Question of Scottish Independence

In 1995, the Canadian province of Quebec and the political party Bloc Québécois put on a referendum to separate from Canada.  This was in the aftermath of the Bloc Québécois’ electoral success in parliamentary elections a couple of years earlier.  It was a mixture of indignation and unrealistic thinking that pushed the party toward independence and when the vote was tallied, they lost by less than one percent.  A month from now, following success in recent parliamentary elections, the Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP) seeks to separate from the United Kingdom.  Once more, a mixture of historical indignation and blinding optimism is powering this move. 

Scotland’s First Minister Alex Salmond leads a raucous but determined effort to revive the efforts of old that played out under the guidance of Robert the Bruce and was fertilized by Scottish blood on the fields in Bannockburn.  However, things are different and the issues are not quite about idealistic notions of independence and the green glens of Scotland but rather the sides are splitting over mundane economic issues such as oil and currency.  Mr. Salmond extolls the vitality of the Scottish economy but fails to paint the picture of the context of the British economy.

Oil from the North Sea is at the heart of Scottish vitality and could make the difference between Scottish success and failure.  British Prime Minister David Cameron says that the success of oil and gas from the North Sea has been bolstered by the weight of the kingdom as a whole.  Meanwhile, opponents to the SNP question the wisdom of putting all your eggs in a basket that will no longer be viable in the not-so-distant future.  Mr. Cameron has taken the fight to Mr. Salmond’s territory with recent cabinet meetings in Scotland (something about which the SNP mocked) and a reinvigorated attack by unionists in the Scottish parliament.  The opponents may be on to something but what is Mr. Salmond’s plan if London plays hardball regarding access to North Sea resources? 

On another front, the question of currency has emerged.  Mr. Salmond has said that the Scots would remain on the pound but British political parties predict that such a move will never happen and the Treasury has warned of such a scenario.  Unionists in the Scottish parliament and British observers have asked what Mr. Salmond’s pound-less plan is.  He has not been able to provide an answer but the movement soldiers on.  Much like experts on the Bible, you have various opinions and depending on what side you are on, you can find an expert that validates your approach.  However, without the pound, where does that leave Scotland?  It seems unlikely that the Scottish economy, absent of the economic support from the rest of the kingdom and the international security of the pound, would be able to maintain its current vibrancy.   

The Scottish independence referendum also calls in many other questions ranging from immigration to the European Union to its relationship with London going forward.  Quebec realized it did not have a viable chance outside the Canadian confederation.  Other movements such as Flanders’ attempt to separate from Belgium or Catalonia’s desire to separate from Spain suffer from the same issue.  Of recent attempts, only the Kurds have a decent chance to exist and prosper outside its current geopolitical status.  For Scotland, it has enjoyed increased autonomy as part of a devolutionary movement over the last decades.  At the moment, it has the best of both worlds.  It would be a shame if a “yes” vote ruined each of them.