![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
abomvubuso.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsSo far, South Sudan has been the last country to join the list of sovereign states, after the independence referendum from last year. But now Scotland looks more likely than ever to become the new kid on the block. It all started when the Scottish National Party won the majority in the local parliament in May. And their manifesto openly declares that Scottish independence is their number 1 priority. Scotland's "First Minister", Alex Salmond is a staunch nationalist, and now his efforts to call a referendum on the issue have reached success, because the central authorities in London have just announced they wouldn't mind having such a public vote.
^ An authentic rendition of the Scottish referendum...
The Scottish nationalists have walked a really long road to reach this point. The SNP was created in the 30s, but it only appeared on the political map "for real" around the 70s when big amounts of oil were discovered off the northern shelf of the British isles. And suddenly, for some patriotic reason, the Scottish started contemplating independence again, or at least a modified version of their union with London that would suit their interests better. Then two decades of standoff between the Scottish nationalists and the British Tory governments followed (and those folks do like a good soccer draw, mind you). Until finally the Labour PM Tony Blair allowed Scotland to have its own parliament and government. With this little detail that the local authorities got only some of the more serious prerogatives, like the freedom to decide on the size of the income tax. All other taxes, particularly those in the social sphere, the matters of defense and of course foreign policy remained under the jurisdiction of Mother England and Her Majesty.
No surprise, that was too little for the nationalists, so they continued defying the central power, gradually gaining more popularity in the process. At the 2003 election they got 27 out of the 129 seats in parliament, then 47 in 2007, which turned them into one of the biggest factions, and allowed them to create a minority government (yeah, they do have that in UK). Until eventually in 2011 they won the absolute majority, 69 seats. Furthermore, on the question of secession they're also supported by the only independent MP, Margo McDonald aka "Margo of Lothian", and two more MPs from the regional Green Party.
Last time they tried to prompt such a referendum was in 2009, and it failed because the Scottish conservatives, labour and liberal-democrats were against. But now that this obstacle is out of the way, all these mainstream parties have paid with more seats for their haughty rejection of the right of the Scottish people to have their say. On the elections in May, all three parties suffered a major blow and gave way to the nationalists.
Still, I'd say the popularity of the SNP has increased not just because of their rightist-nationalist rhetoric in regards to London. The nationalists are also actively employing leftist populism, presenting themselves as the only defenders of the Scottish social system from the austerity monstrosities of Cameron's cabinet. In the words of Salmond himself, only the nationalists would save the Scottish from tax hikes, budget cuts for education and health-care, and on top of that they'd create new jobs and prevent rampant crime. And, you know, they believe that finding money for all of this would be quite simple: it's enough to just give freedom back to Scotland, return national dignity, and say bya-bye to Britain. Then and only then the industrious Scottish will stop feeding the lazy English, and money will pop up on its own.
But all that populism aside, we've got to admit the nationalists haven't strayed too much away from reality. Of course it's impossible to determine who owes more to whom: England to Scotland, or vice versa. But on the other hand, if there's anyone deserving the right of self-determination, it's Scotland. It lost its independence relatively recently, in the beginning of the 18th century, and even to this day the whole world knows that Scotland is a separate nation. And it's not just about whiskey, Robert Burns and the Nessie monster. It could be argued that in terms of uniqueness and recognisability of its national identity, Scotland is way ahead of not just some other similar wannabe-separatists like the Flemish and the Catalans (yet another couple of very relevant stories today), but also the Slovakia and Estonia type of independent nations.
In terms of population and territory, an independent Scotland would neatly fit the North-West-Europe patchy pattern: 5.5 million people, which is roughly the size of Denmark and Norway. And its territory? Two times the size of the Netherlands. True, only 1% of the population speaks Gaelic as their first language, but think about neighbouring independent Ireland.
What matters is that Scotland is in many senses a self-sufficient and economically viable society. The per capita GDP is one of the highest within the UK. In fact, out of the 12 UK regions, only London and its adjacent South-Eastern England are higher (that William sure knew where to Conquer!) In case of independence, Scotland therefore could well turn up somewhere among France and Germany on that chart.
And here's the trick: about 90% of the British oil is extracted off the Scottish shelf, and in terms of oil reserves, Scotland is only beaten by Norway in Europe. Further, a major cluster of industrial enterprises are centered in Scotland, including its own version of the Silicon Valey (called Silicon Glen). The capital city Edinburgh is Europe's fourth biggest financial centre. On the other hand, it's true that 2/3 of the Scottish exports go to the British markets, but no one says Scotland should necessarily turn its back on the EU economic space. Just on the contrary: the Scottish nationalists insist that traditionally Euro-skeptic London is messing too much with their opportunities of closer cooperation with Europe, and is artificially drawing Scotland further into England's sphere of influence than deserved (or desired), creating the illusion that the Scottish themselves want this.
Now, granted, among the Scottish the share of those who are in favour of seceding is wobbling very wildly: sometimes it surges to 60%, sometimes it plunges to 20%. Any predictions about the referendum would be too hasty at this point. A lot of stuff could happen until 2014. Usually the decreasing tendency in that support is related to periods of economic prosperity and/or Labour governments. And, no surprise, at times of crises and/or times of rule of the hated British Tories, this desire to secede would tend to increase. And as we know, right now the situation in Britain has a lot of both factors, so it's no surprise the separatist moods are at an all-time high. And that'll be only deepening in the next couple of years, because neither the crisis nor Cameron are going anywhere. An economic boom is not expected in Britain any time soon, and Cameron's budget is being cut ever further and deeper.
So it's very possible that two years from now, an independent Scotland would start looking more like an inevitable reality rather than a draw. After all, that's how things looked like in both Norway and my own homeland Iceland in the beginning of last century, when they had their independence referenda, and expectedly they gained their independence. The time may be ripe for Scotland too. You know, "No crisis should go to waste", right? ;)
^ An authentic rendition of the Scottish referendum...
The Scottish nationalists have walked a really long road to reach this point. The SNP was created in the 30s, but it only appeared on the political map "for real" around the 70s when big amounts of oil were discovered off the northern shelf of the British isles. And suddenly, for some patriotic reason, the Scottish started contemplating independence again, or at least a modified version of their union with London that would suit their interests better. Then two decades of standoff between the Scottish nationalists and the British Tory governments followed (and those folks do like a good soccer draw, mind you). Until finally the Labour PM Tony Blair allowed Scotland to have its own parliament and government. With this little detail that the local authorities got only some of the more serious prerogatives, like the freedom to decide on the size of the income tax. All other taxes, particularly those in the social sphere, the matters of defense and of course foreign policy remained under the jurisdiction of Mother England and Her Majesty.
No surprise, that was too little for the nationalists, so they continued defying the central power, gradually gaining more popularity in the process. At the 2003 election they got 27 out of the 129 seats in parliament, then 47 in 2007, which turned them into one of the biggest factions, and allowed them to create a minority government (yeah, they do have that in UK). Until eventually in 2011 they won the absolute majority, 69 seats. Furthermore, on the question of secession they're also supported by the only independent MP, Margo McDonald aka "Margo of Lothian", and two more MPs from the regional Green Party.
Last time they tried to prompt such a referendum was in 2009, and it failed because the Scottish conservatives, labour and liberal-democrats were against. But now that this obstacle is out of the way, all these mainstream parties have paid with more seats for their haughty rejection of the right of the Scottish people to have their say. On the elections in May, all three parties suffered a major blow and gave way to the nationalists.
Still, I'd say the popularity of the SNP has increased not just because of their rightist-nationalist rhetoric in regards to London. The nationalists are also actively employing leftist populism, presenting themselves as the only defenders of the Scottish social system from the austerity monstrosities of Cameron's cabinet. In the words of Salmond himself, only the nationalists would save the Scottish from tax hikes, budget cuts for education and health-care, and on top of that they'd create new jobs and prevent rampant crime. And, you know, they believe that finding money for all of this would be quite simple: it's enough to just give freedom back to Scotland, return national dignity, and say bya-bye to Britain. Then and only then the industrious Scottish will stop feeding the lazy English, and money will pop up on its own.
But all that populism aside, we've got to admit the nationalists haven't strayed too much away from reality. Of course it's impossible to determine who owes more to whom: England to Scotland, or vice versa. But on the other hand, if there's anyone deserving the right of self-determination, it's Scotland. It lost its independence relatively recently, in the beginning of the 18th century, and even to this day the whole world knows that Scotland is a separate nation. And it's not just about whiskey, Robert Burns and the Nessie monster. It could be argued that in terms of uniqueness and recognisability of its national identity, Scotland is way ahead of not just some other similar wannabe-separatists like the Flemish and the Catalans (yet another couple of very relevant stories today), but also the Slovakia and Estonia type of independent nations.
In terms of population and territory, an independent Scotland would neatly fit the North-West-Europe patchy pattern: 5.5 million people, which is roughly the size of Denmark and Norway. And its territory? Two times the size of the Netherlands. True, only 1% of the population speaks Gaelic as their first language, but think about neighbouring independent Ireland.
What matters is that Scotland is in many senses a self-sufficient and economically viable society. The per capita GDP is one of the highest within the UK. In fact, out of the 12 UK regions, only London and its adjacent South-Eastern England are higher (that William sure knew where to Conquer!) In case of independence, Scotland therefore could well turn up somewhere among France and Germany on that chart.
And here's the trick: about 90% of the British oil is extracted off the Scottish shelf, and in terms of oil reserves, Scotland is only beaten by Norway in Europe. Further, a major cluster of industrial enterprises are centered in Scotland, including its own version of the Silicon Valey (called Silicon Glen). The capital city Edinburgh is Europe's fourth biggest financial centre. On the other hand, it's true that 2/3 of the Scottish exports go to the British markets, but no one says Scotland should necessarily turn its back on the EU economic space. Just on the contrary: the Scottish nationalists insist that traditionally Euro-skeptic London is messing too much with their opportunities of closer cooperation with Europe, and is artificially drawing Scotland further into England's sphere of influence than deserved (or desired), creating the illusion that the Scottish themselves want this.
Now, granted, among the Scottish the share of those who are in favour of seceding is wobbling very wildly: sometimes it surges to 60%, sometimes it plunges to 20%. Any predictions about the referendum would be too hasty at this point. A lot of stuff could happen until 2014. Usually the decreasing tendency in that support is related to periods of economic prosperity and/or Labour governments. And, no surprise, at times of crises and/or times of rule of the hated British Tories, this desire to secede would tend to increase. And as we know, right now the situation in Britain has a lot of both factors, so it's no surprise the separatist moods are at an all-time high. And that'll be only deepening in the next couple of years, because neither the crisis nor Cameron are going anywhere. An economic boom is not expected in Britain any time soon, and Cameron's budget is being cut ever further and deeper.
So it's very possible that two years from now, an independent Scotland would start looking more like an inevitable reality rather than a draw. After all, that's how things looked like in both Norway and my own homeland Iceland in the beginning of last century, when they had their independence referenda, and expectedly they gained their independence. The time may be ripe for Scotland too. You know, "No crisis should go to waste", right? ;)
(no subject)
Date: 16/10/12 15:35 (UTC)Nah, wont happen.
(no subject)
Date: 16/10/12 15:59 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 16/10/12 19:28 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 16/10/12 23:01 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 16/10/12 15:53 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 16/10/12 16:01 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 16/10/12 16:04 (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 16/10/12 16:36 (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 16/10/12 17:07 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/10/12 01:32 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 16/10/12 16:18 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 16/10/12 16:19 (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 16/10/12 17:10 (UTC)Tam-o-shanters!
(no subject)
Date: 17/10/12 18:02 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 16/10/12 17:03 (UTC)Bah. Nationalism: still my least-favorite ism.
(no subject)
Date: 16/10/12 17:11 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 16/10/12 17:17 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 16/10/12 17:24 (UTC)If the Scots don't like the Union, they can always leave: and many folk south of the border (unlike me) wouldn't regret them leaving much. In fact, many English folk look on the Scots as a three-century drain on English resources brought about not by the Stuart monarchy as much as the failed Darien project which bankrupted the country at the turn of the C18th. I don't agree with them, but sometimes it's difficult to tell folk that they may be in error.
(no subject)
Date: 16/10/12 20:41 (UTC)So yeah, I'm pretty sure many guys at the southern side of the border wouldn't "regret" them leaving much. ;-)
(no subject)
Date: 16/10/12 17:41 (UTC)Not to be confused with Mad Max, Duke of Thunderdome and Warrior of Road:
(no subject)
Date: 16/10/12 17:44 (UTC)Let's put in as King of Scotland Forrest Whittaker....
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 16/10/12 20:42 (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 17/10/12 18:09 (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 17/10/12 07:07 (UTC)