PING!
Posted on 01/08/2007 10:30:49 AM PST by GMMAC
Whither the Scots?
John O' Sullivan
National Post
Monday, January 08, 2007
Scotland's New Year -- known as Hogmanay -- is traditionally celebrated more uproariously than any other day of the year. But New Year, 2007, includes two events in the Scottish calendar that could create an enormous hangover for the full year. Compared to Canada's own secessionist murmurings -- which have been quelled (for the moment) by Stephen Harper's clever resolution designating Quebec as a nation "within a united Canada" -- the U.K. may be in for a rough ride.
The first event on the horizon is the 300th anniversary of the 1707 Act of Union that formed the United Kingdom of Great Britain. This Union has proved to be one of the most successful political associations in history.
It led to the Anglo-Scottish enlightenment, the industrial revolution and the creation of an empire spanning the globe. Usually, it would be celebrated with the pomp and circumstance that the British have elevated to one of the fine arts.
Except for the second event. That's the May election for the devolved Scottish parliament. On present trends, this will make the Scottish National Party (SNP) the single largest party in Scotland. Alex Salmond, the SNP leader, has promised an early referendum on breaking up the Union and creating an independent Scotland. So Scotland might both celebrate the 1707 Act of Union and dissolve it in the same year.
How come? There is growing support within Scotland for independence. As well as forecasting that the SNP will be the largest party with about one-third of the total vote, opinion polls show that more Scots favour independence than oppose it. One recent poll registered 52% support for full independence.
This has surprised British politicians. Prime Minister Tony Blair thought he had headed off independence by creating a devolved Scottish parliament in a new quasifederal U.K. as his first major reform eight years ago. But all that devolution achieved in Scotland was a brief pause before Scottish nationalism resumed its upward trend. It will be hard for Scotland's other parties --Labour, the Lib-Dems and the Tories -- to resist the SNP's referendum if Scottish public opinion continues to be increasingly nationalist.
Unfortunately for Blair, moreover, Scottish devolution has had a larger impact in England than in Scotland. It created a growing awareness that the Scots felt themselves to be very different from the English and even slightly hostile to them. That in turn directed the attention of the English to certain political facts they had hitherto taken for granted but that now seemed unfair.
In particular:
- Britain's public expenditure includes a US$50-billion subsidy for Scotland. Thus, the average Scot obtains 30% more from the public expenditure than his English counterpart.
- Scottish MPs in the U.K. Parliament get to vote on all issues affecting England, but English MPs are barred from voting on issues that come under the Scottish Parliament.
- Labour is in an almost permanent minority in England, but Britain has a Labour government because of Scottish votes.
- And, finally, a high percentage of Labour cabinet ministers are Scots -- including the likely next prime minister, Gordon Brown. (Tony Blair is a Scot too, but not very noticeably.) As long as the English and Scots saw each other as primarily British, members of the same national community, such things didn't matter. Once devolution emphasized the differences between them, however, the English began to resent these transfers as unfair. Fifty-nine per cent of English voters now support Scottish independence.
Britain's main political parties are strongly opposed to any such move. Labour is opposed to Scottish independence because it would rob them of power in England (which has a population of over 50 million compared to Scotland's five million). Blair and Brown in particular are horrified by the prospect of an independent Scotland -- Blair because he would go down in history as the prime minister who presided over the breakup of the U.K., and Brown because he would cease to be prime minister in a very short time, perhaps even before he got the job.
In the coming year, we can expect a rash of official scare stories from Blair and Brown, joined on this occasion by their Tory opponents, about the dire consequences of breaking up the U.K. Don't ever underestimate the ability of a united political establishment to sway the voters. But the trend toward separatist nationalism in Britain is now strong and well-established. An irresistible force is on schedule to meet an immovable object. The outcome is unknowable.
But the lessons are already clear for the United Kingdom -- and for other multi-national and multi-ethnic polities such as Canada and the United States. National feeling, patriotism, loyalty and a sense of common allegiance exist in the hearts of men and women.
The legal bonds of even very successful political societies are as spun sugar compared to the ties that bind the heart and the imagination. Multi-national and multi-ethnic societies have to work hard at keeping these ties strong and meaningful precisely because their populations are ethnically diverse. If pride in their common nationality is allowed to decay, then different ethnic groups will soon discover their differences and resent common sacrifices. Multicultural Britain forgot this lesson.
In 1907, on the 200th anniversary of the Act of Union, Scottish independence would have struck both Scots and English as an absurd betrayal of a great heritage. This year it will be a serious choice on the ballot paper.
What will be the choices facing the American voter in 2076? Or the Canadian (and, in particular, Quebec) voter well before the 100th anniversary of Trudeau's patriated constitution? Fine words about nationhood emanating from Ottawa might not be enough to control the sort of centrifugal forces now on display in the country known, for now, as the United Kingdom.
John O'Sullivan is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute in Washington, editor-at-large of National Review magazine and a member of Benador Associates.
© National Post 2007
"It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honors that we are fighting,
but for freedom - for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself."
as drafted by William "Braveheart" Wallace's comrades-in-arms and political heirs but a few short years after his Martyrdom in Freedom's name and addressed to and subsequently accepted by The Holy Catholic Church to behold the true genesis of both the immortal rallying cry of first generation Scottish-American patriot Patrick Henry: "Give me liberty or give me death" and The U.S. Declaration of Independence itself.
According to the first U.S. census conducted in 1790, although those of Scots descent or born in Scotland comprised less than 7% of the overall white population, this one small demographic group accounted for at least 21 of the 56 bold signatories to America's Declaration of Independence, her first President, his entire Cabinet, and near half of her Revolutionary War Generals!*
* Source: "The Mark of the Scots" - Duncan A. Bruce, Citadel Press, 1996, 1998
Also see my FR home page for still more Scots-American facts.
PING!
He was born in Edinburgh, but his father is English, his mother is Irish and he was raised in Australia and England.
With the EU increasingly taking more control, even tinier countries are allowed to spring up since they are protected under the EU banner.
Err. I do believe this already happened some time back. See Irish Free State.
More accurate to say "further breakup of the U.K." But I guess that's a nit.
How'd you beat a posting at 10:38:28 (comment 3) with a posting at 10:38:29 (Pacific time)?
Scots Labour voters are essentially a guaranteed 5-6% for Labour every election.
Without that buffer, it would get much tougher for Labour. If Wales goes too, the jig is up.
Scotland is not part of the UK because it was "conquered & occupied by a larger neighbour". The King of Scotland became King of England as well, uniting the kingdoms. Hence the term "United Kingdom".
I welcome Scotland leaving the UK, if they really want to go. It'ld be great. I'ld save 8p a pound on income tax, and England would have a solid Conservative majority. Devolution can't happen fast enough for me.
--brings to mind the retort of the Duke of Wellington, when someone accused him of being Irish because he had been born in Dublin--"being born in Ireland no more makes one Irish than being born in a stable makes one a horse"--
Who is the true Jedi Master, youngling?
Will Wales try to secede next. Then it would be only England and Northern Ireland for the "home nations." Odd considering Northern Ireland has been rather violent since 1917 (on and off).
What force or guile could ne'er subdue
Through many warlike ages
Is wrought now by a coward few
For hireling traitor's wages
The English steel we could disdain
Secure in valour's station
But English gold has been oor bane
Such a parcel of rogues in a nation!
Oh would or ere I saw the day
That treason thus could sell us
My auld grey heid was laid in clay
Wi' Bruce and loyal Wallace
But pith an' power tae my last hour
I'll mak' this declaration
We're bought and sold for English gold
Such a parcel of rogues in a nation!
ping
In 1601 the King of Scotland became King of England by inheritance and in 1707 the Scottish Parliament voted to join England in the United Kingdom.
The existing Union between Scotland and England is voluntary and has nothing to do with conquest.
And the Scots today bear little resemblance to William Wallace, since the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish National Party are aggressively socialist and believe in coercively disarming the people.
And the Senedd only has a fraction of the power that the Scots Parliament has.
As far as Northern ireland is concerned, the smartest thing the Protestants of NI could do would be to unite with the Republic of Ireland.
But they won't.
The only good thing to come out of England is the road to Scotland.
Nemo me impune lacessit
To much bad blood that has little to do with religion.
Then, once they've separated from England, the Lowlands can liberate themselves from the Highlands, right? Or vice versa. And then each clan can claim independence, right?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.