The Scotland effect, is it real? The onward advance of the Scottish SNP coalition is intriguing many. Is this really happening? Can a significant territorial unit with a land area of 78,772 km or some 30% of the United Kingdom be about to become independent? Scotland would gain over 50% of the current area which comes under the marine administration of the United Kingdom if it became independent (see chart below left). What is being dubbed "The Scotland Effect" 1  is that centralised government has been suddenly awakened from its too long somewhat irresponsible slumber. Never really taking the people of Scotland too seriously but seeing them rather as convenient election fodder to sustain their centralised mode of operation. Alex Salmond is pushing an agenda which is outstanding to the degree that it is demonstrating to everyone in Scotland how government should operate. In particular public consultations have been pushed and some unpopular things already repealed. Historically, in terms of the European Union, the promise of the Conservative Government to protect the United Kingdom's fishing fleet from the encroachment of the European Union policy turned out to be a lie and a catastrophic failure. In reality, in terms of resource wastage it was Scotland's largest resource potential that was wasted through prevarication of Conservative and Labour politicians in the face of European "treaties", most of them pushed through in a stealth fashion. On the question to the territorial aspects of oil prospection a similar failure to acknowledge Scotland's specific claims was apparent on the part of the two main political parties in Westminster. To this day the actual oil reserves in the Scottish sector are not reliably known. Refreshing example of feasibility There is no doubt that there is a Scotland Effect and it is one which is concentrating the minds of all. The simple demonstration is that it is possible for a form of governance to be more responsive to the people. This is a refreshing example of the feasibility of exercising an open respect for the people through more transparency. This is helping throw into high relief the relative futility of the political party system. Without having to make aggressive, although wholly justified statements, Alex Salmond has opted for statemanship and this has helped, by contrast, to throw the cold light of day on just how a lack of attention to people's preferences squandered the potential benefits of the resources available to a nation. Within just three months after their victory the SNP has already raised the profile of such matters by hardly mentioning them. A tangible palpable confidence has arisen where people are seeing it as their right to be protected from such waste. People are appreciating that it is they who will decide how to defend the freedom of future generations and that the solutions to the current failures do not have to be more of the same. The Scotland Effect The problem facing the people of Scotland is how the SNP can participate in the management of the future when it is part of the same decadent and failed United Kingdom and, indeed, Scottish, political party system. The pressures on political parties invariably leads to corruption and in the wake of such inevitability, the people are not served well. This is the main lesson the last election brought into sharp focus and this realization has been a positive fallout of the Scotland Effect. In this context the SNP also faces a major challenge. It wants to push agendas for more autonomy or independence but it is more likely to succeed if it opens up more options by questioning the very basis of operation of the political party system in the United Kingdom of which it is a part. In the United Kingdom, and Scotland, all political parties are more geared to representing their own interests as opposed to those of the people. For example, it is for the people to decide whether they change their status within the United Kingdom or throw in their lot with the European Union. There is no doubt that the larger members of the European Union are already making noises of encouragement and expressing "interest" in the potential break up of the United Kingdom. However, Scotland will not have under the European union an indepedendent Scottish policy on marine resources, be they fish or oil. Norway, as a small oil-rich nation realised this and opted not to joint the EU. On fisheries policy the bigger fleet countries will get their way through cash diplomacy. On the other hand, a rationalization of the share of such resources within the United Kingdom, and then a combined approach for change on the European front is far more feasible. There is no doubt that Scotland is not big enough alone to swing decisions in its direction on this issue. In this case, for example, the vote depends on electorate size and "historic fish catches" and not on the size of the marine territory administered. The, "who will pay for it?" issue Many commentators tired of the abuse of the Barnett forumla by Westminster and not Scotland 2 assume that Scotland alone cannot afford to survive. This is to confuse the substantial territorial claims and therefore sovereignty over economic rent with the relatively small size of the population of Scotland. With a more equitable sharing of gains from the economic sectors making use of marine and submarine resources, for example, Scotland could have more than enough funding. But the test is essentially the willingness of the people to continue with the United Kingdom but through a more open political system to improve democracy, not only for the Scots but also for the English, the Northern Irish and the Welsh. Someone has to initiate the peaceful revolution of sanity and rationality and the Scotland Effect could be the tipping point in that direction. This might not be what some in the SNP want to hear but in the end we need to listen to the people. This is of course quite a challenge. But amongst the currently feasible political parties the SNP is probably the only one able to create this type of essential and innovative change so deparately needed by all who live in the United Kingdom. Our email is: scotlandreview@apeurope.org Freedom is so important, why not defend it? 1 "The Scotland Effect" is the title and subject of a talk given by Hector W. McNeill at the first meeting organized for the relaunch of the British Strategic Review which took place at SEEL 10th August 2007. 2 Reference: Chapter 16 entitled "A United Kingdom?", pages 160-163, in "The Briton's Quest for Freedom - Our unfinished journey..", McNeill, H.W., HPC, 2007, ISBN 9780907833017, it is explained that the cause of excessive payments to Scotland under the Barnett forumla are/were made in Westminster to shore up the Scottish Labour party populariry, largely by Gordon Brown when Chancellor. This is not a result of the Barnett formula being defective which mathematically makes all payments throughout the UK equal. The misrepresentation of this information, or ognorance of it, by the UK media has resulted in an absurd and unfair characterization of the people of Scotland surviving largely on the baiss of handouts from the English.