Editorial: Future of Scottish innovation on the edge

That campuses around the world are filling up, the spectre of freshers’ flu hangs in the air, and Global University Venturing’s news inbox is suddenly overloaded can mean only one thing – the new academic year has begun. It is already shaping up to be an interesting one – in a referendum that could have a huge impact on both UK and Scottish research, the Scottish people will decide whether to preserve the 300-year-old union or leave the UK.

Scottish innovation has had a transformative effect not just on the UK but the whole world. The steam engine, telephone, television, and, this editor’s preferred method of transport, the bicycle all came from north of Hadrian’s Wall. Scotland has a thriving life sciences sector, and is also making steady advances in renewable power – a topic on the mind of Scots as the North Sea oil fields decline.

Despite this, research and development (R&D) has taken something of a back seat in the debate. Arguments have focused on currency, the wider economy, Scotland’s membership in the EU, and the country’s strong distaste of the Thatcherite governments stemming from Westminster for the past 30 years. Yet a strong scientific sector in the country is crucial whatever the outcome of the referendum, even more so should Scotland become independent, and its lack of prominence in the debate smacks of short-sightedness from both the yes and the no camps.

From the unionist perspective, an independent Scotland can kiss goodbye to the funding that maintains its life sciences sector. While the UK spend on R&D languishes at 1.72% of GDP in 2012, behind the EU average of 2.08%, the £4.5bn ($7.3bn) annual budget has been saved from the chancellor’s axe in a time of austerity. In fact, despite this comparatively low investment, the country continues to perform well in sciences. Scotland benefits from this funding pot in many ways – the most obvious being that it has 12% of the UK life sciences budget, 14% of its life sciences companies, and 11% of its overall university staff, with just 8% of the country’s total population. And with financial institutions already packing their bags for London, how long will the venture capital and wider investment community north of the border last before looking for greener pastures around English universities?

Some independence supporters have contested that funding will dry up from the UK, and that a shared research zone would be established along with a sterling zone to share the UK’s currency. However, both suggestions have been dismissed by unionists and UK government bodies such as the Treasury and Research Councils UK, which puts around 12% of its budget into Scotland. Critics have suggested a yes vote may help change minds and open negotiations on both fronts, but a murky question mark hangs overhead, and should independence supporters put their chips on black and the answer comes back red, it could cost Scotland and Scottish research dearly.

Independence supporters can continue to argue that it may be worth the gamble. With the current state of the political parties in the UK offering little in the way of differing opinions, a neoliberal privatisation-friendly party will be in Westminster no matter the outcome of the 2015 general election. Resentment of the Conservative party continues to thrive in Scotland, once an avid supporter before Thatcher, to the point where Scotland returned one Conservative member of parliament in the 2010 election. Given that the coalition government has rushed through a series of measures to privatise the Royal Mail, parts of the National Health Service, and the prison system, it is a safe bet that left-wing Scotland will find the Tory vote even less appealing next time around. The independence campaign is seizing the opportunity to say that only a Scotland free of the UK could turn that around, and with the opposition party, Labour, prevented from returning to its left-wing roots by supporters of the Tony Blair years, it may well be right. Whether Scotland will actually have the money to support bigger R&D investment remains another unanswered question.

An alternative to UK funding would be EU money, but the problem there is getting into the EU.  While independence supporters do not question that they will be allowed in, the messages from Brussels seem less clear. Scotland would first need to fight through the red tape. Then there is the opposition of Spain and other countries with regions seeking independence. Should Spain back Scottish re-entry, it would ignite the fire for the Catalan region, which has been electrified by the prospect of its own independence.

A lack of funding is also leading to fears of a brain drain – students and postgraduates could opt out of the inevitable hardship of an uncertain future simply by choosing to conduct their studies in the UK. Yet on campuses, the independence vote is split – 54.8% of 1,000 Scottish academic staff polled by Times Higher Education said they would vote no and 55.5% believe they are better off in the UK.

Whatever the outcome, the impact will be dramatic. A yes vote will create an uncertain and risky future. A no vote is likely to result in more power for Scotland’s local government. Either way, like so many other aspects in the independence debate, the issue could have been avoided if it had been handled differently by the politicians of Westminster. A little more funding could go a long way in supporting academics on both sides of the border.