Kenny MacAskill: Grangemouth shows why independence must come first

‘IT’S the economy, stupid” was the phrase coined during Bill Clinton’s presidential campaign in 1992 and it’s something the latest incumbent in the White House is finding out the hard way.

The economy is central to the society which you seek to build and it’s the issue that ignites most interest among voters, even if that is at the basic level of jobs and the cost of living, rather than at any macro or theoretical level.

But in Scotland its more than just the economy, it’s the constitution. That’s because the constitutional status of Scotland and its lack of independence ensures our economy is dictated by the needs and wants of another land.

That was shown yesterday with the sudden and exceptional recall of the UK Parliament to discuss the nationalisation of British Steel in Scunthorpe.

Yet silence and a total lack of action, let alone urgency, reigns regarding the closure of Grangemouth oil refinery – despite the closure of the latter having an impact on Scottish GDP far higher than the former will have on England’s and the loss of jobs, directly and indirectly, being greater in the crisis we’re facing north of the Border.

Reported in this paper at the end of last week were the comments of Yes stalwart Dennis Canavan on the failings of full fiscal federalism. Asymmetrical federalism didn’t work in Serbia and Montenegro and full federalism would still have harsh implications for Scotland, even if it would be progress from the current neutered state.

As Dennis stated, Scotland would still be required to meet the costs of nuclear weapons and other military interventions or planning carried out by Westminster. We might say it’s “not in our name” but we’d still be funding it all the same.

“No taxation without representation” is another American maxim which springs to mind with that proposal.

This is why, in Scotland’s current situation, the constitution is as important as the economy, as without change in the former we just can’t fix the latter.

Many years ago, I read a biography of Tom Johnston (above), first elected as a Red Clydesider and undoubtedly Scotland’s greatest-ever secretary of state. His legacy lives on in actions taken by him in forestry, planning, tourism and other sectors.

As you’d expect from an old ILP-er he supported home rule and was sympathetic to independence. But he thought that before that could or should happen, the priority had to be fixing the economy.

He was obviously speaking in the late 1950s and early 1960s when the heavy industries which had been the bedrock of the Scottish economy were facing challenges, and a new manufacturing sector was being sought.

Pit closures were happening, although nothing like the brutal shut down that would be imposed by Thatcher a generation on. Shipyards were struggling even before the Upper Clyde Shipbuilders and the occupation little over a decade later.

It was why Rootes were being enticed to open in Linwood, BMC in Bathgate and IBM in Greenock, along with many others.

They were challenging times and that’s why he and others thought the security of the Union was best at, and more importantly that the independence should follow on from, sorting out the economy.

However, recent events, and the decades that have passed since his musings, have shown the economic challenges facing Scotland cannot be resolved without independence.

Despite his best intentions and those of countless other Unionists at that time, it became Linwood.

No More, Bathgate No More, Greenock No More. The mines shut and the yards closed, other than for a few often hanging on by their fingertips.

It’s the price of being a branch factory economy and dependent on political and economic decisions made by another country; and which are all too often not in your land’s best interests. We’ve seen it with UK governments of different colours – not just those with the political complexion of a Thatcher or Johnson – where there was only contempt, not sympathy, for the plight of any ailing industry.

Labour governments, too, have prioritised other parts of the UK or failed to listen to Scotland’s pleas. Starmer’s silence on Grangemouth simply echoes that of past Labour prime ministers from Wilson through Callaghan to Blair.

It’s not just failures to act in addressing crises where having another government decide your fate that impacts adversely and all too often catastrophically. It’s the other decisions taken by a government from another land whether in economic policy or other matters.

Scotland has been hammered by UK policy decisions to sustain and support a high pound. Wilson did it before being forced to devalue and Thatcher crucified manufacturing in Scotland and the UK by using Scottish oil revenues to sustain the City of London, with Scotland’s natural wealth being taken and her old and new industries unable to compete internationally.

That’s now been replaced by the cost of energy prices. The absurd UK system of a privatised grid and electricity prices set by world gas price is crucifying businesses the length of our land. Energy-intensive industries just can’t compete with foreign competitors and other sectors, such as tourism and transport, seeing their costs make this a pricey visit in comparison to foreign destinations.

Political decisions also have economic consequences. EU membership came at a heavy price for the Scottish fishing fleet. But the blame was with the deal made by the British. Scottish fishing just wasn’t something they cared about, and they took no steps to protect it, indeed, trading it for other issues which had no benefit for Scotland.

That’s why it’s not sorting the economy before independence but the reverse that is true.

[This article was first published in The National on 14.04.25]