So here we are 300 years on, with what might seem an obvious question for Scotland’s current ruling party: If failure played a large part in creating the union, why would they think that more failure would break it?
The Scottish National Party has been in power in Scotland for 15 years, and it’s hard to see exactly what has improved in that time. The Scottish NHS (currently managed by leadership candidate Humza Yousaf) is a mess. Audit Scotland notes that it is under “extreme pressure,” that more patients are being added to waiting lists than leaving them, and that little has changed with Yousaf’s recovery plan put in place 18 months ago. The once brilliant education system, the one Nicola Sturgeon said would be her legacy, is in sharp decline, slipping down the international comparison tables in math and English. The police service is in disarray: Ten years on from the launch of the centralized Police Scotland, its chief constable has warned that the pressures on it are “unsustainable” and announced his retirement.
You wouldn’t think Scotland gets around £2,000 per head more funding a year than England would you? Life expectancy is falling. Drug deaths are the worst in Europe — and have gone up threefold since Sturgeon became first minister. Transport (until recently managed by Yousuf) is a disaster, with the dualling of the hideously dangerous A9 a lethal symbol: Since the SNP has controlled Scotland, 11 miles of this vital road have been dualled, and crash deaths have kept rising.
Business gets little positive attention, as the SNP is more willing to attack Scotland’s vital industries (oil and gas and whisky, for example) that support them. Witness the drive for net zero, the deeply flawed Deposit Return Scheme (which sounds nice but is unworkable), and, of course, the plan to ban all outdoor alcohol advertising.
Then there is tax. The combined changes to the tax and benefit system since 2017, on average, reduce household net income by £210 relative to England and Wales. Everyone earning more than £28,000 will pay more tax than if they lived in England. Top earners will bear the brunt, says the Institute for Fiscal Studies, with the top 10% being £2,590 worse off than if they lived in England. Lower-income earners with children end up better off. However, those without children also end up slightly worse off than if they lived in England, note the tax analysts at RSM. This doesn’t exactly incentivize immigration and productivity, does it?