Paper #1
The Implications of Scottish Independence Following 2014 Referendum
On Thursday, September 18, residents of Scotland will decide whether or not they will permanently separate from the United Kingdom. The unification of Scotland and England, lasting 307 years as a result of the 1707 Act of Union (O’Neil 2012, 85), will go to a vote determining the continuation of that union. Scots will simply choose either “yes” or “no” to the question of “Should Scotland be an independent country?” (Smith-Spark 2014). This binary question could have serious implications for Scotland and the United Kingdom if the yes’s outweigh the no’s. In this paper, I will explain why Scotland’s independence from the United Kingdom would have adverse affects for all parties involved in this monumental decision. I will do this by first addressing the volatile political climate behind the referendum, followed by the possible economic and defensive difficulties for Scotland following independence, and finally I will show how difficulties will arise in these areas for the United Kingdom as well.
There is great importance in understanding the motivating factors behind a referendum of this magnitude. While some may point to the complicated history of Scotland’s union with England and the Scots’ longstanding yearning for independence as the cause for this vote, the underlying reason is much simpler. The true driving forces behind the major decision are the Scottish nationalists with radical attitudes. Nationalists are those “who believe they have a common political destiny” (O’Neil 2012, 34). This is one causal aspect of Thursday’s referendum for Scotland’s independence from the United Kingdom. Scots voting “yes” believe their ultimate political identity is to govern themselves as an independent state.
Secondly, people with radical attitudes “support rapid, extensive, and often revolutionary change” (O’Neil 2012, 35), which is exactly what we are seeing in Scotland. The vote itself is rapid in that only two years have passed since the United Kingdom and Scotland decided this referendum would be held (Smith-Spark 2014). Furthermore, an outcome of victory for the “yes” campaign would be extensive. British Prime Minister David Cameron pointed out that once a decision has been made, “there will be no going back” (Smith-Spark 2014). Finally, the break-up of a 307-year union between two major actors on the global stage is naturally revolutionary. All of this suggests that somewhat irrational individuals making a precipitous decision that would have lasting and global consequences are influencing the referendum.
Perhaps more frightening than Scotland’s current political climate is the outcome for Scotland if these nationalists are satisfied after all votes are tallied. Defensively, Scotland already “lacks a military with which to defend its sovereignty” (O’Neil 2012, 87). Thus, separating from the United Kingdom would leave them open for attack. Some may argue that allies would come to Scotland’s defense if necessary, however, any independent state without a military is inherently less capable of defending itself. Furthermore, “Scotland would lose economic support from London” (O’Neil 2012, 87) if the “yes” campaign succeeds. Consequentially, Scotland could become what is known as a weak state, in that it would have trouble defending itself and would have trouble maintaining the state’s internal composure (O’Neil 2012, 36) because of a lack of economic aid from London.
While residents of Scotland will be the only ones able to vote on the referendum, the outcome will have reaches beyond their borders. A decision that separates Scotland from the “United Kingdom could undermine London’s standing as an international financial capital,” disrupting the financial stability there (Smith-Spark 2014). While Scotland’s independence would not necessarily deplete the United Kingdom’s military, Scotland said no weapons could be held at their ports, including “the UK Trident nuclear submarine fleet based at Faslane” (Smith-Spark 2014). This rushed referendum could have adverse affects for the United Kingdom and its residents, who have absolutely no say in the decision.
In this paper I argued that Scotland’s independence from the United Kingdom would have adverse affects for both parties. Scottish nationalists with radical attitudes are the driving force behind the “yes” campaign for independence. Defensive abilities as well economic support would disappear from Scotland if they separated from the United Kingdom. And finally, Scotland’s independence would disrupt the financial stability in London, as well as military options for the United Kingdom.
Bibliography
O’Neil, Patrick H., Karl Fields, and Don Share. 2012. Cases in Comparative Politics. Fourth edition. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Smith-Spark, Laura. 2014. “Scotland’s Vote on Independence: What You Need to Know.” CNN, September 18. http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/09/world/europe/scottish-referendum-explainer/index.html (September 19, 2014).
4