by Brotyboy

In a recent article posted on Rab Bruce's Spider (Bridging the Divide, December 28th 2014) in which a Yes voter and a No voter discussed their differences, it was postulated that both had voted out of self-interest. The Yes voting writer mentions as a rebuttal to this suggestion, not that he wanted the less well off to swap places with the better off but that he simply wanted a more equal distribution of the cake, and I'd like to develop this further.

Some of you may remember from an earlier article of mine a cryptic reference to Moral Philosophy II as not having been a complete waste of time. I spent a third as much time at University as Jim Murphy trying to ensure that I got the balance right between study and social life by scraping through every exam I sat, and they still gave me a Merit Award in this subject. It is the only blot on my academic record.

The assumption is made in Bridging the Divide that the more affluent people, as a rule, voted No and the less well off voted Yes, although this is a very broad brush and sweeping generalisation. There is one study which showed a degree of correlation between being well-informed and a higher likelihood of voting Yes, which throws up the prospect of a Yes vote being logical.

While it is true to say that a decision cannot be claimed to be morally right because it is based on self-interest, it can still be morally right even if it results in a benefit to oneself. So in order to establish a moral equivalence between the Yes voter and the No voter, it is necessary to establish the relative benefit to society as a whole of the respective votes, rather than the benefit to the individual.

The No voter, if we discount the ones who want more powers, has voted for the status quo. This entails; continued spend on Trident, its replacement and foreign wars; possible privatisation of the NHS; continued spend on National Projects like HS2 which don't benefit Scotland; and continuing inequality and demonisation of the poor. This list is not exhaustive.

The argument for Trident is dealt with fairly comprehensively by Scott Minto here. The creeping privatisation of the NHS has been covered by Dr Philippa Whitford here and Dr Allyson Pollock here. National Projects like HS2 not only don't benefit Scotland, they may be detrimental to Scotland's economy north of the Tay, according to one analysis. If we drill down into the figures Scotland's fiscal position is skewed because it pays interest on debts accrued by Westminster in the pursuit of its imperialist dreams in 'defence' terms, infrastructure in London and the South-East, and the bailout for the banks which if they had been completely separate entities from the retail banks would have been clearly identified as having been City of London banks.

But perhaps the most important and disturbing aspect of voting for the status quo is the inequality in the UK and the demonisation of the poor. When someone like Russell Brand can make the point that it wasn't the poor or immigrants who produced the Global Financial Crisis you should know that the game's a bogey on that count. When Jim Sillars spoke at the meeting in the Steps Theatre in Dundee on the 29th August 2014 and told us that there was evidence that children born into poverty are adversely affected in the womb, not just from birth but in the womb, then I have to ask what principle can possibly be applied which supersedes the absolute need to do something about this. In this respect we can have no choice, we simply have a duty to change things.

Over 35 years ago Thatcher came to power in the UK and started peddling her third hand Milton Friedman Chicago School economic theories filtered through the towering intellect of Alan Walters. While Naomi Klein has dealt with the Chicago School comprehensively in her book The Shock Doctrine and Friedman later recanted to some extent, we are still left with perhaps the most pernicious aspect of that period in the continuing Tory belief or claim of the 'trickle down' effect. Quite simply, it doesn't happen that way and in fact the reverse would seem to be the case, wealth is trickling up and inequalities are, in the UK at least, increasing. If this was not the case we wouldn't have an increase in the use of sanctions against benefit claimants and the use of foodbanks.

We don't need to rely on a theory and risk the desire for greater equality being dismissed as a politically correct pipe dream either, as there is plenty of evidence of a practical nature that inequalities in a society are not in anyone's interests. Wikipedia's page here showing the Gini coefficient after taxes and transfers when sorted for the late 2000s shows the usual suspects like the Scandinavian countries in the top 8 for equality with Denmark in 2nd place, the same country which recently came out top for happiness in its population. In more equal societies crime is lower and even when it does occur Sarah Lund is on hand to deal with it. This argument is developed fully in The Spirit Level, by Richard G Wilkinson and Kate Pickett. This Wiki link will give the flavour.

The No voter in Bridging the Divide seems to accept this point in suggesting that the SNP should have stated that they would increase taxes on the rich so as to remove the squeeze on middle income families. Leaving aside the question of what constitutes rich and middle income, it is interesting to note that the argument now is not about the haves and the have nots, but whether within the haves there is a less deserving sector, the rich. It would seem that the No voter would have been happy with a guarantee that he as an individual would not be adversely affected by Independence. This certainly sounds like self interest to me.

What of the Yes voter? Can s/he claim that the above are what motivates him/her? In my experience that is the case but the Yes voter also wants more. Craig Murray has made the point that the FT trumpeted the fact that the UK now has more than 200 billionaires as if it was something to be proud of, but for him that there are 200 billionaires while people are relying on food banks is an absolute disgrace. The Yes voter, in my experience, wants a more progressive tax system, Land Reform and a high wage, high skill economy. None of these can be achieved while we pursue neo-liberal economic policies.

No change is in the interests of the few not of the many, so it fails the utilitarian test. It is also a failure of our duty to others and a waste of money.

This is a brief skim through the argument. It is an attempt to show that a Yes vote can be justified on practical, logical and moral grounds, although it is a critique of the failings of the UK. If a No voter can defend the current set-up on these bases I'd be keen to hear such a defence.

URLs for the above links are;

Scott Minto: http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-chocolate-teapot/

Dr Philippa Whitford: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esV6pGo8UTI

Dr Allyson Pollock: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cz5dl9fhj7o&feature=youtu.be

Wikipedia's Gini page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality

Wiki on The Spirit Level: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spirit_Level:_Why_More_Equal_Societies_Almost_Always_Do_Better