I think that the small modicum of balanced reporting owes itself
to two facts:
1, they might win, and
2, they speak English.
1, they might win, and
2, they speak English.
Despite my last name, I have no personal connection to
Scotland and have never even been there.
On the other hand, I do have a deep personal relationship with
another place that had an independence referendum that never got any balanced
reporting in English. That is Quebec,
the French speaking province of Eastern Canada where more than one independence
referendum failed to pass. I grew up
there, in part, and while I was getting what little high school that I have, in
French, in an East Montreal trade school, and I voted OUI, (yes) because I felt
it was time for Quebec to step forward to take care of itself and deal with
other issues. Those issues were blocked
because of the “national question”. My
whole life ran in French from school, to work to bedroom and I have a strong
bias in favor of the French language and in favor of national self-determination
for any country.
Given that full disclosure of personal bias,
I’ll move onto my polyglot news junkie version of the Scottish national question.
I’ll move onto my polyglot news junkie version of the Scottish national question.
Nobody questions that Scotland is a nation. One of the things most nations have is some
kind of self-government and control over their own affairs. Scotland has some of that via a Scottish
Parliament with some autonomy powers.
Many nations are part of a larger state, often in a relationship where
clearly defined local control is set in law akin to the US balance of powers
between our Federal Government and the States.
The UK has none of that.
The UK Parliament in London is “supreme”. That is the basic rule we all should know
about British style parliamentary democracies anywhere, including Canada, is that
the “Parliament is Supreme”.
(Canada’s new constitution moderates that, but if we are going to talk about Scotland, I need to stop on the Canada stuff).
(Canada’s new constitution moderates that, but if we are going to talk about Scotland, I need to stop on the Canada stuff).
When Margaret Thatcher, a name as vile as Ronald Regan, decided
she did not like “Red Ken” (Ken Livingstone, left Labor) as the head of Greater
London Council, she had parliament dissolve the council. Imagine that?
If Barak Obama was sick and tired of, say the racist government of
Arizona, could he decide to dissolve Arizona as a state? By the way, in the UK the Prime Minister is a
member of that Parliament, there is no independent executive, no division of
powers with checks and balances or any of that stuff either. Imagine if Newt Gingrich had the power to dissolve
a state of city government when he was Speaker of the House!
So, when the Scots are deciding if they want to be independent,
let’s keep in mind what kind of government they would be independent from, and how
fragile their autonomy is today. Puerto
Rico has more legal protections.
Another thing yes voting Scots would say, and some have,
said they want independence from is British foreign policy. At times it questionable if the UK is independent
from the US on foreign policy. That was
shown in the invasion of Iraq where the Blair government took the UK to war
despite the opposition of the majority of UK citizens. In this context, the Tory government is
about to follow the US lead into yet another mid-east military intervention against
the Islamic State that will put us propping up the semi legitimate government
of Iraq and helping to overthrow the semi legitimate government of Syria. Low income Scots, and many other Scots, serve
and die in such wars. The UK spends vast
amounts of cash on their military and offer the public austerity in social
services, calling it some kind of governmental reform. Voting NO in this referendum is to vote to
stay part of this foreign policy.
Being British is to have a big gap between the popular vote
and the seats allocated in the all-powerful parliament. One only needs the MOST votes to hold a seat,
not a MAJORITY of votes. There are no
run offs, and there is no proportional representation.
Except in European elections. Those seats are allocated based on the
popular vote. The largest number of
those votes in England in the last European poll went to UKIP, the United
Kingdom Independence Party and ANTI European Union movement.
The current government of the UK is the Conservatives, who
have promised a referendum to the UK voters to be able to re-decide if they are
going to stay in the European Union or leave it.
So all the talk about Scotland needing to apply to re-enter
the EU has the backdrop of being part of a UK that is considering the exit
door. In five years’ time we could find
Scotland an EU member and the UK outside the system. They are half outside the system now, not
part of the customs union, holding themselves apart on many smaller issues and
not participating in the Eurozone.
The UK keeps the pound because …. ? Well, a lot is said and most of it is said
about the giant part of the UK economy caught up in the big investment banks
and institutions in London. The “Strong
Pound” is good for “The City”, meaning their Wall Street. Does it help Scotland? Does it help the other parts of the UK
economy that does things like provide working class jobs? Neither the Conservatives, nor the ‘New Labor”
opposition talk much about that. The pro-independence
faction in Scotland claims to want to keep currency union with the UK, in other
words keep the Pound. But if they were
not allowed to do that, would they accept the Euro instead? Germany, France, Italy, Ireland, the Netherlands,
Belgium and about anywhere else nearby uses the Euro. Others are working hard to qualify to join
that club.
So maybe in 5 years we have Scotland part of the bigger
picture, using the Euro and the UK even more isolated in Europe than their
policies have already made them.
And the Scots have something to sell. North Sea Oil. Maybe there is only some more, maybe there is
a lot more, but right now London calls the shots and I have to think that pro-independence
Scots are looking at whatever oil is left and is thinking about how to best
sell it in ways that benefit their own country where the oil comes from. Maybe they will be able to keep the Pound
Sterling, but will they accept Euros for that oil? The thought comes to mind.
The international aspect of this vote breaks down along the
lines of who has minorities that might want to do the same thing. Supporters of the NO camp include the Spanish
government that does not want an independent Catalonia or Basque Country. Other nations see this as no problem. The Check and Slovak republics are the
product of a divorce. Go back far enough
and there are a lot of splits that have worked out fine thank you, and whole
lot of marriages that do not look so great.
Lines have moved back and forth faster than the people living behind
them can adapt and it has broken down, especially in the former Soviet Union
states, such as Eastern Ukraine today and the Ex-Yugoslavia. Keeping nations or nationalities inside of
countries they want independence from has a bad history, especially in
Europe.
In a world of growing internationalism, what does it mean
for a State like Scotland to be independent in an ever more interdependent Europe? If the game softened, the French Basque and
the Spanish Basque could have their own voice.
They already live in a world where they use the same money in the North
and South parts and there are no boarder stops, or immigration controls between
them. A French Basque does not need
permission to go live and work in any part of Spain or anywhere else in the EU. A Spanish Basque has the same rights. Independence in Europe for them would only
mean full membership in the Union and getting off the family plan they are on
now.
If I could vote I would probably vote yes and hope for the
UK to fully join the EU, including the Eurozone.
Yeah, the UK family and the European family should stick
together, but under one roof?
Scotland needs to be treated as an equal partner.
