Dateline Europe:
by Jerome L. Wilson
This article appeared in the Shore View newspaper on October 10, 2008.
There is a battle, truly royal, going on in Scotland these days, about possible independence from Great Britain. At one time England and Scotland were separate kingdoms, with each having its own parliament. Then, in 1707 under the “Treaty of Union,” England and Scotland merged and became Great Britain. Edinburgh, the once proud capital of the Kingdom of Scotland, lost all its powers to London.
Although the Celtic Scots never protested British rule as much as the Celtic Irish, who ended up forming their own Republic of Ireland, the Scots have never been totally happy with London rule. These resentments came to a head in the middle of the last century, when Britain lost its empire, and when oil was discovered off the east coast of Scotland. “It’s our oil,” became a popular slogan in Scotland.
Taking up the cause of Scottish independence as its main issue was the Scottish National Party. The SNP is now a major political party in Scotland and it is wholly dedicated to the independence of Scotland from Britain.
Recognizing the growing desire of many Scots to have a greater degree of self government, in 1998 the British government of then Prime Minister Tony Blair granted to Scotland a number of “home rule” powers. This granting process is called “devolution,” and it meant that for the first time since 1707 that Scotland was able to set up its own parliament. In addition, Great Britain granted this new Scottish parliament the power to pass laws in education, health, housing, tourism, agriculture, local government and fisheries, and other areas.
The new Scottish Parliament, which is known as Holyrood, was by no means granted the full powers of independence. Great Britain reserved for its own parliament all powers over British foreign policy, national security, monetary policy, immigration, energy and many other areas as well.
However, for all its limitations Holyrood has passed legislation granting Scottish citizens: free home care for the elderly, free nurseries for the young, tuition free universities, and free public transportation for retired persons. Also, the Scottish parliament made Scotland one of the first places in the world to prohibit smoking in public places that are located indoors.
The Scottish parliament also has a high proportion of women members, and it has built a brand new building for itself. The new building came in well over budget, but otherwise the government of Scotland is considered well run, and even thrifty. Then last year there was a major development. The Scottish Parliament elected, for the first time as its First Minister a member of the SNP, Alex Salmond.
Scottish First Minister Salmond acts like, and talks like, he was already the leader of an independent Scotland. He has opined that if Scotland were now independent, it would withdraw Scottish troops from Iraq, veto the election of Tony Blair as President of the European Union, and possibly adopt the euro in place of the pound. To smooth it over a bit, Salmond also says that he wants an independent Scotland to be a member of the British Commonwealth, with the Queen of England as its head of State.
Salmond’s attitude has angered Tony Blair, whose government, after all, gave the Scots devolution in the first place. Blair seethes at Salmond and his SNP. Speaking on the occasion of the 300th anniversary of the “Treaty of Union,” Blair said, “The Scottish National Party may boast of its pride in Scotland, but spends most of its time running it down.” The politics of the SNP are “of grudge and grievance.”
Trying to become the George Washington of Scottish independence, First Minister Alex Salmond does not appear to pay much attention to Tony Blair, the father of devolution. At a recent speech before the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations, Salmond, after complimenting the U.S. for its 230 years of independence said, “Our nationalism is not one fueled by negativity but rather one inspired by hope.” He also predicted that some day the world would marvel at the “Scottish Celtic Lion,” as it has about the commercial accomplishments of the “Irish Celtic Tiger.”
Still, for all this euphoria, there is still a hard slog ahead for the SNP. The party’s strategy is to wait until 2010, before having a referendum among the Scots on independence. Although ten years ago, 75 percent of the Scots voted in favor of the devolution of powers from London, obviously, complete independence from Britain is a far more radical proposition. Right now, the SNP does not appear confident that it could win a referendum on independence. In fact, recent polls show that only 40 percent of the Scots would support it.
Surprisingly, one factor that could help promote Scottish independence is the growing increase in English nationalism. Already, there are calls to create a separate English Parliament to deal with English issues, or at the very least to restrict the right to vote on English issues to members of parliament from England.
Also, recent letters in British newspapers take the position, that if the Scots want to leave Britain, just let them go ahead. As one wrote in the Daily Telegraph, “let us wave goodbye … and good riddance [to the Scots].” Another wrote in the Guardian, “Please, please will the Scots get a move on and leave the Union.” Another wrote, “Would it help if England declared independence first?”
The call for Scottish independence comes at a time, when many nation states in Europe are breaking up. Czechoslovakia split into the Czech Republic and Slovakia not too long ago. Also, Kosovo broke away from Serbia, a step, interestingly, which Great Britain itself endorsed. In addition, what was once Yugoslavia are now seven separate nations.
Presently, it is too difficult to predict as to whether Scotland will become independent. However, one thing is certain. If the Scottish people in a fair and open election vote for independence, then Great Britain, if it is to remain true to its democratic traditions, will have no other choice but to accept the will of the Scottish people.
__________________________________________________________
Jerome Wilson is of Scots-Irish heritage and a resident of Essex. Readers wishing to post a comment on this article can do so on his blog at http://jeromelwilson.wordpress.com/.
The British Government suppresses all calls for a referendum on an English parliament even though around 70+% of English people want one.
Since Scotland regained its own parliament, calls for England’s independence have risen from next to nothing to 34%.
The United Kingdom has had its day.
[...] is a good resume of Scotland’s present situation under the Scottish Nationalist Party. Mr Blair must wonder, just now and again, if he did the right [...]
I enjoyed reading this post as it makes for refreshing reading. The content of a lot of the articles in newspapers in England is similar or tha same as the nonsense that was prevalent in the Scottish press (and occasionally still is) years ago. One of the points that continues to be misunderstood or misrepresented is the issue of ‘the independence of Scotland from Britain.’. As Britain was created by the Treaty of Union in 1707 between Scotland and England the regaining by Scotland of its independence will mean that that Union is dissolved and therefore that Britain will cease to exist. As well as Scotland regaining independence so will England.
Here are a couple of extracts, (1) on an independence referendum -
‘greater power can only be granted to Scotland by the UK Parliament and here there is potential for conflict. To take the extreme example, constitutional matters are reserved but it is hard to see how the Scottish Parliament could be prevented from holding an referendum on independence should it be determined to do so. If the Scottish people expressed a desire for independence the stage would be set for a direct clash between what is the English doctrine of sovereignty andd the Scottish doctrine of the sovereignty of the people.’
SOURCE: ‘The Operation of Multi-Layer Democracy’, Scottish Affairs Committee Second Report of Session 1997-1998, HC 460-I, 2 December 1998, paragraph 27,
(2) regarding the Scottish and English legal systems -
‘Nevertheless the two systems remain separate, and – a unique constitutional phenomenon within a unitary state – stand to this day in the same juridical relationship to one another as they do individually to the system of any foreign country.’
SOURCE: ‘Royal Commission on the Constitution, 1969-1973′, Volume I, paragraph 76, Cmnd. 5460.
Scottish independence. Speaking as an Englishman – I’m all for it. Can’t happen soon enough.
I believe the phrase is – bring it on
I think it needs to be pointed out that recent opinion polls show more Scots support independence than support the union.
Many thanks for the comments. I quoted the most recently poll that was available for Scottish independence. I would be interested to see another that said more prefer independence than not.
One thing that I did not mention in the article, but which may now be relevant, is that Britain needs to be a big country, rather than splintered, to get out of the current financial crisis. Also, the fact that a Scotsman, Prime Minister Gordon Brown, build the model for recovery, ie. that governments should take equity interests in privately owned banks, may not only help his reelection, but also calm down the calls for Scottish independence. In short, as we say in the U.S., Scottish independence is by now means a “slam dunk.” J. Wilson
You say as if it cannot be doubted that “is that Britain needs to be a big country, rather than splintered, to get out of the current financial crisis.”
This is just nonsens spin from Gordon Brown who has a visceral hatred for the SNP.
The reality is that Norway of similar population to Scotland and having oil (just like Scotland) has no problem in dealing with the banking crisis.
Ask yourself a couple of questions:
1) When will Iceland rejoin Denmark?
2) When will Ireland rejoin the UK?
The answer to both questions is never!
I don’t see your argument about Britain needing to be a big country to come out of this financial crisis.
The UK has around 61 million inhabitants. Of this, Scotland has 5 million. Perhaps the UK does need Scotland’s taxes, oil revenues and expertise to survive, but I think that would be a slur on the other 56 million. I think all of the UK could do without the Prime Minister and Chancellor both of whom are Scots. The PM has one of the lowest approval ratings for any UK Prime Minister ever.
Conversely, does Scotland need to be in the larger construct that is the UK?
I do not think so. There are many examples of similar sized countries around the world managing perfectly well. Are the Scots so uniquely inept that they can’t manage their own affairs? The very country that, as Arthur Herman; American lecturer and historian argues, invented the modern world?
And in this financial crisis?
While Unionists often talk Scotland down – what an advert for over 300 years of the Union! – it has come as a surprise that they are now talking down Scotland’s neighbours to boost their case.
Iceland may be struggling right now, but as a nation with less than the population of North Lanarkshire (a Scottish county) with its own currency, its banking sector has been hit hard.
SNP policy on independence is to first keep Sterling before a referendum on joining the Euro. An independent Scotland will not have its own currency.
Geir Haarde, the Icelandic Prime Minister, has recently been on Radio Scotland denouncing Jim Murphy, the new Scottish Secretary’s – Westminster’s voice in Scotland – claims that Iceland was in an ‘arc of insolvency’ and stating that Iceland would recover its economic strength in less than two years.
Norway has an oil fund worth over $200 billion, only started in 1995. It is best placed to recover this crisis without a recession, like Denmark, Sweden and Finland; similar countries to Scotland.
An independent Scotland, under SNP plans, would have a similar oil fund.
Not reliant on oil, Scotland is leading the world in renewable energy technology. It has around 25 % of the EU’s wind power alone and has been dubbed the ‘Saudi Arabia of renewables’.
Ireland has just slipped into recession, its true. But their GDP is much higher than the UK’s; they are much better placed to deal with the economic downturn than the UK.
I don’t see a rush of Irishmen and women demanding that they return to Westminster rule again.
Whilst the current economic climate is global, much of the deregulation of the banking sector that caused the market troubles in the UK has been implemented by this Prime Minister when Chancellor.
His proposed merger of the Bank of Scotland with Lloyds
[A Scottish Prime Minister of the UK presiding over the economic destruction of one of Scotland's national institutions, who would have thought it?!
Is his Britishness agenda - to remain electable to middle England - such a priority that he seeks to destroy Scotland's economic base in the process?
The Bank predates the Treaty of Union and was set up by the original Scottish Parliament back when Scotland was independent]
could lead up to 100 000 jobs (from the Banking sector and beyond) disappearing in Scotland.
In such a scenario the demand for Scottish Independence could be insatiable.
And the Prime Minister would be directly to blame.
Given that he has already released equity to the banks, it must be in the Unionists interests that the equity released both to Lloyds and the Bank of Scotland is not dependent on the merger taking place.
The real question of Scottish independence is ‘Who best stands up for the people of Scotland?’ Whoever proves that will win the argument.
Its a question that the nationalists answer with ease.
One which the Unionists have difficulty with. Think back to Eddie George, former Governor of the Bank of England:
‘Unemployment in the north [Scotland and northern England] is a price worth paying for prosperity in the south.’
Alex Salmond has always tried to be positive about Scotland’s future.
The Unionists take a negative gloom laden approach.
I know which outcome I would prefer, or be enticed to vote for.
Independence may not be a slam-dunk, as you say.
But nationalists only need to score once to win the game and this game has no time limits.
Even the worst team in the NBA could manage that!
Thanks for your analysis Jerome. It’s was a very well written and fair piece of journalism. Much appreciated.
Incidentally I think you would enjoy the new movie Stone of Destiny about Ian Hamilton’s daring heist of the Stone of Destiny in the 1950’s.
Scotland is entirely capable of the normal powers of independence and if we do get a vote in 2010 I believe we will take the plunge and vote for independence.
The reason for that is because Scottish MP’s in the Westminster parliament are outvoted 11-1 in the crucial areas of defence and foreign affairs and Britain’s reaction to the financial crisis (to attack Ireland, Norway and Iceland and claim it proves that Scotland is incapable of independence) shows that they don’t have our national interests at heart and are incapable of normal mature diplomacy.
By the way Labour only delivered devolution twenty years after a democratic vote in favour of it in 1979 (The Scots desire for home rule was ignored during the Conservative years in Government but it constantly grew stronger during that time) and only after a further popular vote. If Labour could have avoided delivering it they would have and therefore Tony Blair is not the ‘Father of Devolution’ just the guy who was forced to do the right thing (for once!).
He actually removed Scottish broadcasting from the powers of the devolved parliament, blocked a Scottish 6 O’Clock News and attempted to write into the Scotland Act that in future all decisions on the constitution would be made by Britain.
Luckily the Declaration of Arbroath (in 1320 which inspired America’s declaration of independence) is a little bit more important than this latter day attempt to re-write the rules!
To those commenting on my article:
I tried to be as neutral as possible on the issue of Scottish independence in writing the article. Perhaps I overstepped this objectively by mentioning that Scotland might want to be in a larger union considering the current financial crisis, and thereby stay linked with England in the UK.
There is also a counter argument. If Scotland became independent, it most likely would join the European Union of 27 European nations, and adopt the euro as its currency as well. This would make Scotland part of an even larger economic and grovernmental entity than it is now. This assumes of course that the UK continues to stalll in adopting the euro, which is probably a pretty good bet.
Again, many thanks for the comments. Jerome Wilson