Can Great Britain Survive a Scottish “No” Vote?
BY JOHN CASSIDY
The obvious question about the referendum on Scottish independence is: Will the secessionists win? The answer looks likely to be no. Of all the opinion polls carried out in the run-up to the vote, only one has shown the pro-independence side in the lead, and that survey was taken almost two weeks ago. The vast majority of the polls show the “no” side narrowly ahead; two published on Wednesday gave the unionists fifty-two per cent and the “yes” side forty-eight per cent, though both found a fair number of undecideds.
I wouldn’t rule out a last-minute swing toward independence. Some of the scare tactics employed by the British government and its allies over the past couple of weeks have been crude and clumsy: it’s always possible that the Scots, a proud and obstinate people, will react against them. But, assuming that the polls are accurate, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will escape intact.
But for how long?
That is the really interesting question arising out of the vote. For, although the unionist side seems likely to win this round, in the longer term the impact of the referendum could well be disastrous for those who want to maintain the status quo. About the best they can hope for is a federalized Great Britain that retains the word “United” in its name but is, for most intents and purposes, two separate countries. And even that outcome may prove to be unsustainable. Indeed, the English, who today are lamenting the possible dissolution of their beloved union, may well end up kicking the Scots out of it.
To understand why, you need to recall a bit of history. Thursday’s vote didn’t come out of nowhere. Scottish nationalism has been growing in strength since the seventies and eighties, when Mrs. Thatcher’s brand of free-market economics and militarism alienated many of those north of the border. In a 1999 referendum, the Scots voted for devolution of power to a Scottish Parliament, which came into existence two years later. Initially, the Scottish Labour Party held power. But, since 2007, the pro-independence Scottish National Party has been the biggest party. And, since 2011, it has held power alone.
Already, the Scottish government has the authority to set its own policies in many areas of domestic policy, such as education, housing, and health care. And it has started to exercise this power. In the rest of the United Kingdom, students now pay for their college degrees. In Scotland, a university education is still free. In the rest of the United Kingdom, people pay for medical prescriptions. In Scotland, they don’t. At the moment, the Parliament at Westminster still sets most tax rates and the level of state benefits, such as old-age pensions, for the entire country. But that is also changing. Beginning in 2016, the Scottish Parliament will be able to alter income-tax rates by up to ten pence in the pound. Scotland is also altering the way in which it taxes property sales, to make its methods more progressive, and it is taking over the setting of laws relating to speed limits and drunk driving.
That is only the beginning. Last week, in a desperate effort to persuade the Scots to reject independence, the three major parties in England—the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats, and Labour—came together and promised them another big dose of devolution in exchange for a “no” vote. In making this offer, relleniton Brown, the former Prime Minister, who is Scottish, described it as “nothing less than a modern form of Home Rule” for Scotland. Since then, the British government has made clear that this so-called devo-max policy would including granting the Scottish government more powers to raise taxes and borrow money, as well as the right to change some benefits and guarantee spending levels for the National Health Service in Scotland. The writ of Westminster, which would still have a full contingent of Scottish M.P.s, would be largely confined to defense and foreign policy, immigration, energy, and business regulation.
Many Scots might be content with such an outcome. But what about the English, the Welsh, and the Northern Irish? Going forward, would they be content to allow Scottish M.P.s to vote on policy measures in Westminster that shape their lives when their own representatives aren’t allowed to vote on similar issues involving Scotland, because those get decided in Edinburgh? This question was first posed in 1977, by Tam Dalyell, who was then the Labour M.P. for West Lothian. For many years, the West Lothian question, as it became known, was regarded as an interesting but hypothetical puzzler. But, as more and more powers are devolved to the Scottish Parliament, it is one that takes on great urgency. Eventually, it could lead to the breakup of Great Britain.
Imagine what will happen if there’s a “no” vote, and, over the next few years, “devo-max” is enacted. “At that point,” Janan Ganesh, a columnist for the Financial Times, notes, “MPs representing Scottish seats at Westminster, who are overwhelmingly Labour, will be voting on legislation that scarcely affects their constituents. Anybody who thinks this will be allowed to stand does not talk to enough Tory MPs, many of whose private views on Scottish independence already range from insouciance to glee.”
Alternatively, Ganesh might have added, talk to some Englishmen down the local pub. Traditionally, the English have taken a phlegmatic approach to Scottish devolution. If the Jocks want to set their own school examinations and speed limits, let them get on with it—that’s been the general view. But things are changing. Like Scottish nationalism, English nationalism is on the rise, and, in some quarters, it’s starting to be directed at the restive Scots. Nigel Farage, the leader of the jingoistic U.K. Independence Party, which wants to pull Britain out of Europe, has accused the S.N.P. of stirring up “anti-English hatred” and has described some of its supporters as “hoodlums” out to intimidate “no” voters. On Wednesday, Farage said that Alex Salmond, the S.N.P.’s leader, was fueling “vitriol” and “aberrant behavior” that could lead to riots on voting day.
Farage represents an extreme view, but he has a knack for capturing popular sentiments and prejudices. An opinion poll quoted in this week’s issue of The Economist showed that a majority of English voters already think Scottish M.P.s shouldn’t be allowed to vote on laws affecting England. As more power gets devolved to Edinburgh, this sort of sentiment will only grow stronger. And Farage and other English politicians will be there to exploit it.
To be sure, there are ways of addressing the West Lothian question short of booting the Scots from Westminster and ensuring the breakup of Great Britain. Historically, pragmatism and flexibility have been two of Britain’s strengths. Last year, a parliamentary commission led by William McKay, the former clerk of the House of Commons, suggested introducing a requirement that laws affecting England alone obtain the backing of a majority of English M.P.s. More radical ideas have also been floated, including the setting up of an English Parliament, which would have powers similar to the Scottish one. But what, then, would be the point of retaining Westminster?
The Electoral Reform Society, a progressive group that wants to modernize Britain’s ancient (and largely unwritten) constitution, is calling for the establishment of a “constitutional convention,” drawing from a wide range of parties and interest groups. “If Scotland votes No, the future of the United Kingdom will still be up in the air,” Kate Ghose, the Society’s chief executive, said in a statement on Wednesday. “It can’t be right that this future is decided entirely by political leaders decreeing from on high where power should lie.”
Despite the efforts of Ghose and other reformers, the creation of such a convention is highly unlikely. But the questions raised by the Scottish referendum can’t be swept aside. Even after a “no” vote, the union, which goes back to 1707, would be looking shakier than ever.
BY JOHN CASSIDY
The obvious question about the referendum on Scottish independence is: Will the secessionists win? The answer looks likely to be no. Of all the opinion polls carried out in the run-up to the vote, only one has shown the pro-independence side in the lead, and that survey was taken almost two weeks ago. The vast majority of the polls show the “no” side narrowly ahead; two published on Wednesday gave the unionists fifty-two per cent and the “yes” side forty-eight per cent, though both found a fair number of undecideds.
I wouldn’t rule out a last-minute swing toward independence. Some of the scare tactics employed by the British government and its allies over the past couple of weeks have been crude and clumsy: it’s always possible that the Scots, a proud and obstinate people, will react against them. But, assuming that the polls are accurate, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will escape intact.
But for how long?
That is the really interesting question arising out of the vote. For, although the unionist side seems likely to win this round, in the longer term the impact of the referendum could well be disastrous for those who want to maintain the status quo. About the best they can hope for is a federalized Great Britain that retains the word “United” in its name but is, for most intents and purposes, two separate countries. And even that outcome may prove to be unsustainable. Indeed, the English, who today are lamenting the possible dissolution of their beloved union, may well end up kicking the Scots out of it.
To understand why, you need to recall a bit of history. Thursday’s vote didn’t come out of nowhere. Scottish nationalism has been growing in strength since the seventies and eighties, when Mrs. Thatcher’s brand of free-market economics and militarism alienated many of those north of the border. In a 1999 referendum, the Scots voted for devolution of power to a Scottish Parliament, which came into existence two years later. Initially, the Scottish Labour Party held power. But, since 2007, the pro-independence Scottish National Party has been the biggest party. And, since 2011, it has held power alone.
Already, the Scottish government has the authority to set its own policies in many areas of domestic policy, such as education, housing, and health care. And it has started to exercise this power. In the rest of the United Kingdom, students now pay for their college degrees. In Scotland, a university education is still free. In the rest of the United Kingdom, people pay for medical prescriptions. In Scotland, they don’t. At the moment, the Parliament at Westminster still sets most tax rates and the level of state benefits, such as old-age pensions, for the entire country. But that is also changing. Beginning in 2016, the Scottish Parliament will be able to alter income-tax rates by up to ten pence in the pound. Scotland is also altering the way in which it taxes property sales, to make its methods more progressive, and it is taking over the setting of laws relating to speed limits and drunk driving.
That is only the beginning. Last week, in a desperate effort to persuade the Scots to reject independence, the three major parties in England—the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats, and Labour—came together and promised them another big dose of devolution in exchange for a “no” vote. In making this offer, relleniton Brown, the former Prime Minister, who is Scottish, described it as “nothing less than a modern form of Home Rule” for Scotland. Since then, the British government has made clear that this so-called devo-max policy would including granting the Scottish government more powers to raise taxes and borrow money, as well as the right to change some benefits and guarantee spending levels for the National Health Service in Scotland. The writ of Westminster, which would still have a full contingent of Scottish M.P.s, would be largely confined to defense and foreign policy, immigration, energy, and business regulation.
Many Scots might be content with such an outcome. But what about the English, the Welsh, and the Northern Irish? Going forward, would they be content to allow Scottish M.P.s to vote on policy measures in Westminster that shape their lives when their own representatives aren’t allowed to vote on similar issues involving Scotland, because those get decided in Edinburgh? This question was first posed in 1977, by Tam Dalyell, who was then the Labour M.P. for West Lothian. For many years, the West Lothian question, as it became known, was regarded as an interesting but hypothetical puzzler. But, as more and more powers are devolved to the Scottish Parliament, it is one that takes on great urgency. Eventually, it could lead to the breakup of Great Britain.
Imagine what will happen if there’s a “no” vote, and, over the next few years, “devo-max” is enacted. “At that point,” Janan Ganesh, a columnist for the Financial Times, notes, “MPs representing Scottish seats at Westminster, who are overwhelmingly Labour, will be voting on legislation that scarcely affects their constituents. Anybody who thinks this will be allowed to stand does not talk to enough Tory MPs, many of whose private views on Scottish independence already range from insouciance to glee.”
Alternatively, Ganesh might have added, talk to some Englishmen down the local pub. Traditionally, the English have taken a phlegmatic approach to Scottish devolution. If the Jocks want to set their own school examinations and speed limits, let them get on with it—that’s been the general view. But things are changing. Like Scottish nationalism, English nationalism is on the rise, and, in some quarters, it’s starting to be directed at the restive Scots. Nigel Farage, the leader of the jingoistic U.K. Independence Party, which wants to pull Britain out of Europe, has accused the S.N.P. of stirring up “anti-English hatred” and has described some of its supporters as “hoodlums” out to intimidate “no” voters. On Wednesday, Farage said that Alex Salmond, the S.N.P.’s leader, was fueling “vitriol” and “aberrant behavior” that could lead to riots on voting day.
Farage represents an extreme view, but he has a knack for capturing popular sentiments and prejudices. An opinion poll quoted in this week’s issue of The Economist showed that a majority of English voters already think Scottish M.P.s shouldn’t be allowed to vote on laws affecting England. As more power gets devolved to Edinburgh, this sort of sentiment will only grow stronger. And Farage and other English politicians will be there to exploit it.
To be sure, there are ways of addressing the West Lothian question short of booting the Scots from Westminster and ensuring the breakup of Great Britain. Historically, pragmatism and flexibility have been two of Britain’s strengths. Last year, a parliamentary commission led by William McKay, the former clerk of the House of Commons, suggested introducing a requirement that laws affecting England alone obtain the backing of a majority of English M.P.s. More radical ideas have also been floated, including the setting up of an English Parliament, which would have powers similar to the Scottish one. But what, then, would be the point of retaining Westminster?
The Electoral Reform Society, a progressive group that wants to modernize Britain’s ancient (and largely unwritten) constitution, is calling for the establishment of a “constitutional convention,” drawing from a wide range of parties and interest groups. “If Scotland votes No, the future of the United Kingdom will still be up in the air,” Kate Ghose, the Society’s chief executive, said in a statement on Wednesday. “It can’t be right that this future is decided entirely by political leaders decreeing from on high where power should lie.”
Despite the efforts of Ghose and other reformers, the creation of such a convention is highly unlikely. But the questions raised by the Scottish referendum can’t be swept aside. Even after a “no” vote, the union, which goes back to 1707, would be looking shakier than ever.
¿Podrá UK sobrevir a un no escocés?
JOHN CASSIDY
La pregunta obvia sobre el referéndum sobre la independencia de Escocia es: ¿Ganarán los secesionistas? La respuesta parece que va a ser que no. De todas las encuestas de opinión realizadas en el período previo a la votación, sólo uno ha mostrado el lado pro-independencia en la delantera, y que la encuesta fue tomada hace casi dos semanas. La gran mayoría de las encuestas muestran el lado "no" por poco por delante; dos publicada el miércoles dio a los sindicalistas de cincuenta y dos por ciento y el lado "sí" de cuarenta y ocho por ciento, aunque ambos se encuentran un buen número de indecisos.
Yo no descartaría un columpio de última hora hacia la independencia. Algunas de las tácticas de intimidación utilizadas por el gobierno británico y sus aliados en el último par de semanas han sido crudo y torpe: siempre es posible que los escoceses, un pueblo orgulloso y obstinado, reaccionará contra ellos. Pero, suponiendo que las encuestas son correctas, el Reino Unido de Gran Bretaña e Irlanda del Norte se escapará intacto.
Pero ¿por cuánto tiempo?
Esa es la pregunta realmente interesante que surja de la votación. Porque, aunque parece probable que gane esta ronda, en el largo plazo el lado unionista el impacto del referéndum podría ser desastroso para aquellos que quieren mantener el status quo. Acerca de lo mejor que puede esperar es un federalizada Gran Bretaña que conserva la palabra "Estados" en su nombre, pero es, para la mayoría de los efectos, dos países separados. E incluso ese resultado puede llegar a ser insostenible. De hecho, el Inglés, que hoy están lamentando la posible disolución de su amada unión, bien puede terminar pateando los escoceses fuera de él.
Para entender por qué, es necesario recordar un poco de historia. La votación del jueves no salió de la nada. Nacionalismo escocés ha crecido en fuerza desde los años setenta y ochenta, cuando la marca de la señora Thatcher de la economía de libre mercado y el militarismo alienado a muchos de los que al norte de la frontera. En un referéndum de 1999, los escoceses votaron por la devolución del poder a un Parlamento escocés, que entró en existencia dos años más tarde. Inicialmente, el Partido Laborista escocés mantuvo en el poder. Pero, desde 2007, el independentista Partido Nacional Escocés ha sido el partido más grande. Y, desde 2011, se ha mantenido en el poder por sí solo.
Ya, el gobierno escocés tiene la autoridad para establecer sus propias políticas en muchos ámbitos de la política nacional , como la educación, la vivienda y la asistencia sanitaria. Y ha comenzado a ejercer este poder. En el resto del Reino Unido, los estudiantes ahora a pagar sus estudios universitarios. En Escocia, una educación universitaria sigue siendo libre. En el resto del Reino Unido, la gente paga por las recetas médicas. En Escocia, no lo hacen. Por el momento, el Parlamento de Westminster sigue marcando la mayoría de los tipos impositivos y el nivel de beneficios estatales, como las pensiones de vejez, para todo el país. Pero eso también está cambiando. A partir de 2016, el Parlamento de Escocia será capaz de alterar las tasas de impuesto sobre la renta por un máximo de diez peniques en la libra. Escocia también está alterando la forma en la que grava las ventas de propiedad, para que sus métodos más progresista, y que se está apoderando de la configuración de las leyes relativas a los límites de velocidad y por conducir ebrio.
Eso es sólo el comienzo. La semana pasada, en un desesperado esfuerzo por persuadir a los escoceses para rechazar la independencia, los tres grandes partidos en Inglaterra-los conservadores, los liberales demócratas, y del Trabajo-se reunieron y les prometieron otra gran dosis de devolución a cambio de un voto "no" . Al hacer esta oferta, relleniton Brown, el ex Primer Ministro, que es escocés, lo describió como "nada menos que una forma moderna de la Home Rule "para Escocia. Desde entonces, el gobierno británico ha dejado claro que este llamado devo-max política sería incluida la concesión del gobierno escocés más poderes para recaudar impuestos y pedir prestado el dinero, así como el derecho de cambiar algunos de los beneficios y garantizar los niveles de gasto para el Sistema Nacional de Salud Servicio en Escocia. El recurso de Westminster, que todavía tienen un contingente completo de los diputados escoceses, se limita en gran medida a la defensa y la política exterior, la inmi gración, la energía y la regulación empresarial.
Muchos escoceses podrían estar contentos con este resultado. Pero ¿qué pasa con el Inglés, los galeses y los irlandeses del Norte? De cara al futuro, ¿estarían de acuerdo en permitir parlamentarios escoceses voten sobre las medidas de política en Westminster que dan forma a sus vidas cuando sus representantes no se les permite votar en temas similares con Escocia, porque los que consiguen decidió en Edimburgo? Esta pregunta se planteó primero en 1977, por Tam Dalyell, que era entonces el diputado laborista para West Lothian. Durante muchos años, la cuestión de West Lothian, como se hizo conocido, fue considerado como una interesante pero hipotético puzzle. Pero, a medida que más y más poderes se delegan en el Parlamento escocés, que es el que tiene en gran urgencia. Con el tiempo, podría conducir a la desintegración de la Gran Bretaña.
Imagina lo que sucederá si hay un "no", y, en los próximos años, "devo-max" es promulgada. "En ese momento," Janan Ganesh, columnista del Financial Times, notas , "los diputados que representan escaños escoceses en Westminster, que son abrumadoramente Trabajo, votarán sobre la legislación que apenas afecta a sus electores. Cualquiera que piense que esto se deja en reposo no hablar con suficiente parlamentarios conservadores, muchos de cuyos puntos de vista particulares sobre la independencia de Escocia ya van de despreocupación al glee ".
Alternativamente, Ganesh podría haber añadido, hable con algunos ingleses en el pub local. Tradicionalmente, el Inglés han adoptado un enfoque flemático a la devolución de Escocia. Si los Jocks quieren establecer su propio exámenes escolares y los límites de velocidad, dejarlos seguir adelante con ella-ese ha sido el punto de vista general. Pero las cosas están cambiando. Al igual que el nacionalismo escocés, el nacionalismo Inglés está en aumento, y, en algunos sectores, está empezando a ser dirigidos a los escoceses inquietos. Nigel Farage, líder del Partido por la Independencia del Reino Unido patriotero, que quiere sacar a Gran Bretaña de Europa, ha acusado al SNP de provocar " el repruebo anti-Inglés "y ha descrito algunos de sus partidarios como" matones "fuera de intimidar" no "votantes. El miércoles, Farage dijo que Alex Salmond, líder del SNP, estaba alimentando "vitriolo" y "comportamiento aberrante" que podría dar lugar a disturbios en el día de la votación.
Farage representa un punto de vista extremo, pero tiene una habilidad especial para captar los sentimientos populares y prejuicios. Un sondeo de opinión citado en la edición de esta semana de The Economist mostró que una mayoría de los votantes en inglés ya pensar diputados escoceses no se les debe permitir votar en las leyes que afectan a Inglaterra. A medida que más poder se delega a Edimburgo, este tipo de sentimiento no hará sino crecer más fuerte. Y Farage y otros políticos ingleses estarán allí para explotarla.
Para estar seguro, hay maneras de abordar la cuestión de West Lothian corto de arrancar los escoceses de Westminster y la garantía de la desintegración de la Gran Bretaña. Históricamente, el pragmatismo y la flexibilidad han sido dos de los puntos fuertes de Gran Bretaña. El año pasado, una comisión parlamentaria encabezada por William McKay, el ex secretario de la Cámara de los Comunes, sugirió la introducción de un requisito de que las leyes que afectan a Inglaterra solamente obtener el respaldo de una mayoría de diputados Inglés de ideas más radicales también han estado flotando, incluyendo la creación de un Parlamento Inglés, que tiene poderes similares a la escocesa. Pero, ¿qué, entonces, sería el punto de retener Westminster?
La Sociedad de Reforma Electoral, un grupo progresista que quiere modernizar la antigua (y en gran medida no escrita) constitución de Gran Bretaña, hace un llamamiento para el establecimiento de una "convención constitucional," dibujo de una gran variedad de partidos y grupos de interés. "Si Escocia vota No, el futuro del Reino Unido seguirá siendo en el aire," Kate Ghose, presidente ejecutivo de la Sociedad, dijo en un comunicado el miércoles. "No puede ser justo que este futuro se decide en su totalidad por líderes políticos decretando desde lo alto donde el poder debe estar ".
A pesar de los esfuerzos de Ghose y otros reformadores, es muy poco probable que la creación de dicha convención. Pero las preguntas planteadas por el referéndum escocés no pueden ser dejadas de lado. Incluso después de un voto "no", el sindicato, que se remonta a 1707, estaría buscando más inestable que nunca.
