Anyway, today I want to talk about independence. Most of you have probably got at least a vague sense that Scotland will be having a referendum soon to decide whether or not she says cheerio to her southern neighbours and becomes a proper, grown-up country like wot the other kids have done. I guess that my host country, the US, got its independence from the UK a wee while ago now, so there is some relevance to my blog post. After more than a year of petty squabbling and positioning, the UK and Scottish governments finally got it together to agree a legally-binding referendum in the autumn of 2014.
Now that we've got a date for the referendum, you would expect that everyone is getting down to the serious business of having a fact-based, rational discussion on the most important decision facing our country since 1707, right? We can balance on one side all the good things the union has done for Scotland, and weigh it against how standing on our own two feet will bring about a fairer, more prosperous Scotland? Not bloody likely. In the absence of a common foe, us Scots have always revelled in fighting amongst ourselves. The pretty squabbling between Labour & SNP is a case in point: how can two supposedly left-of-centre parties who share so many common goals have such an acrimonious relationship?
I'm going to do something unusual today and I'm going to bring some actual facts to this debate, even though they don't necessarily support my position. I was prompted to write this by an article in today's Sunday Herald, where Prof Hugh Pennington came out in favour of keeping the union because it allowed bi-directional flow of collaboration between Scotland & the rest of the UK, and because us Scots do rather well out of research funding, considered on a per capita basis. Prof Pennington is entitled to his opinion, but what really got me going were the arguments in the comments section.
Firstly, Prof Pennginton said: "Key to the success of British science has been the unimpeded two-way traffic of ideas, money and people across the Border. So, I believe that if Scotland leaves the UK, its science will take a knock.". I disagree on this point: science is already an international affair and I'm currently working on collaborations between labs in the UK, Switzerland and the US. These collaborations already happen across international borders, so adding another one between Scotland and England will not make any real difference here.
However, his point about the funding coming to Scotland via research councils does merit further attention. When the SNP won their landslide victory last year and separation became a real possibility, I put together the figures for research council spending over the last few years and calculated how much Scotland gets from the union. I couldn't easily get any figures for the MRC, so gave up at the time. I managed to find some this morning so added them to my spreadsheet. You can see my raw data here - the take home message is that Scotland does a little bit better out of research funding than could be expected from our per capita share. For the funding period I considered, total research spending in the UK was £7,192,911,049.01 of which Scotland received £909,115,907 (or 12.6% of the total).
Here, I'm considering grants made by MRC (Medical Research Council), BBSRC (Biotechnology & Biological Sciences Research Council), EPSRC (Engineering & Physical Sciences Research Council), AHRC (Arts & Humanities Research Council), NERC (Natural Environment Research Council), ESRC (Economic and Social Research council) and STFC (Science and Technology Facilities Council). I don't include any funding that comes from non-Government sources such as the EU, the Wellcome Trust or the other charities in the UK.
Some caveats have to go with these figures: different councils report funding in different ways, so my figures only include MRC grants made in 2010/11 (not including funding for specific MRC research units), currently active grants as reported in summer 2011 for NERC, STFC, EPSRC & BBSRC, and total spending between 2005 and 2010 for the others. It's all in my raw data. It should also be noted that these figures only cover money paid to do academic research, and not the money used to cover teaching undergraduate degrees. While teaching is an important part of universities, research strength is what determines an institution's reputation and the quality of academic that it can attract.
What does this mean? That Scotland is being disproportionately well funded by UK research councils and that going it alone would spell disaster? Not necessarily - research funding applications are made to councils on a UK-wide level and are generally awarded on merit and not in a geographical basis. That Scotland does well may be a reflection on the strength or competitiveness of our universities. What it does mean, though, is that an independent Scotland would have to find a bit more money as a percentage of the budget to pay for academic research. But this funding isn't currently decided in Scotland anyway, so we can't really extrapolate from the current situation.
One thing that I haven't considered is funding that comes from the EU. The EU funds a huge chunk of scientific research across all member states. I find it hilarious that the unionist press threatens that Scotland may be kicked out of the EU after independence to scare us into sticking with the UK with one breath, but then talks about how Cameron could pull us out of the EU with the next. Ironically, it could be that the best way that Scotland could maintain access to EU research funding is by leaving the UK, which seems to be distancing itself as much as possible from our European neighbours.
The thing that most annoys me about the independence referendum debate is how the unionist side is demanding minutiae on every level of how an independent Scotland would be run and what our spending priorities would be. If Scotland does decide to become independent, these details would be decided by whatever party or parties form the first government of an independent Scotland. Promising lower corporate tax rates, or higher social spending is daft because we don't know who would form that first government. We should look, in detail, at what our current position is and then talk about what we would do differently if we were independent. I guess we could save a fortune by not paying for WMDs on the Clyde. But would the loss of a permanent seat in the UN security council reduce world-wide influence both for Scotland and the rUK?
Incidentally, I waver between supporting full independence and federalism. My current thinking is that I would like a fully Federal Republic of Great Britain & Northern Ireland, where Scotland raises all of its own revenue (including geographic share of oil, etc) and then pays some money back to the UK for foreign policy, defence and currency (but not Queenie or her awful progeny). But this would involve the rest of the UK consenting to mixing things up just to keep their plucky northern neighbours happy, and it might be easier to achieve independence. Greater fiscal responsibility for Holyrood is key though: whether you believe Scotland is a net contributor to the UK or subsidised, she should still be responsible for raising the money she spends. That would shut up the vile Daily Torygraph's lazy anti-Scottishness and also make Scotland stand up for herself and stop blaming Westminster for all her woes.
P.S. For the record: I can vote in the referendum because I'm still on a postal ballot at home, but I'll choose not to as I don't know if or when I'll be living back in Scotland, so I may not live with the consequence of that decision. But I still feel entitled to have my tuppance in the debate that shapes my country!
Now that we've got a date for the referendum, you would expect that everyone is getting down to the serious business of having a fact-based, rational discussion on the most important decision facing our country since 1707, right? We can balance on one side all the good things the union has done for Scotland, and weigh it against how standing on our own two feet will bring about a fairer, more prosperous Scotland? Not bloody likely. In the absence of a common foe, us Scots have always revelled in fighting amongst ourselves. The pretty squabbling between Labour & SNP is a case in point: how can two supposedly left-of-centre parties who share so many common goals have such an acrimonious relationship?
I'm going to do something unusual today and I'm going to bring some actual facts to this debate, even though they don't necessarily support my position. I was prompted to write this by an article in today's Sunday Herald, where Prof Hugh Pennington came out in favour of keeping the union because it allowed bi-directional flow of collaboration between Scotland & the rest of the UK, and because us Scots do rather well out of research funding, considered on a per capita basis. Prof Pennington is entitled to his opinion, but what really got me going were the arguments in the comments section.
Firstly, Prof Pennginton said: "Key to the success of British science has been the unimpeded two-way traffic of ideas, money and people across the Border. So, I believe that if Scotland leaves the UK, its science will take a knock.". I disagree on this point: science is already an international affair and I'm currently working on collaborations between labs in the UK, Switzerland and the US. These collaborations already happen across international borders, so adding another one between Scotland and England will not make any real difference here.
However, his point about the funding coming to Scotland via research councils does merit further attention. When the SNP won their landslide victory last year and separation became a real possibility, I put together the figures for research council spending over the last few years and calculated how much Scotland gets from the union. I couldn't easily get any figures for the MRC, so gave up at the time. I managed to find some this morning so added them to my spreadsheet. You can see my raw data here - the take home message is that Scotland does a little bit better out of research funding than could be expected from our per capita share. For the funding period I considered, total research spending in the UK was £7,192,911,049.01 of which Scotland received £909,115,907 (or 12.6% of the total).
Here, I'm considering grants made by MRC (Medical Research Council), BBSRC (Biotechnology & Biological Sciences Research Council), EPSRC (Engineering & Physical Sciences Research Council), AHRC (Arts & Humanities Research Council), NERC (Natural Environment Research Council), ESRC (Economic and Social Research council) and STFC (Science and Technology Facilities Council). I don't include any funding that comes from non-Government sources such as the EU, the Wellcome Trust or the other charities in the UK.
Some caveats have to go with these figures: different councils report funding in different ways, so my figures only include MRC grants made in 2010/11 (not including funding for specific MRC research units), currently active grants as reported in summer 2011 for NERC, STFC, EPSRC & BBSRC, and total spending between 2005 and 2010 for the others. It's all in my raw data. It should also be noted that these figures only cover money paid to do academic research, and not the money used to cover teaching undergraduate degrees. While teaching is an important part of universities, research strength is what determines an institution's reputation and the quality of academic that it can attract.
What does this mean? That Scotland is being disproportionately well funded by UK research councils and that going it alone would spell disaster? Not necessarily - research funding applications are made to councils on a UK-wide level and are generally awarded on merit and not in a geographical basis. That Scotland does well may be a reflection on the strength or competitiveness of our universities. What it does mean, though, is that an independent Scotland would have to find a bit more money as a percentage of the budget to pay for academic research. But this funding isn't currently decided in Scotland anyway, so we can't really extrapolate from the current situation.
One thing that I haven't considered is funding that comes from the EU. The EU funds a huge chunk of scientific research across all member states. I find it hilarious that the unionist press threatens that Scotland may be kicked out of the EU after independence to scare us into sticking with the UK with one breath, but then talks about how Cameron could pull us out of the EU with the next. Ironically, it could be that the best way that Scotland could maintain access to EU research funding is by leaving the UK, which seems to be distancing itself as much as possible from our European neighbours.
The thing that most annoys me about the independence referendum debate is how the unionist side is demanding minutiae on every level of how an independent Scotland would be run and what our spending priorities would be. If Scotland does decide to become independent, these details would be decided by whatever party or parties form the first government of an independent Scotland. Promising lower corporate tax rates, or higher social spending is daft because we don't know who would form that first government. We should look, in detail, at what our current position is and then talk about what we would do differently if we were independent. I guess we could save a fortune by not paying for WMDs on the Clyde. But would the loss of a permanent seat in the UN security council reduce world-wide influence both for Scotland and the rUK?
Incidentally, I waver between supporting full independence and federalism. My current thinking is that I would like a fully Federal Republic of Great Britain & Northern Ireland, where Scotland raises all of its own revenue (including geographic share of oil, etc) and then pays some money back to the UK for foreign policy, defence and currency (but not Queenie or her awful progeny). But this would involve the rest of the UK consenting to mixing things up just to keep their plucky northern neighbours happy, and it might be easier to achieve independence. Greater fiscal responsibility for Holyrood is key though: whether you believe Scotland is a net contributor to the UK or subsidised, she should still be responsible for raising the money she spends. That would shut up the vile Daily Torygraph's lazy anti-Scottishness and also make Scotland stand up for herself and stop blaming Westminster for all her woes.
P.S. For the record: I can vote in the referendum because I'm still on a postal ballot at home, but I'll choose not to as I don't know if or when I'll be living back in Scotland, so I may not live with the consequence of that decision. But I still feel entitled to have my tuppance in the debate that shapes my country!
