Better on ye own, aye?
Next year could bring the end of a 306 year old union, no less. If the proud Scots approve the split-away from the UK next autumn, that is. Such a decision would take effect on March 24, 2016, the Scots taking their bagpipes with them, their kilts, their whiskey, the Loch Ness monster, and going their separate way.
That's essentially what the long-awaited 670 page monster of a report compiled by Scotland's First Minister, Alex Salmond is saying. Its aim is to convince the Tartans that on September 18 next year they should say a resounding "Yes" to the divorce if they're to have their Freedom(TM) once and for all. Apparently, he still believes an independent Scotland could retain the British pound and the Queen, and remain part of the EU, while having its own defense forces and collecting its own taxes. You know, having the best of both worlds, kind of. Would be awesome, wouldn't it? If anyone lets them have any of it, that is.
In turn, the leaders of the "No" camp have already called the plan "fiction, full with nonsensical assertions". And David Cameron has commented, "We have been waiting a long time for this document. We were told it would answer every question and yet no answer on the currency, no answer on the question of EU membership, no proper answers on Nato - we are just left a huge set of questions and frankly, the Scottish people have also got the prospect of a J1,000 bill as the price of separation". More about this last bit, a little further down.
"We know we have the people, the skills and resources to make Scotland a more successful country", Salmond countered, promising that Scotland's future is now in the Scots' hands. The "Yes" camp claim their top priorities are job creation, stimulating growth, guaranteeing the national security, and performing a "revolution" in social policy, which is to be centered around care for the children. You simply can't argue with that, can you. The document also claims independence would mean that extra resources would be released and allocated to domains that need them most, a large chunk of people's taxes not funding nuclear programs any more. As a bonus of national pride, the British nuclear U-boats would have to go away from the Scottish harbours, because there'd be no place for them in the new free Scotland. As BBC summarises, "Reassurance runs through every answer. The promise is that nothing will get any worse, and lots of things could get better. Indeed, it claims lots of things will get better".
Salmond's Scottish National Party which is behind the independence campaign, has been dominant in the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh ever since they won the election in 2011, and its leader didn't hesitate to promote the idea of getting a divorce from the UK right away. The referendum deal was officially struck with Cameron last October.
Well, as a matter of fact, Scotland already does have many of the privileges of a sovereign country, as well as a specific national identity. But the SNP believes the country would become even more prosperous if it shook off what the party considers to be centuries of paternalistic attitude from London. The outcome from the popular vote still remains open, though, because part of the Scots haven't decided how they'd vote yet. The latest polls suggest that 47% are against the split-up, 38% support it, and 15% are still sitting on the fence.
The EU membership is being used as a major argument by those who support the status quo. They argue that Scotland would be kicked ot of the union and would find it difficult to go back in, because that process would take a long time, and would require the consent of all 28 member states (including England, quite ironically). But Salmond believes that the position of his government that an independent Scotland could re-negotiate its EU membership "from the inside" during those 18 months of intermediate period between the referendum and the actual split-up, without needing to start the whole membership application process from square one, is supported by most experts. He's citing a letter from the ofice of the General Secretariat of the European Commission, which concludes that such an option would be "legally possible". In his words, the EU would welcome Scotland with open arms. "Scotland is a European nation. Resource-rich Scotland would be welcome. Anybody with an ounce of sense knows that", he argued.
However, the EC seems to be telling a different story. Turns out, the European agreements are valid for the member states only. And if part of a member state ceases being part of it through declaring independence, then these contracts would no longer apply for that territory. In other words, the new state would become a third party in relation to the EU, and the agreements would no longer be valid for it.
While there's no legal obstacles to Scotland joining the EU eventually, that's not exactly an automatic process, and the Scots would have to apply as if they were a new member. As for the national currency, there's really no place for manoeuvring, because, as soon as all criteria for membership are met, Scotland would have to adopt the euro. The British have already poured cold water on any hopes for keeping the pound, the major buzzkill from recent times, John Major saying that it's very unlikely that a currency union would be created, where Scotland could continue using the British currency and the services of the Bank of England. Not to mention that Wales is already firmly against such a scenario.
And, even if such a plan were to somehow remain on the table, it's not certain at all that it would be in the Scots' best interest. Because it would mean relinquishing control on their national currency to another country. And Scotland could end up being a hostage to all sorts of fiscal tricks from London.
Still, Scotland could afford to secede, regardless of whether the cost of that step would outweigh the benefits. It's a relatively wealthy and well-managed country, and there's no reason why it shouldn't be able to cope with the challenges. But the central government in London (which, naturally, is actively lobbying for unity and warning that the future integrity of the United Kingdom itself is at stake here), insists that Scotland would be worse off economically, it wouldn't be able to defend itself, and it wouldn't have the same influence at the international scene, compared to being part of a larger country. Cameron himself has said that "When we are talking of economy, jobs and Europe, all arguments are in favour of staying together".
Last month the British minister for energy Ed Davey warned that the Scots' energy expenses could soar in case of a possible breakaway, and subsidies for renewables would dwindle (most of the UK subsidies in that domain currently being spent in Scotland). The Treasury also claims Scots face J1000 tax rises if they vote for independence, due to Scotland's more rapidly ageing population and declining oil revenues. And that, despite Salmond's promises that the taxes wouldn't change (as there wouldn't be such monstrous expenses for defense).
Although it currently receives annual funding from London, apparently the Scottish government believes they'd be coping much better if they relied more on local industries, and had full control on the revenue from oil and gas in the North Sea. But the British oil deposits in that area remain an issue of contention and uncertainty, plus the question how eactly the national debt would be split. And these are potentially huge problems between two future separate countries.
A couple of reports came out recently from British finance institutes, both favouring unity (no surprise there). The first one claims Scotland would have to raise its tax rates and cut its budget spending, because the oil revenue in the North Sea is deteriorating, while the population is ageing, and fast. The second report concludes that independence would complicate cross-border pensions. On top of that, a few days ago some of the leading British supermarkets warned that in case of secession they'd have to raise the food prices in Scotland, as it's more expensive doing business there than anywhere else in the UK (which of course angered quite a few Scottish nationalists). The Asda chain for example states that Scotland would become less attractive for investment, despite Salmond's assurances that he intends to cut corporate tax in the new country and thus make Scotland more competitive. Salmond has dismissed this as mere scaremongering. No surprise there, either.
Amidst all this hubbub, in order to tone things down a little bit, the Scottish economic parliamentary commission has promised to investigate the possible long-term consequences of independence by meeting with key figures from the business and banking sector, as well as politicians and economists. Among the primary topics will be montetary policy, the currency, fiscal policy, including taxes, public expenses, loans and national debt, and the social system. I don't think we should be expecting surprises there, that commission now being proportionally dominated by the SNP.
There's one more element to the whole drama, though. The reason why London is so fiercely opposed to Scottish independence could not be just economic, but mostly emotional. In a sense, Britain has considered Scotland part of the realm ever since 1707. History binds them. And though some could argue that oil and gas in the North Sea is part of the equation too, this hardly exhausts the whole story, and neither is it the main reason. Besides, it's not entirely certain if the rest of the UK would oppose Scottish independence, since nowadays the public attitudes to this issue are much more calm and sober, compared to what they used to be in the past.
The Scottish situation is not solely a domestic issue, either. It raises concerns in other corners of Europe as well. The economic crisis and the tightening of the belts has stirred the separatist appetites elsewhere, in places where regional conflicts that had been lingering for centuries, are getting renewed. The Flemmish nationalists in Belgium have become active again, and the Basque never sit on their hands for too long, either. And the Catalans seem no longer prone to paying the bills of their troubled countrymen from the rest of Spain. All these are looking at Scotland very closely right now. In fact Catalonia has scheduled its own referendum in 2014, while the government in Madrid would have none of it.
Scotland's demands for independence are not just economic, that's for sure. The roots of Scottish nationalism are much deeper than that. It's not like the Scots are pulling the separatist card just now, in order to get more money from the central government or some other concessions. Besides, the Scottish politicians could draw some benefits from the whole thing even if they don't achieve the desired result on the referendum - if merely for the fact that they've raised the issue at all. This could be their chance to get some of their prerogatives back from London and gain even more sovereignty, and that would serve the SNP better by allowing them to play a more significant political role.
In any case, September 18 next year will untie this Gordian knot, whether it'll result in redrawing Europe's map or not, and whether there'd be yet another new member sitting at the EU table. These must be immensely exciting times for all separatists across the Old Continent.