transcurrents

Will May 3rd Poll Result in Scotland Seceding from U.K.?

May 3rd, 2007

By D.B.S. Jeyaraj

May 1st this year marked the 300th anniversary of the Act of Union which formally joined England and Scotland together as constituents of the United Kingdom. As Scotland goes to polls on May 3rd that “union ” may be in dire straits with the Scottish Nationalist Party campaigning on a separatist platform.

The Scotland situation will impact on Sri Lanka where a debate rages about pros and cons of devolution. While those in favour argue that devolution would contain Tamil separatism those against say that greater devolution is a slow recipe for separation.

In the case of Scotland it appears that enhanced devolution in recent times has whetted appetite for secession rather than diluting the demand. In that context the anti – devolutionists in Sri Lanka are likely to cite Scotland as an example where devolution paved the way for independence / secession instead of strenghthening unity and territorial integrity.

Scotland was an independent Country till 1707.Although the crowns of both kingdoms had been held by the same people since 1603, when James VI of Scotland succeeded Elizabeth I of England as James I, each country had its own parliament and legal system, border tensions remained high and trade and social barriers remained formidable. The 1707 Acts merged England and Scotland’s parliaments and abolished trade barriers, although the countries retained distinct legal systems.

The Scottish nationalist party which leads the campaign for Scottish independence raised the demand in this years election to the Scottish Parliament scheduleded for May 3rd. The SNP manifesto concluded “It’s time Scotland had a voice in the world.” An independent Scotland would scrap Trident and would not have gone to war in Iraq, the SNP promised. The money saved could be invested in public services.

The SNP has been enjoying a comfortable five to ten point lead in opinion polls. The latest Times/Populus poll predicted the SNP could take 50 seats at Holyrood, beating Labour into second place with 43.

However, this would still not give the party a majority in the Scottish Parliament, forcing them into a coalition. In a set back to the SNP, potential coalition partners the Liberal Democrats said yesterday they would block any referendum on Scottish independence.

Ironically the setting up of a Scottish Parliament itself was part of greater devolution given to Scotland by the current labour government. Devolution expected to wean Scotland away from secession seems to have been counterproductive. It has added new energy and vision to the SNP in its quest for Scottish independence.

According to political observers the Scottish National Party was founded in 1934 with the aim of uniting the nationalist movement through the merger of the left-leaning pro-independence National Party of Scotland (NPS) and the Scottish Party, a group of former Conservatives preferring home rule. At the time of the merger, the home rulers’ views prevailed, and the SNP rejected the goal of full independence.

The SNP’s share of the Scottish vote in general elections since its formation are: 1935 – 1.1 per cent; 1945 – 1.2 per cent; 1950 – 0.4 per cent; 1951 – 0.3 per cent; 1955 – 0.5 per cent; 1959 – 0.5 per cent; 1964 – 2.4 per cent; 1966 – 5.0 per cent; 1970 – 11.4 per cent; February 1974 – 21.9 per cent; October 1974 – 30.4 per cent; 1979 – 17.3 per cent; 1983 – 11.7 per cent; 1987 – 14.0 per cent; 1992 – 21.5 per cent; 1997 – 22.1 per cent; and 2001 – 20.1 per cent.

The Scotland Act 1978 made provision for a referendum on devolution. Although the March 1979 referendum found a majority of those voting in favour (1,230,937 – around 77,000 more than those against), it did not achieve the 40 per cent of the overall electorate threshold required for the result to stand.

The failure of the referendum saw the start of a period of decline for the SNP, as it fell victim to factionalism, with the expulsion of members of Siol nan Gaidheal and the leftwing 79 Group.

Under the Conservative Thatcher and Major governments there was little impetus to revive the devolution project, but it remained part of Labour’s agenda – what John Smith famously called Labour’s “unfinished business”. In 1988, a Scottish Constitutional Convention was formed, bringing together MPs, MEPS, local authorities, the STUC, business, church and civic groups, which produced its final report, ‘Scotland’s Parliament. Scotland’s Right’ calling for a Scottish Parliament in 1995.

On its return to power in 1997, Labour set out its plans for a Scottish Parliament and a referendum in September that year. 1,775,045 (74.3 per cent) voted in favour of a Scottish Parliament, with 614,400 (25.7 per cent) against; and 1,512,889 (63.5 per cent) supported giving the Parliament tax-varying powers, with 870,263 (36.5 per cent) against. The Scottish Parliament was established in 1999.

Although independence from the UK remains an SNP objective, it still remains a minority concern and many radical proponents accuse the party of having compromised itself through participating in the Scottish Parliament, which remains subject to Westminster. The SNP includes both ‘gradualist’ and ‘fundamentalist’ wings, which even some within the party have warned may be hard to reconcile.

Despite the Scottish Parliament having considerable powers, Westminster reserves a wide range of policy areas, including defence and foreign policy, which are widely thought to be necessary for independent statehood.

An ICM/Sunday Telegraph poll in November 2006 said 52 per cent of Scots favoured an independent Scotland. The poll also suggested that 59 per cent of English voters also support independence for Scotland.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair branded as “absurd” the SNP leader Alex Salmond’s claim that Scots could vote for independence in the SNP’s planned referendum and then return to the UK if they then wished.

“The idea of a reverse referendum is absurd. But it underlines again the utterly fundamental choice facing Scotland and the UK this Thursday,” Mr Blair said.

He added: “When even the SNP accept people may want to reverse independence, it leads yet again to this simple question: what is all the cost, chaos and instability for?”

Mr Blair insisted a Scottish government should not be dedicated to “breaking up the UK,” but instead looking at how to make Scotland work as part of the UK, focusing on health, education and crime.

The prime minister was speaking after a BBC Scotland leaders’ debate at Aberdeen University, where the future of the union was first on the agenda.

Mr Salmond had argued that an independent Scotland would mirror the success of small nations such as Norway and Iceland and would act in a “partnership of equals” with England.

Ian Bremmer , president of Eurasia Group, a political-risk consultancy and the author of “the J curve: A new way to understand why nations rise and fall” has summed up the situation in a recent essay. excerpts are produced below

On May 1, England and Scotland will mark the 300th anniversary of the treaty that wedded the two within the United Kingdom. The festivities won’t last long. Two days later, Scottish voters are expected to hand dominance of Scotland’s parliament to the separatist Scottish National Party, which has called for a popular referendum to force a divorce.

Prospects for Scottish independence are far from certain. Even if the SNP finishes first on May 3, it’s not at all clear it can win enough seats to bring independence to a vote in 2010. Even if it does, Scots may not be ready to cut all ties with England. But nationalist control of Scotland’s parliament, with or without a vote on independence, poses plenty of risks — for the UK, for Scotland and perhaps for unity in other European countries.

To ease tensions within the marriage eight years ago, Tony Blair’s Labour government launched a plan to create a Scottish parliament and provided it with authority over local affairs in hopes that devolution of power would slow momentum toward independence. Since then, Blair has become increasingly unpopular in Scotland. In particular, his support for the U.S.-led war in Iraq has antagonized many Scots and handed the once-marginalized SNP a winning political issue.

As Scotland’s own Labour Party loses political ground, the SNP’s appeal has grown. The nationalist party currently holds 25 seats in Scotland’s 129-seat parliament. Polling suggests it will likely increase that number to between 45 and 50 on May 3, largely at Labour’s expense.

Yet, a referendum is hardly a sure thing. Even if these projections prove accurate, the nationalists will lack the 65 seats needed for a majority, forcing them to seek a governing partner. They will probably have to tap the Liberal Democrats, who oppose a referendum. Even if a vote on independence were held, opinion polls cast doubt on the outcome.

Depending on how the referendum question is phrased, support for a full break from the United Kingdom receives as little as 30 percent support. As a result, the party may temporarily settle for a transfer of new powers from the British government, helping it claim progress toward full independence without losing support from some who oppose the referendum.

Scotland’s Liberal Democrats will support that option. Unlike the nationalists, they are part of a Britain-wide political party and oppose a clean break from London, but they would gladly claim credit for winning new powers for Scotland’s parliament.

Together, the two parties would likely demand that Westminster grant the Scottish parliament new powers on local issues — for example, on immigration, taxation and civil-service reform plans. Dominance of parliament will also offer the SNP a megaphone with which to demand that Scotland profit more directly from the United Kingdom’s North Sea oil and gas reserves.

On the other hand, prospects for a Scottish republic may not be as remote as some think. If the SNP unexpectedly wins 50 or more seats, it may ally instead with independents and Greens to grab majority control of parliament. SNP chief Alex Salmond could then keep his promise to schedule the referendum.

If so, the three-year pre-referendum campaign is certain to be contentious. British officials will warn that an independent Scotland will be isolated and poorer. Salmond will counter that the new country can rightly claim up to 90 percent of the UK’s North Sea energy reserves and that the proceeds would finance Scandinavian-level prosperity.

In addition, polls that now suggest limited support for independence may not tell the final story. This current polling hardly indicates how Scots will vote in 2010. After all, surveys from three years ago did not reveal the now obvious rise of the SNP. Further, Britain may well have a conservative-led government by then. If so, left-leaning Scotland is much more likely to vote for divorce.

Plus, polling already suggests that the SNP-designed phrasing of the referendum question might well win majority support. Scots were asked in November 2006 how they would respond to the question the SNP intends to place on the ballot: “Do you agree that the Scottish Parliament should negotiate a new settlement with the British government so that Scotland becomes a sovereign and independent state?” Fifty-two percent said yes. If global oil prices remain high or climb higher over the next three years, the separatist case will be an easier one to make.

Even if an SNP government lacks the votes to schedule the referendum, tensions between England and Scotland will grow. The Scottish parliament will seek (and likely receive) new concessions from Westminster, provoking resentment in England. Many English officials argue it is inherently unfair that Scottish members of Britain’s parliament now vote on health and education issues affecting English voters, while English lawmakers have virtually no say in Scottish affairs.

In addition, as part of the original devolution plan, British subsidies provide Scottish students with free university tuition and elderly Scots with free long-term health care, benefits the English must pay for. Scottish voters counter that these subsidies are financed with revenue from North Sea oil and gas, much of it extracted from “Scotland’s waters.” Yet, polls suggest that many English voters are now content to see Scotland fend for itself.

This is a particularly awkward problem for the member representing the Scots of Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, British Labour’s prime minister-in-waiting Gordon Brown. If his countrymen vote to bolt from the United Kingdom, those who ask “who lost Scotland?” will surely point toward Brown — especially since the original devolution of powers was Labour’s idea.

Yet, an SNP-led government also poses risks for Scotland’s economy. If Britain grants the Scottish parliament powers to set local tax rates, Scotland’s business climate could quickly cloud over. Scotland is home to a significant financial services industry. Two of Europe’s top 10 banks are headquartered in Edinburgh, as is a substantial part of the British insurance industry. These commercial leaders trust Britain’s “new Labour” government more than they do Scotland’s left-wing nationalists.

Anticipating this, the SNP has pledged to reduce the level of regulation for the financial services sector and lower corporate taxes from 28 percent to 20 percent following independence.

Market skepticism will not be so easily appeased. Financial services firms fear the uncertainty that would follow an SNP triumph, and a three-year pre-referendum campaign would generate plenty.

The implications of a nationalist-led Scottish parliament, with or without an independence referendum, could extend well beyond the borders of the UK. An SNP victory and talk of the break-up of the United Kingdom could embolden separatists among the Catalans and Basques of Spain, Flemish-speakers in Belgium, and even those in northern Italy who favor a break from that country’s less prosperous south. These movements have developed over many years under different historical circumstances. But progress toward Scottish independence could help generate separatist momentum within any of these states.

An immediate European domino effect following Scotland’s elections is extremely unlikely. But large-scale political movements — toward democratization, decolonization, socialism, free-market capitalism or nationalism, for example — tend to develop in waves. Break-up of the United Kingdom, a prosperous liberal democracy, would send shockwaves across European borders — and might one day create new ones.

transCurrents feedback : editor@transcurrents.com

transCurrents feedback :Contact DBS Jeyaraj : djeyaraj2005@yahoo.com

Entry Filed under: transCurrents