What has and hasn't changed in Scotland since 2014

The National

8 hours ago

Eleven years on, much has changed, including a precipitous socioeconomic decline of which Brexit has been part.
What has not changed is the interest in Scotland in the US (perhaps because 250 years ago it too sought independence from British rule).
In the early 2000s, I had the privilege of hosting the late Alex Salmond at the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs in New York. Alex began with a characteristically amusing and telling anecdote: 'When I first visited the US, about 10% of Americans claimed Scottish ancestry. Then I heard 20%. And now it's 25% – maybe if I stayed for a while longer ...'
READ MORE: Scotland among seven countries to sign landmark independence declaration
In any event, Scotland and Scottish affairs hold a special place in American hearts, as well an awareness that Scotland and its people have punched above their weight in the world (the Carnegie name is on foundations, think tanks and, of course, libraries across the US, for example).
The article appeared at a time when the No forces had mounted a full court press against independence. Virtually all major media, all parties other than the SNP, titans of business and other leadership figures presented a tsunami of opposition.
One scholar, Historian and broadcaster Simon Schama said in the Financial Times: 'Scotland's exit from the rich, creative and multicultural unity of Britain would be a catastrophe'. I can just hear the classic Glasgow response: 'Aye, right!'
What weapons did the Better Together clique wage against us Yes folks? The heaviest mallet was, of course, economic.
The English chancellor of the exchequer, George Osborne, delivered what came to be known as 'the sermon on the pound', basically threatening any efforts at a Scots currency. A deputy head of the World Bank refuted this, saying a Scots pound was achievable.
Various luminaries warned an independent Scotland would find itself isolated and would have 'great difficulty' in achieving membership of the European Union.
Since the end of the Cold War, nine small, newly independent states have become EU members. To deny an independent Scotland would be egregious. (Of course, English voters removed us from Europe two years later.) Then there was the straw man fear that a 'hard border' between Scotland and England might stir up centuries-old animosity. Nonsense.
Norway and Sweden were essentially one country until 125 years ago. Bilateral peace has reigned since. To turn the conversation from the negative to the positive, I asked: 'What might be the benefits of an independent Scotland, for itself and the world beyond?'
Schama, in the same FT article, extolled the achievements of Scots in the 300-plus years of the UK – in the sciences and engineering, arts, philosophy, global exploration, public service, architecture et al. Yes, and these achievements surely emphasise Scotland's indisputable capacity for independence.
I once debated the Canadian politician and public intellectual Michael Ignatieff, who had the temerity to suggest that Scots should be happy with the status quo since so many of us had found fame and fortune in London.
My response was: 'And why on Earth should Scots have to go to London to accomplish this? Why not enrich themselves and Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Dundee?'
A view of London Possibly under more severe threat than it was 11 years ago is the social contract of Scotland with its people. In the preface to the 2014 report Scotland's Future, Salmond wrote: 'Our national story has been shaped down the generations by values of compassion, equality, an unrivalled commitment to the power of education.'
While these ideals are fragile and under attack, I firmly hold to the belief that Scotland has historically had a social-democratic conscience, a commitment to basic services for all that is far different from what has been called the 'madcap capitalist laboratory' of London.
This leads me to the third, and most difficult challenge for Scotland – and the most compelling argument for addressing the challenges as an independent nation.
READ MORE: Details emerge of Scottish arm of new Corbyn project
The 11 years since 2014 are nothing less than an indictment of a Westminster Parliament for its cynical misrule – known more euphemistically as 'austerity'. These years brought no fewer than five Tory prime ministers, all of them inept.
We now have, under Starmer, a Labour Government that is a travesty of the Labour movement in its disregard for the needs of the most vulnerable in Britain.
But sadder yet for a Scots expat who benefited from Salmond's passion, intellect and deep commitment to independence has been the precipitous decline of the SNP since Alex relinquished the leadership. In his stead we have had a series of feckless successors.
Something Fergus Ewing said articulates perfectly the SNP's demise: 'We have lost three-quarters of our MPs, 65,000 members, and seen a 10%-15% drop in the polls. Who, hand on heart, can defend that record?'
The record has been deservedly earned. On visits to Scotland since 2014, I have seen or heard from others deterioration in education, transport, health services and business and industry. The closing of the Grangemouth oil refinery amid the most feeble opposition from the SNP is a metaphor for Scotland's decline.
What I wrote in 2014 was a rallying call in support of the SNP as the referendum loomed. No more. I am now a supporter of, and donor to, the Alba Party.
Under the decisive leadership of Kenny MacAskill – who I am proud to call a friend, and believe is Salmond's true and rightful successor – Alba are the only party to have put forward a comprehensive and compelling blueprint for the overriding issue facing Scotland today, even more so than in 2014, ie independence, and detailed plans for the socioeconomic ills that will be tackled under Alba.
Both a re-energised campaign for independence and the work that will follow present challenges for Scots and Scotland, not least for a native cautiousness that is often most commendable. I am reminded of the words of the great Scots socialist intellectual, Tom Nairn, who once rued the fact that Scots sometimes lacked the decisiveness 'to walk through an open door.'.
It's time to stride through that door, if only because history has shown that allowing Westminster to call the shots had been nothing short of disastrous.
I noted at the end of the 2014 article that the independence case was most clearly and succinctly put by an Indian gentleman in Hyderabad: Writing in the FT, he said: 'The Scots have always been a nation, and are now asking for their own state.'
That seems to express the obvious – and the essential.
David Speedie was awarded a Kennedy Scholarship to Harvard after three years as a lecturer in English Language at the University of St Andrews and has been a resident of the US since then.
Most recently he was chair of the programme on International Peace and Security at Carnegie Corporation of New York and senior fellow at the Carnegie Council on Ethics in International Affairs in New York, as director of the programme on US Global Engagement, which he created.
He was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and is a founding member of the American Council for US-Russia Accord. He is now a consultant based in Virginia.