Not only is Catalonia presenting an equally compelling case for independence as Kosovo; it is doing so in a non-violent way that stands in commendable and instructive contrast to the violence that attended Kosovo independence.
Alas, such is the vested (European) interest in holding Spain together (economically and politically) that, even if Catalonia were to vote ‘Yes,’ Western powers would surely conspire to nullify it; hence the double standard…
Nevertheless, ‘autonomous’ regions in other countries – among them Iraq’s Kurdistan, Italy’s South Tyrol, Belgium’s Flemish and Walloon, even China’s Uyghur – are bound to tempt fate (for political, cultural and/or economic reasons) by following the pandora’s-box precedent Kosovo set.
(“Catalonia: Spain’s Kosovo Problem,” The iPINIONS Journal, October 1, 2012)
Now the Scottish region of the United Kingdom – presenting an even more compelling case for independence than Catalonia – is tempting fate.
The vote in Scotland, however, will be binding on England. Not least because Scotland has been negotiating the terms for an independence referendum with successive English governments ever since the Acts of Union created the United Kingdom of Great Britain in 1707. Milestones towards this end over these years included the creation of a Scottish Parliament in 1999 – complete with devolution of ministerial powers.
All the same, both latter-day English imperialists and their abiding Scottish loyalist are painting such a Dickensian future for an independent Scotland that the ‘Yes’ vote seems unlikely to carry the day when the referendum is held on September 18. And no less a person than Alex Salmond, first minister and leader of the Scottish National Party, is on record acknowledging that a ‘No’ vote could spell the end of the SNP as a political force and extinguish any aspiration for independence for at least a generation or two.
(“Crimea One of Many ‘Distinct Nations’ Within Nation Voting to Breakaway,” The iPINIONS Journal, March 31, 2014)
The day of reckoning is at hand. Scotland will hold its historic referendum tomorrow to decide whether to preserve the Union or become independent. Polls indicate that it will come down to the wire. But I think cooler heads will prevail, and Scots will vote to preserve it.
As my opening quote indicates, however, Scotland is just the latest in a string of regions within nations, where yearning for independence has been burning in the hearts, even if not in the minds, of a critical mass of people.
Interestingly enough, in a recent commentary on the dubious referendum Crimea held to breakaway from Ukraine (admittedly to be annexed by Russia, not to become independent), I felt constrained to cite the unwitting precedent the UK may have set in this respect:
Britain went to war to reinforce its sovereignty over the Falkland Islands. Therefore, it smacks of rank hypocrisy for Britain to be leading the chorus of European countries denouncing Serbia for merely threatening to go to war to reinforce its sovereignty over Kosovo…
Kosovo embodies as much historical, cultural, and religious significance for Serbs as Mecca holds for Saudis. Moreover, it happens to be situated right within Serbia’s universally recognized borders; not thousands of (imperial) miles away – as the Falklands are from Britain.
(“Kosovo: Wither Serbia’s Alamo,” The iPINIONS Journal, April 4, 2007)
Of course, the irony is not lost on me that the United Kingdom, which spearheaded the balkanization of so much of Africa and the Middle East – by arbitrarily drawing borders between peoples – is teetering on the precipice of balkanization from within. (Re balkanization of Middle East, see 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement and 1917 Balfour Declaration; and re balkanization of Africa, see 1884 Berlin Conference)
But Scottish nationalists are undoubtedly thankful that Mother England is according them this right of self-determination; instead of attempting to impose her will upon them at the barrel of a gun. Granted, “the troubles” that attended her attempt to impose her will upon Irish nationalists/republicans in Northern Ireland might have something to do with this more sensible approach in Scotland….
Mind you, this is not to say that she has decided to just lie back and think of England without Scotland. For, as indicated in my March 31 commentary cited above, political leaders of every stripe have been framing the consequences of a “Yes” vote in such apocalyptic terms, you could be forgiven for mistaking them for fundamentalist preachers warning about the end of the world as we know it. I’m a believer, but even I was moved on Saturday to title a cartoon mocking their despairing admonitions as follows:
England warning Scotland about independence is like mother warning child about fire. Each must burn to learn.
Still, here’s how some – who clearly feel they’ve already lost the hearts and minds of far too many Scots – are now appealing to (or making veiled threats towards) their pocketbooks:
An independent Scotland faces a £14billion black hole in its finances, a prominent think-tank warns in a report today.
A slump in North Sea oil revenues, an exodus of banks to England and a spike in public sector pensions represent three ‘huge risks’, says the Centre for Policy Studies.
The dire forecast cast further doubt over Alex Salmond’s economic plan and what critics call his North Sea oil ‘fantasy’.
(Daily Mail, September 15, 2014)
Surely that constitutes a bit of piling on, no?
Yet, on top of all that, it seems every British celebrity worth his salt is chiming in; and most, with the notable exception of a few like Sir Sean Connery, are urging Scots to vote “No”:
Sir Paul’s signature, alongside Sir Mick Jagger’s and those of tens of thousands of people from all over the country, shows that English, Welsh and Northern Irish people hope passionately that the Scottish vote to renew their bonds of citizenship with us.
(BBC, September 15, 2015)
Which makes one wonder why President Obama decided to jump into this marital spat yesterday (even if PM Cameron begged him to) by boldly urging Scotland to stay with England, presumably, if she wants to stay friends with the United States. Especially given that his two cents worth seems all the overbearing juxtaposed with the far more fair-minded way the Queen on Sunday simply urged Scots to, ahem, “think very carefully about the future” before voting.
To be fair, Obama has greater standing to chime in than one might think, given reports about his genealogy extending back to William the Lion, who ruled Scotland from 1165 to 1214. Reports are that he’s even related to the Queen – as her “9th cousin twice removed.” But, by that stretch, I might be related to Her too.
All the same, Obama’s interference, if not intimidation, risks inciting a stealth backlash among congenitally proud Scots, which could end up helping the “Yes We Can” nationalists win the day….
As documented, much is being made of the dire consequences a “Yes” win would portend for Scotland. But similar consequences would portend for England too. For starters, if Scotland goes, its prized and popular (neo-colonial) Overseas Territories, including Bermuda, Cayman Islands, and Turks and Caicos Islands, to say nothing of its neighbor Wales, might exercise their right of self-determination too – as foolhardy as that might be … given their respective circumstances.
There’s also the humbling contrast that would likely be drawn between England losing yet more of what little remains of its empire, which was once so vast “the sun never set” on it, and Russia expanding (reconstituting) hers via land grabs in the former Soviet republics of Georgia and Ukraine.
Indeed, if Scotland goes the way of Kosovo and South Sudan (and votes for independence), instead of the way of Quebec (and votes to preserve the union), it might embolden calls for England to lose her permanent seat on the influential UN Security Council. After all, without Scotland (one-third of its current land mass), she would be even more of an island onto herself and fated to wield even less power on the European continent than the little she does today. Not to mention the irony inherent in England pleading for Scotland to preserve their union, while English politics is being dominated by demands for a referendum to allow England to leave the European Union.
Frankly, regardless of the outcome, Brazil, which wields far more influence on the South American continent, or South Africa, which wields far more on the African continent, seems a far more worthy occupant of that seat on the Security Council than England.
Meanwhile, nothing indicates how desperate England is to preserve the union quite like the fact that it has already conceded (and promised) so many devolutionary powers that Scotland is already, for all intents and purposes, independent.
This is why, if they’re smart, the Scots would vote “No” – to have their cake and eat it too … as it were.
Rule, Britannia…?
Related commentaries:
Crimea…
Kosovo…
Catalonia…
* This commentary was originally published on Tuesday, September 16, at 7:49 a.m.