As the referendum on Scotland’s future — whether it will continue to be part of the United Kingdom — draws near, there is a sign of nervousness in Westminster. Unlike in previous opinion polls that showed a majority of Scots in favour of the “no” vote on independence, the swing now seems to be in favour and it has become a neck and neck contest.
The fact that Scotland seems to be divided roughly half and half is a dramatic indication of how far the Scottish National Party has come out of its old miniscule presence and is effectively challenging a union that was consummated a few hundred years ago. It is indeed a revealing study of how the prosperous West, bonded in the European Union, is nursing new forms of nationalism and self-expression.
One point to emerge is how globalisation and collective decision-making on an intra-national scale have given rise to discontent at the national and sub-national levels that are expressing themselves in forms of dissent and rebellion. This dissent is not restricted to Britain, encompassing as it does regions of Spain, Italy and Belgium.
The United Kingdom has its own discontents and has promised to hold a referendum in 2017 on the country’s future in the European Union if the Conservatives remain in power. Britain famously fought for special privileges during the time of Margaret Thatcher and won. Whitehall wants more privileges because it has never been able to shake off the feeling that though it might be part of the EU due to economic and other compulsions, it is a very special country.
Scottish leader and first minister Alex Salmond has convinced at least half his people that the region could never achieve its full flowering until it gains full independence. He believes that the off-shore oil riches would serve to sustain its nationhood and looks askance at measures taken by London to trim the National Health Service and introduce other measures limiting the scale of the welfare state.
At a last throw of the dice, London has promised even greater powers, in addition to those it enjoys at present, with Mr Salmond calling it an unfair declaration in order to influence the outcome of the referendum. What is staring Britain in the face is the inevitable diminution of the UK in the event Scotland does walk out.
However, Scotland’s future poses larger questions. Are there limits to the collectivisation of peoples? Indeed, what in human experience is the tolerable limit? In the old days of empires, the metropolitan authority ruled over vast territories and billions. But in the 21st century, apart from odd instances such as Israel’s colonialism, colonies are a thing of the past.
Rather, the fashion in modern times has been the voluntary association of independent countries in collective decision-making to benefit from pooled resources and seek safety in numbers. Indeed, the European Economic Community, which morphed into the European idea, was an idealistic vision of the future much applauded and idealised in the last century.
But as the failed Communist experience has demonstrated, the human spirit rebels at uniformity beyond a point and in rebound desires to emphasise the local. Scotland is a prime example of going a long way in convincing roughly half its population that it is time to strike for independence.
Where does the West, in particular Europe, go from here? Would Spain, Italy and Belgium be divided, catching the breeze from Scotland? In the short term it seems unlikely, but the dilemma for the next stage of European development remains. How can collective decision-making, now in a sense buttressed by the dangers from Ukraine and the convulsions in West Asia, be brought into harmony with human urges?
There is still hope in London that when it comes to the crunch, Scotland will say “no” to independence. But even in that case the dissatisfaction of half the population with living as part of the United Kingdom will remain and prove to be a big hurdle for future development. There are no simple answers although the European Union has sought to give member countries greater autonomy in decision-making on matters of local and regional importance. The fact that these measures have failed to satisfy many regions is clear from Scotland’s decision to seek a vote on its own independence from the UK.
Meanwhile, in London there seems to be a reluctance to come to grips with a future without Scotland if there is a “yes” vote. To begin with, what about the other three regions of the UK? Most importantly, a truncated UK will no longer remain in the league of consequential regional military powers with Germany and France. And third, a country that has prided itself on its exceptionalism would remain on the margins of major decision-making.
Many Britons would rather not think of the nightmare scenario of a truncated UK and would chase it away as a bad dream. The consequences of a marginal “no” vote would linger, expressing as it would deep resentment of an arrangement that many consider inadequate as an expression of Scottish distinctiveness and genius. How London would try to compensate the Scotts would remain to be seen.
Has the Westphalian model of the nation state on which the infrastructure of the modern world is built reached its limit? In the crises-ridden West Asia, the tendency towards breaking up nation states arises out of ethnic, religious and ideological tensions and interference of outside powers. But Scotland’s, and Europe’s, cases are different and in a sense strike at the heart of modern notions of states.
While the outcome of the Scottish referendum will represent the United Kingdom’s date with history, the nature of the concept of the nation state in Europe is still evolving.
