Whither the Scots? (Independence on the near horizon?)

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.

The English did not 'conquer' Scotland in 1290

Nor did I say they did. You must have me confused with some other poster.

The physical occupation of Scotland took place only in 1296,not 1290.

Nor did I say that Scotland was physically occupied before 1296. Again, perhaps you are confusing me with some other poster.

However, one could argue with some justice that since John Balliol swore vassalage to Edward of England in 1291 in a preplanned move, that English power was established in England when the English client Balliol advanced his claim upon the death of young Margaret in 1290.

Not only did the Scots expel the English in 1314 from Scotland after Bannockburn

The expulsion of the English did not end the territorial claims of English subjects or the English king. Nor did it mean the end of English occupation. Starting in 1333 large parts of the Lowlands came under English rule again.

BUT you are amazingly ignoring the 1328 Treaty of Northampton where England legally recognised Scotland's existance as an independent nation.

That treaty was repudiated by the English five years after it was signed. Paying special attention to that failed treaty is a mistake.

The English kings never formally abandoned the claim to be the Lords Paramount of Scotland.

I chose the year 1357 as a signal year because that was the year in which the English kings began to practically behave as if all English terrtorial and legal claims in Scotland had failed.

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.