Thursday, September 18, 2014
Sovereignty - Scotland
We must discuss the vote for Scotland's independence. Voting is taking place RIGHT NOW.
This has broader implications globally and nationally for us (think: Quebec, First Nations). Does this set any precedents that other countries may follow? If so, how so? Are there any other examples in recent times of nations seeking sovereignty? Is there such a thing as a "new" country or do all countries simply stem from their ancestral roots? What are the Scottish looking for? ....after all, they are the same race, so they must speak the same language, dress the same, eat the same foods, sing the same songs and all that jazz eh? Discuss.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/09/18/scotland-independence-voting/15814921/
This is my weekly post.
ReplyDeleteIn both 1979 and 1997, Scotland attempted a "devolution" in hopes of gaining more power for their own government that had currently resided with the UK parliament in Westminster. Only on the second attempt did at least 40% of Scottish voters favour these options and some powers were passed from England to Scotland.(1) Scotland held a referendum on September 18th 2014 to gather the nations opinion on whether or not they should become a fully independent state. (2)
The idea of this separation of Scotland from the UK and it's affect on British government and other allies of the UK can be compared to the attempts made by Quebec to become independent from Canada. Quebec has had many referendums and conferences to discuss their independence from the rest of canada throughout the 1900s and more recently.(3) If Quebec ever was to officially become its own sovereign state, Canada would no longer collect tax incomes from Quebec, would no longer have laws that can be upheld within Quebec and Quebec itself would no longer be part of the treaties that bind Canada with other nations.(3) Similar consequences would take effect in the UK if Scotland were to separate. England would not share the wealth of Scotland as it would if the nation remained a member of the UK. This includes the money that Scotland makes in tourism, taxes, within its own economy and the potential income from the North Sea oil reservoir to which Scotland alone has claim.(4)
Scotland however also has a lot to lose from becoming independent. England has established over 191 embassies and high commissions the world over, and for Scotland to break ties with these, they would have to spend millions in any attempt to establish even a tenth of that number.(5) Scotland also has a large share of debt with the UK that could be devastating to a new country. (6)
Another issue to think of if Thursdays referendum had turned out differently, is the issue of other nations to follow suit. Only Wales and Northern Ireland would remain tied to British parliament. Though Wales is unlikely to secede due to its small size and humble population, (7) what if Ireland decided it also wanted to become its own independent country? This would leave England tied only to Wales and could potentially have harsh affect on the economy of the UK which in turn could affect the numerous countries in trade with the UK.
In my opinion, a new country can form and be independent of its old country, even though it shares the same ancestral roots. I do not think this means that the people of that new country are still. Culturally y or socially similar to the people of the original ancestral country. For example, Canada was no more than a large extension of the British empire from the time of British settlers until the creation of the Dominion of Canada in 1867,(8) but today, Canada does not have the same culture or social life as in Britain. We have become our own culture, nation and society independent from those aspects in England. Scotland can be seen in much the same way. They have many traditions that England does not share and their own history and culture that, tied to England though it is, is unique within their borders.(5) I do however think that the majority of Scottish citizens made the right choice in remaining part of the UK. As a new country they would have to establish their own trade with other nations, without even having a history of their own independent trade relationships.(4)
Sources:
Delete1. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/scotland-voting-independence-whats-stake/
2. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/09/18/scotland-independence-voting/15814921/
3. http://www.global-economics.ca/dth.chap2.htm
4. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/scotland-voting-independence-whats-stake/
5. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11101479/All-change-The-little-things-that-will-have-to-change-if-Scotland-votes-for-independence.html
6. http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/what-s-the-worst-that-could-happen-if-scotland-leaves-the-u-k-20140917
7.http://www.wales.com/en/content/cms/english/about_wales/wales_fact_file/wales_fact_file.aspx
8. http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/324/Independence.html
One of the big issues headed into the referendum was weather or not David Cameron would stay true to his promise of giving a wave of new powers to Scotland. Once that is settled however wont the issue arise where other countries are going to want the exact same thing? It's just a proposal however I believe it's one to be noted as people might want to do the same for their country just to cause change.
DeleteI did hear about David Cameron's various promises, but your thoughts on how that could encourage other countries is really observational. He did promise to give greater powers over taxes and welfare to Scotland rather than have them remain with Parliament and today they announced that they absolutely will keep their promise. This does make it pretty easy for other dependant countries to simply hold referendums and hope for bribes to roll in if they decide to stay. This could especially be true of countries in the EU, who all rely largely on each other for trade and financial support. another thing to consider is whether countries would consider this as a motive in the case that another nation did attempt a secession.
DeleteThere are arguments for both separation and unity. The end result was to stay united, the "no" votes were the majority (Source 1). There would have been many hurdles for Scotland had the "yes" vote won. Scotland would lose all the privileges of being a part of the UK and would have all the burdens of an independent nation (source 2). One such thing that would need to be addressed is currency. Scotland currently uses the pound (£) but it was made clear that if they left the UK they left the pound as well (source 3). Changes like this and others similar to it are some of the things holding Scottish people from freedom, they fear the uncertain future that would've been before them (source 4). Problems similar to the aforementioned ones may have also deterred Quebec from voting itself to freedom. Had they separated they would lose Canadian passports, the dollar and any other perks of being a part of this great nation (source 5). Wether these risks weigh more than a countries freedom is hard to say but for now Scotland remains a part of the United Kingdom.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.independentscotland.org/content/voting-yes-for-scottish-independence.htm
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/scottish-independence-referendum--the-arguments-for-and-against.html
http://m.smh.com.au/business/markets/currencies/what-currency-would-an-independent-scotland-use-20140918-10iozc.html
http://www.independentscotland.org/content/voting-no-for-scottish-independence.htm
http://globalbrief.ca/blog/2014/03/23/reasons-for-staying-together/
That was my weekly post btw
Delete