond included, said it was a sensible thing to do and made no reference to this being a bargaining chip should the vote go yes. They just reiterated their insistence on sterling being the currency.

They did this because they know the move was a sensible one. It was done to save the debt on separation being significantly higher than it should be driven only by the uncertainty a referendum brings.
An independent, unknown and untested Scotland is a risk from a lenders perspective and I too would demand either a guarantee or a higher interest rate to compensate for such risk.

No, the official ‘yes’ campaign to their credit have made no political gain from this because they know they have caused this. For Scotland to not take its fair share of the debt (and assets) of the nation would be beyond the realms of what most people would tolerate. Add to that if it did default on its liabilities on day one, can you imagine how difficult it would be to take on any new debt?

Believe me Scotland’s going to need some form of credit to fund everything the white paper says it will do.
Anyway back to history.

Or rather let’s fast forward 30 years to when 2014 is history because this is all that really matters now. History is fact. But future history is still to be determined. This referendum will have long lasting consequences and will no doubt form part of some future historical ‘what if’ games.

Please, please, please vote only with the future in mind. Someone elses future, our childrens, because thats the generation who will benefit or suffer from the divorce.

In terms of the referendum ignore the past. It’s irrelevant, its bloody, its chequered and no one, not even Bonny Scotland, comes out of it smelling of roses. Also please dont vote with the current or previous government in mind - its our fault they are there and governments change.

Dont think the sky will fall in if it goes no and dont think all of Scotland will be happy clappy rich as Arabs in October if it goes yes.

‘What if Scotland didn’t vote yes back in 2014 dad?’
‘I dunno Son. Lets see’

P.s. If there is anyone out there who can’t be arsed voting, give me a ring - there’s a couple of beers in it for you.