United Kingdom: Bickering over Scottish independence

The British prime minister is “playing a risky game” with Scotland, said the London Independent in an editorial. The Scottish government said last week that it would hold a referendum on independence from Britain, a referendum it doesn’t technically have the legal authority to call. But David Cameron said he would allow it as long as the question was just yes or no on independence. Scottish leader Alex Salmond wants a third option on the ballot, “devolution max,” which would give Scotland full autonomy as part of Britain. Salmond thinks that option will cause the pro-union vote to split, ensuring a victory for pro-independence forces. The problem is, by allowing a vote but not allowing devo max, Cameron could push “wavering Scots toward the separatist arguments.”

Why should the Scots be the only ones to get a say in whether my country splits? asked Matthew Parris in the Times. And “‘split’ is the word.” This is not just a case of “lopping off an extremity and tossing it into the North Sea.” The United Kingdom would be dissolved. Not only would Scotland be a new country, but so would the resulting England/Wales/Northern Ireland entity. “It would be outrageous for the Union to be dismembered without all its parts being consulted.” Indeed, “the more you think about breaking up the U.K., the more complicated it looks,” said Neil O’Brien in the Telegraph. The process would give rise to huge costs. The British armed forces would have to be picked apart. What’s left of the union might inherit the U.K. seat on the U.N. Security Council—or it might just lose it. Scotland wouldn’t want to join the euro, so it would keep the pound but lose its influence over monetary policy. The two states would “bicker for decades” about divvying up North Sea oil.

In truth, few people are really taking the prospect of independence seriously, said Ian Smart in the Scotsman on Sunday. If there were a widespread belief that it might happen in five years, Scotland’s major public companies—Standard Life, the Royal Bank of Scotland, Scottish Power, etc.—would spend significant resources “war-gaming” what that would mean for them. “They don’t.” Foreign powers, such as the U.S., would be in discreet talks with Scotland about its future foreign policy. “They aren’t.” The EU would be considering the terms of continued Scottish membership. “It’s not.” And most tellingly, Scottish members of the British Parliament would be planning a career change. Yet even those from the Scottish National Party are doing no such thing. That tells me that while Scotland may yet gain more autonomy from London, it’s not about to declare independence.

Subscribe to The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

Sign up

What Scots really want is power over their own purse strings, said Simon Jenkins in the London Guardian. As it is now, “Scotland gobbles English money, and nationalist politicians win votes by spending it on student grants, health prescriptions, and wind turbines.” Enough of that—let them try to live on their own tax revenues. Devolution would end London’s “costly subvention of Scotland.” That Cameron would oppose it is “baffling.”