One of the phrases that recurs time and again in any such debate is some version of the slur that Scotland is “too wee, too stupid, too poor” to survive independent of the UK. But the interesting, some might say strange thing, is that it’s always the nationalists that raise this insult against Scotland.
Not once in thousands of interactions in print, face to face and online have I brought up this idea. And not once have I seen the Remain side bring it up. It is always raised by the Leave supporters. Why would that be, you may ask. To which the answer is, I don’t know.
The origins of “too wee, too stupid, too poor”
The origin of the phrase can be traced to a speech of one John Swinney, 25 years ago this month. Maybe all the Leave enthusiasts are unconsciously parroting Mr Swinney’s sentiments. It’s certainly bizarre that the very people who carry their love of the country on their sleeves are the same people who are keen to introduce such an obvious insult to that country into the debate. An accusation that is all the more bizarre in that it’s not true.
The pro-UK case
The pro-UK argument isn’t that Scotland is “too wee, too poor etc”. I don’t believe that. No pro-UK person believes that. It is likely that Scotland could indeed ‘survive’ outside the UK. The real point is about the likely level of ‘survival’. And the evidence suggests, that Scots (not Scotland in the abstract, actual Scots like you and me) would be worse off in so many ways, and no better off in any worthwhile manner.
In terms of the economy, it is about money, income and expenditure. But it’s about more than that. Scotland has a land mass about 2/3 of England but a population of 1/10th of England. Outside the Central Belt, our population is very sparsely spread out, to the point it could be said there are hundreds of square kilometres where effectively no-one lives. That fact alone means that delivering the basic requirements of a modern democracy; health, education, roads, policing, electricity, airports, harbours etc. will cost significantly more per unit than in England (or in a more densely populated small country like Denmark). Which is why we have the “pooling and sharing” of tax revenues across the UK.
The Barnett Formula
The Barnett Formula ensures that Scotland gets about 10% per head extra in government spending to compensate for the extra costs of delivering public services north of the border. According to the Scottish Government’s own calculations in 2024-2025, the gap between government income and expenditure in Scotland was around £26bn or 11.6% of GDP. That’s money that wouldn’t be there to pay for essential services if we left the UK.
It means that there would have to be cuts to essential services – hospitals, schools, police, military etc. – and probably tax rises as well to bridge that £26bn gap on day one. But the Barnett monies aren’t an unwanted subsidy or a sign of dependence. They are a sensible recognition that, while we are all part of the same country and nation state, circumstances can differ depending on geography and demography and the UK Government has a duty to support different communities in different measure.
In an unstable world
The other obvious and major exposure an independent Scotland would suffer is in security and defence. The world is in turmoil. Wars rage in Europe and the middle East with significant conflicts in Africa and Southeast Asia. The international order is unstable. Russia threatens Europe while the US is revealed as an unreliable ally. How can it possibly make sense, in such perilous circumstances, to weaken the UK military of which we are a key component?
How would a newly independent Scotland, with no military plan and minimal or barely defined and organised forces, defend its borders? How would it deter Putin? Would we be in or out of NATO? None of these questions has been asked much less answered by the proponents of leaving the UK. But there is no doubt, that breaking up the UK would leave Scotland, the UK, Europe and NATO much weaker militarily and heavily exposed in a deeply uncertain international situation.
Arguments against independence
The economy and defence are just the two most obvious areas where the evidence shows Scots would be materially worse off if we supported independence.
There are other areas where there are no obvious benefits, begging the question: what’s the point?
There is no historical case. Regardless of the ridiculous claims of social media cybernats, Scotland is not a colony. In fact, Scots and Scotland have benefited greatly, and continue to do so, from being part of ‘team GB’.
There is no cultural case. The lives of city dwellers in Aberdeen or Glasgow are little different from people in Birmingham or Bristol. Rural life in England is much the same as rural life Scotland or Wales. A Farmer in Aberdeen has more in common with a farmer in Wales than with most city dwellers anywhere.
There is no legal case. The UK is a unitary state formed with the agreement of all parties in the Act of Union and its legal status has never been challenged.
There is no geographical case. We are 67 million people crammed on to a small island. The very idea of splitting it up into different countries in a world where size and influence matters could serve as a definition of idiocy.
And importantly, there is no democratic case. We had our referendum. The outcome was decisive and should put the question to bed for at least a generation.
Why change a winning team?
So, the question isn’t whether Scotland is “too wee, to stupid, too poor” to survive as an independent country. That’s a nationalist red herring. The question that I and other pro-UK supporters pose is this: why break up a working country for no economic, defence or any other obvious benefit only to make Scottish population poorer, less secure and more exposed in a hostile universe?
More on Scotland:
Friends of Bylines Network
There has never been a greater need for grassroots journalism that investigates the stories that really matter, holds power to account and champions the voices of everyday citizens. We are proudly powered by volunteers but what we do isn’t free.
STAND WITH US for independent, citizen-led journalism that makes democracy stronger, and you will even get some exclusive benefits.
