Cambridge Union Votes for Scottish Independence, and You Should Too
Aribah Chaudhry is in favour of the motion, ‘This House Supports Scottish Independence’, arguing that the vote in favour of the motion points towards the growing appetite for independence in Scotland, and discusses the causes of this support.
By Aribah Chaudhry
Scottish independence has been debated four times in the Cambridge Union Chamber since the referendum in 2014. Independence has lost every time until now. It should have been an easy victory for an opposition representing the status quo. So how did the Chamber, the vast majority of whom were not Scottish, come to vote in favour of Scotland’s independence?
Despite attempts from the opposition to argue that the motion’s track record reflects the little support for independence amongst the nation, the result is clear. As in the Chamber, Scotland’s opinion on independence has swung in favour of the Yes campaign. Despite the referendum’s result in 2014, pro-independence parties still hold the majority of seats in the Scottish Parliament, and independence polling has fluctuated around 50% — a stark contrast with the 30% it was during the pre-referendum period. With the growing support for the motion in Scotland becoming almost undeniable, the result of the Chamber points to the fact that Scotland’s independence is now a question of ‘when’, not ‘if’.
The opposition attempted to argue that this increased support for independence resulted from bias in devolved education. As someone who has gone through the Scottish education system, I can attest that this point is anything but true. Of course, the nation’s curriculum does teach its own political and historical issues, as any country does. Still, ensuring that this education highlights both sides of the debate is legally required. Many of my memories recall studying the United Kingdom as a whole, with my only lessons in Scottish history being that of the Mary Queen of Scots in primary school. Similarly, the politics curriculum covered devolution and the workings of the political system in both Holyrood and Westminster, as well as major world powers such as the US and China. The general theme of Scotland’s Curriculum for Excellence is to educate on issues regarding Scotland, the UK, and the rest of the world in an unbiased manner. This has been the case since the curriculum’s creation in 1999. It is not the Scotland-centric nationalist-creating machine it was made out to be. If it were, the outcome of the 2014 referendum would have been very different.
The startling success of the proposition is primarily based on the fact that the United Kingdom’s situation is undeniably dire. Post-debate discussions revealed the bleak air among students in the face of a Conservative-imposed cost-of-living crisis, disillusioned by Westminster’s incompetence throughout the years. Combine this apathy with the knowledge that Scotland has a glaring lack of democratic power — meaning we did not vote for any of the UK’s current situation — the sympathy for the independence cause becomes apparent. Following the use of unprecedented constitutional legislation (section 35) to block the passage of a bill that had majority support in the Scottish Parliament, interfering in matters devolved to Scotland, and the refusal to grant a second referendum despite a democratic mandate, it is clear that in the face of an ever-growing authoritarian government down south, the answer is for Scotland to vote for better.
A speaker for the opposition even proceeded to list all the ways Scotland had benefited the United Kingdom. However, as another student highlighted, Scotland’s beneficial influence should be used to help the nation itself instead of benefitting the Union. In general, it seemed the opposition could not decide whether Scotland was a benefit or a hindrance to Westminster. The rest of the opposition deemed Scotland to be a financial burden upon the UK because it is ‘so heavily subsidised.’ Many conveniently glossed over the fact that the reason Scotland receives more per head from Westminster is due to the fact it earns more per head than the rest of the United Kingdom. The Barnett Formula does not allocate Scotland more money than it makes. This money, coupled with the creation of sustainable energy infrastructure, the wealth of the country’s natural resources and its range of exports, means the nation is more than financially prepared for independence.
Perhaps the opposition’s most ‘original’ argument was that the Scottish people support independence out of a misplaced fear of the English. As someone who has spent years of my life campaigning in support of independence, I have never been met with such a claim. This argument is made somewhat fragile by the perpetual negative campaigning on the unionist side, which used its threats of Scotland being pulled out of the EU should it become independent. It is clear to see how that went.
I challenge the opposition with the notion that support for independence is instead carved out of hope — something I have realised growing up in Scotland and hearing the voices of its people. As a nation, its potential is clear. Despite losing the 2014 referendum, the case for independence did not diminish. On the contrary, the swell in favour of the motion results from the fact that there is so much better to be had. There is more for Scotland than the whims of an unequal union. This is a campaign born out of the UK’s political turmoil, the authoritarian streak within Westminster, and the potential for the nation to thrive within its own control. That is why the Chamber voted yes, and that is why you should too.
Aribah Chaudhry is a second year BA in Law student at St. John’s College, University of Cambridge | Instagram: @aribah.xo
The opinions expressed in this piece are those of the author. They do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of the Cambridge Union Society.
On February 2, Cambridge Union Society debated the motion, “This House Supports Scottish Independence”. The motion passed with a vote of 108 in favour, 71 abstentions, and 105 in opposition.
