Home >> Europe >> Great Britain

     Email   Print 

Scottish Independence - Reality or Illusion?

Lorna Thomas - 5/1/2007

Should the SNP or Scottish Nationalist Party win the May 3 election, it plans to hold a referendum on independence in its first term of office. Scotland faces the decision of becoming independent from Britain. The pro-European SNP campaigns for 'independence in Europe'. But would this be a reality? Has the SNP any real authority to promise Scotland independence in Europe when as a non-member it stands outside of European policy-making?

At the same time, Europe is yet to adopt its Constitution, which could have far-reaching effects politically, including the appointment of a leadership enabling it to speak and act with 'one voice'?

In 1999, in a paper entitled 'Scotland Europa: Independence in Europe' Matthew Happold, a Research Officer at the British Institute of International and Comparative Law concluded that the SNP's use of this phrase could mislead the electorate.

'The SNP's use of the phrase Independence in Europe seeks to persuade the Scottish electorate that it can have its cake and eat it, that Scotland can have both the benefits of independence and the security of membership of the European Union. However, the real situation is that an independent Scotland might end up with all the insecurities of independence and none of the benefits of EU membership.'

In January 2007, Tony Blair warned that 'it would be crazy for Scotland to be wrenched out of the UK.'

'Mr Blair said at Downing Street: "If Scotland ends up with an independence bill and referendums on Scottish independence, then you are just going to create a situation of enormous uncertainty and instability." Patrick Wintour and Severin Carrell, The Guardian, Wednesday January 17, 2007

One difference between 1999, the year of devolution, and 2007 is that a united Europe is far more focused, has more power and is more than ever determined to have a strong influence in world affairs.


ECONOMIC CONCERNS

From an economic standpoint alone, independence appears to hold no benefits for Scotland. A poll was carried out in January 2007 by MORI Scotland for the independent business organization, Scottish Industry Forum amongst 100 leading businesses.

75% of Scotland's biggest companies felt that independence for Scotland would be worse for business. 'Asked if full independence would be better or worse for business, as opposed to a devolved Parliament as currently planned, only 6% felt the business environment would be improved.

One respondent said, "it (independence) would be catastrophic for Scotland. We are a very small country and are much stronger when united with the rest of the UK. When Europe is grouping together for strength it would be ludicrous for a small country like Scotland to be separating."

Edward Cunningham, Chair of the Scottish Industry Forum, said, "the results of this survey confirm the deep concern which business has over the possibility of independence.' (Scots Businesses Worse Off In Independent Scotland, Ipsos MORI)


POLITICAL CONCERNS

Depending on the May 3 outcome, an SNP led Executive in the Scottish Parliament plans to hold a referendum on independence in its first term of office. The SNP states 'To have a voice in Europe you have to be a member state. To be a member state you have to be independent.' In effect, Scotland is forced to seek independence in order to be 'independent in Europe'.

The strongly pro-European SNP has adopted the slogan of 'Independence in Europe'. While seeking to exit the Union with Britain, even if Scotland is finally admitted to the European Union, it may find the conditions and constraints of such a Union far more demanding than the current Union with
Britain.

The EU is moving closer to speaking with one voice. Angela Merkel, Germany's Chancellor, has sought to revive the stalled EU constitution currently allowing for a President and a Foreign minister and giving the EU a united, identifiable presence on the world stage.

Rather than EU member countries maintaining independence, as the SNP seeks to promote to the Scottish electorate in its drive for Scotland's 'independence', should Scotland be allowed to join the EU, allegiance to the centralized government could soon override individual national loyalties and 'independence'.

Since the time Scotland achieved devolution in 1999, the EU has grown significantly in power and strength. In 2007, the SNP should not overestimate any influence Scotland would be able or allowed to exert in a Europe which is chartering its own path, with Germany and Russia as key players.

The SNP defines Scottish Independence and Independence in Europe as 'full control by the people of Scotland over all their own affairs, apart from control in any areas where they have freely agreed to share power with others. Independence means the people of Scotland acting through their own parliament and government under a constitution of their own, over which they have final authority. Independence will be brought about by the democratic choice of the people of Scotland, expressed through a referendum.

'Scotland is an ancient nation, and its people have modern democratic rights. Independence is about controlling our own destiny for the benefit of all our people. Independence is normal for nations of Scotland’s size, and Independence is now necessary if Scotland is to achieve her potential in the world.'

A promise of 'Independence in Europe' will NOT give Scotland the freedom the SNP promises. Europe is set on steering its own course and nations who want to be part of it will have to conform to its legislations rather than 'controlling' their 'own destiny' and affairs. Scotland will not be able to have 'full control' over all its affairs if part of Europe.

Any real or perceived restrictions placed on Scotland's freedom and choices in the Union with England at present could pale into insignificance by comparison to conforming to EU legislation in the future.


RELIGIOUS CONCERNS

The SNP unveiled a poster campaign saying the union had been foisted on Scotland. SNP leader Alex Salmond said: "Those in the London parties who would deny the people their right to choose are the political reincarnation of the 'parcel of rogues' of 1707 who sold Scotland away."

Emotional rhetoric regarding the past may stir feelings of nationalism, but the fact is that both England and Scotland have benefited from the Union of its peoples – whereas Mr Salmond is asking Scots to step into another union which essentially has no guarantees for their future or well-being.

In the argument for devolution and independence, the argument of British overlordship in centuries past has been used. Yet others in the past have seen the alliance between England and Scotland as reaching further back, a factor in helping both nations stand against European domination. This is of significance in view of a uniting Europe.

According to historian, G.M. Trevelyan a bond was forged in the 16th century between England and Scotland as they gained their independence from European domination in both the spiritual and secular sense. In 1603 James VI of Scotland ruled over both Scotland and England as James I. (He authorised the King James translation of the Bible.)

In his book ‘English and Scottish Reformations, History of England’, (p.330-331) G.M. Trevelyan wrote:

‘If the year 1559 is to count as the first of modern England, it is still more decidedly the birth year of modern Scotland. The precise coincidence in time of the final breach with Rome to north and to south of the Border, though largely accidental, was of great consequence.

'The double event secured the unbroken permanence of the Reformation in both countries, and drew English and Scottish patriotism, which had hitherto thrived on mutual hostility, into an alliance of mutual defence.

'In both countries the Reformation meant release from continental dominion, secular no less than spiritual. In the autumn of 1558 England was a Roman Catholic country virtually subject to Spain, and Scotland was a Roman Catholic country virtually subject to France.

'Two years later each was a Protestant country cleared of foreign soldiery and rulers, and closely identifying its newly chosen religion with its national independence.

'The double rebellion succeeded because Spain and France remained rivals, while England and Scotland became friends for the first time since the reign of Edward 1. In the stress of that twofold crisis the foundations of Great Britain were laid by William Cecil and John Knox.’

Will religion again become a factor and a cause of division in Europe? The late Pope John Paul II called for Europe to look to its Christian roots and a future EU constitution will no doubt include such a requirement. The schism between Catholic and Orthodox churches is healing, evident in the overtures made between Russia and Italy in the early months of 2007, but a greater rift between Catholic and Protestant could emerge in the future.

Also binding Scotland and England – and Ireland - in identity and heritage, is their common tradition that their monarchs are crowned sitting above the stone reputed to be Jacob's Pillar stone – the stone he rested his head on when God appeared to him in a dream and promised to bless his descendants, and Jacob vowed to obey God. (Gen 28:10-22)

'Advocates of devolution think of Scotland as a single political unit. But, like Ireland, Scotland is made up of separate tribes who have had as much to do with peoples elsewhere in the British Isles as with each other.

'The greatest conflicts fought within these islands – the civil and religious wars of the 17th century and the Jacobite rebellion of the 18th – did not range Englishmen against Scotsmen: they cut laterally across both nations.

'The next journey of the Stone of Scone should serve to remind us of the common identity of the British peoples. We are woven together with a complexity that cannot easily be unpicked.' (The Union Set in Stone, The Weekly Telegraph, Issue No 259)

The peoples of the United Kingdom have benefited from the Union and in past centuries enjoyed prestige united, rather than divided.

Should nationalistic rhetoric be allowed to undo the Union 'set in Stone' with promises that have no basis and cannot and will not be fulfilled for Scotland by voting for 'independence in Europe'?

As unbelievable as it may seem, unless the right choices are now made, unless the peoples of Britain place their dependence on God rather than 'independence in Europe', they could instead face national captivity to their enemies, the ultimate horrifying loss of freedom for any people.