The cheers and encouragement for Scotland subsided on the morning of Friday, September 19th, as the results for their independence referendum was announced. With 44.7% of votes saying yes to independence and 55.3% going against, Scotland’s dream of independence was crushed one again by indecisiveness. The referendum was held to decide whether or not Scotland should become their own independent nation. If the referendum had passed, Scotland would have assumed total control of their economic and political decisions. But since this did not happen, what caused this surprisingly significant divide among the Scottish people?
The referendum was a promise of a better future for Scotland. On top of the fact that Scotland never actually agreed to be a part of the United Kingdom, but was forced/annexed 300 years ago, the Scottish people consider Britain to be taking control of Scotland’s wealth and resources, and that no one but themselves should have a say in the future of Scotland’s economy and politics. That been said, many critics disagree with this point of view, some even calling the decision rash and clumsy. If Scotland did gain their independence, they would not only lose the pound(£) currency (very stable on the global market) and would also have had to create a new one; and the promise of its success was very slim. Some Scottish people defended their economic stability with their possession of the North Sea Oil, but experts claim that the Oil production is already past its peak, and will start to decline drastically in 2040. On top of the bruises, the Royal Bank of Scotland had announced that their headquarters will be relocated to London if the referendum goes through (bbc.com). Scotland will even have to re-apply for a spot on the European Union, and with the above mentioned lack-of economic prosperity, Scotland does not have much more to offer. Nevertheless, some still called for separation, mainly out of national pride and the always imminent threat of cultural assimilation. As always, situations like this are always complicated to the core, and just because a nation has the ability to gain independence, doesn’t mean they should. Is it really worth it to barter economic security for more freedom and independent governance?
A week after the referendum ended, and Scotland and the rest of Europe are still feeling its effects. U.K.’s Prime Minister David Cameron had promised Scotland more political power even if the referendum said “no”, in an attempt to smooth the relationship between Britain and Scotland. Promising a balance of power throughout the U.K., a draft of new laws that will give Scotland the power to vote on their tax, spending, welfare, and other issues in their own Scottish Parliament will be published in January (japantimes.co.jp). Despite the apparent thoughtful compromise, Cameron faces backlash from his own Conservative Party, as he had promised too much to the Scots. If or when Scotland gains more seats in parliament, they will have more power not only in the decisions in Scotland, but also in the decision making process of Britain. This is increasingly problematic when you look at Great Britain’s whopping 53 million population to Scotland’s 5.3 million.
The other countries of Europe also watch uneasily, as they fear that the independence movement will spread to their own ethnic citizens. Top examples are the people of Catalonia of Spain and the Flanders of Belgium. Apart from the already protests and peaceful riots in the streets of Barcelona, Catalonia has also announced their intentions to also hold a referendum in 2014. The Scottish referendum has also inspired the Flemish (Flanders) nationalists with hope of their separation.
As the fires of Europe’s political maelstrom dies down, one could only hope for peaceful years to come. But a nationalist movement is always around the corner, hoping to reaffirm their identity and culture by the act of separation. And yet, in our ever globalizing world, keeping alliances instead of severing them might be the wiser thing to do.
