Observations on the Scottish Referendum on Independence

Henry Srebrnik, [Summerside, PEI] Journal Pioneer
 

While voters in Scotland rejected independence from the United Kingdom in a referendum on Sept. 18, by about 55 to 45 per cent, on a turnout of about 85 per cent of the electorate, this is not the end of the story.

First, the result: Even though the Yes side was defeated, it shows the power of national identity. After 307 years of being part of a larger state, almost half the population of Scotland voted for sovereignty, giving the lie to those who claim that peoples in liberal democracies, unlike oppressed minorities in brutal dictatorships, don’t ever need or want their own countries. (Are you listening, Stéphane Dion?)

Second, the leaders of the political parties at Westminster have promised the Scots “devo max” – greater devolved powers for the Scottish parliament. Scotland, like Quebec, will eventually become a virtual de facto state.

Alex Salmond, Scotland’s first minister and leader of the Scottish Nationalist Party, while conceding defeat, maintained that the 1.6 million people who voted for independence showed the “depth of yearning” for the political powers promised to Scotland by British political leaders to stave off disunion.

“Scotland will expect these to be honored in rapid course,” Salmond insisted. “We now have the opportunity to hold Westminster's feet to the fire on the vow that they have made to devolve further meaningful power to Scotland.”  He himself, though, has resigned his position.

British Prime Minister David Cameron has agreed. He has stated that new laws would provide Scotland with greater capacity relating to taxation, public finances and welfare. 

Already, starting in 2016, the UK will reduce taxes by 10 per cent for Scots, allowing their government to replace that fiscal space with its own taxes. That latest change came under the Scotland Act of 2012. Further  powers will soon be added to these.

Third, with Scotland, and potentially Wales, becoming the equivalent of sub-units in a federation, with extensive powers, the result will require completing the circle, so to speak. (Northern Ireland is a different matter altogether.) 

The only national entity in the United Kingdom now without its own legislature is England itself, a situation that needs to be rectified. There will have to be, as Cameron himself put it, “English votes for English laws,” in other words, preventing Scots at Westminster from voting on legislation affecting only England. 

Cameron has indicated that plans to empower Scotland should be linked to constitutional reform in England. English nationalism will grow, and “Britishness” will decline. 

Peter Hain, a Labour Party legislator who has served as secretary of state for both Wales and Northern Ireland, said that “We need to recognize the reality that the United Kingdom should have a federal political structure with a constitutional arrangement which defines the demarcation of powers between Westminster and the rest of the United Kingdom.

So an English assembly may be in the offing, to create a situation of symmetrical federalism. The Westminster government may in the future deal with little more than foreign affairs, defence, and other supra-national matters.

Those visiting London next summer may see more English flags (the Cross of Saint George) and fewer Union ones.

Henry Sr