And so the inevitable is happening-
Over three hundred years after the Act of Union in 1707, Southern Britain and Northern Ireland and Scotland look likely to go their own separate ways again. It is rather ironic that it should happen in an epoch where governance is becoming broader, and political units are getting bigger - as with the ever expanding European Union,with its increasing influence over the lives of Europeans.
However, with devolution the break-up of the United Kingdom was always going to happen sooner or later. Devolution is a one way street: it is rare that - in the neo-functionalist sense - you get 'spill-back'. So it looks likely that Scotland will be having a referendum in 2014 - if Alex Salmond gets his way, and I see no reason why he should not - to decide whether it wishes to remain a constituent and equal nation of the United Kingdom.
The United Kingdom that Salmond wants Scotland to leave is one that led a global wave of industrialisation, held sway over a quarter of the world's population, the largest empire the world has ever known, fought two world wars, English, Welsh/Cymraeg, Irish/ Northern Irish and Scottish service men and women fighting and working alongside each other in the two biggest conventional interstate wars the world has ever borne witness, and continues to have a large influence over the world. On a daily basis, British service personnel are giving their lives in Afghanistan to keep these islands, perched on the European continent's north west flank, safe - regardless of nation of origin.
And even if Scotland was to vote to become an independant nation, lots of problems and hurdles would still remain.
-What currency would an independant Scotland use?
The two options that have been put forward by Alex Salmond in the last few weeks both look rather dubious. The idea of Scotland keeping the Pound Sterling as an independent country - whilst theoretically not impossible - would leave the Scottish economy's fiscal and monetary policy split. This eventuality is akin to Zimbabwe adopting the US dollar a few years ago because its own currency became worthless as pointed out by Alistair Darling last week. Scotland would be in the bizarre position of having an independent fiscal policy whilst being in monetary union with what would remain of Great Britain. The difficulties in the Eurozone can be explained in the same way: the countries that have the Euro can indeed share the same currency, the difficulty is that each state runs a separate fiscal policy. This leads to stronger Eurozone countries metaphorically 'dragging weaker, less financially stable, countries through a bush backwards'- enforcing their economic model on other states.
The other option would be for Scotland to join the Euro. Although for the arguments stated above, this seems a self-defeating and stupid policy. In all likelyhood, Scotland - when its portion of the UK's debt is repatriated to Edinburgh, despite receiving income for North Sea oil- will not reach the entry requirements of a 3% or less budget deficit and 60% debt to GDP ratio required to join the single currency. This then seems another pie in the sky option given current economic circumstances. Not to mention that not so long ago Salmond's economic policy for an independent Scotland included creating an 'arch of prosperity' including the Republic of Ireland and Iceland - two countries that no longer appear to be examples of fine economic governance. On the back of shouldering more debt, Scotland would have to get a credit rating in order to borrow money. It would appear unlikely that an independent Scotland would be awarded a prestigious triple A rating.
-The nuclear detterent based at HMNB Clyde and Scottish industry
Another issue that would of course have to be resolved if Scotland was to become an independent nation is the UK nuclear detterent which is currently based at HMNB Clyde, near Glasgow. Who would take command of the detterent? It has been payed for out of taxpayer's money from across the UK and with Salmond's SNP determined not to enter NATO and to oversee a pullout from Afghanistan what would happen to it is in doubt. Post independence, if Scotland were to maintain the nuclear detterent for a brief period of time, and was viewed as signature of the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Treaty (NPT), given its previous link to the United Kingdom which ratified the treaty in 1968, than it would be in breach of Article 2 of the treaty. The portion of Great Britain that remained united - viewed as the primary successor state - could also conceivably be in breach of Article 1, even if Scotland did not maintain nuclear weapons. States now party to the treaty but that were still part of the British Empire when the treaty came into force have since had to ratify as non-nuclear weapon states in accordance with the treaty .
So with these two difficulties that would have to be overcome and the common sense of unity that has existed for over three hundred years between Scotland and England, it would appear that independence is not going to quite as simple as Alex Salmond wants it to be. Nevertheless, with an overall majority in Edinburgh and the Unionist parties in complete disarray, it looks as if the we may well see the breakup of the United Kingdom into its contituent ethnic groupings. The largest party in the current government, the Conservative Party, is almost an irrelevance in Scottish politics holding only one out of a possible fifty nine seats and winning less than 20% of the votes in the 2010 General Election in Scotland, and with Labour's current general confusion - the Unionists are not in a very strong position.
The next two years will decide the fate of the United Kingdom. Once one country goes, I think the entire union will likely disintegrate into its constituent chunks. Devolution was always going to lead to a looser union between the four countries that comprise it. We have now arrived at the inevitable: the time when the United Kingdom has to choose its future. Does it want to continue united - as it has successfully done for the past three hundred years - or break up. It will be sad if it chooses the later, considering what the United Kingdom has achieved in the last three centuries and can continue to achieve in the future. Devolution means that from many come one. It should represent that fact that the United Kingdom is a patchwork quilt of various cultures and languages. It does not - as Alex Salmond wants - mean that we should all go our separate ways. Together the United Kingdom is stronger than divided for all its citizens lest Alex Salmond forget.
Over three hundred years after the Act of Union in 1707, Southern Britain and Northern Ireland and Scotland look likely to go their own separate ways again. It is rather ironic that it should happen in an epoch where governance is becoming broader, and political units are getting bigger - as with the ever expanding European Union,with its increasing influence over the lives of Europeans.
However, with devolution the break-up of the United Kingdom was always going to happen sooner or later. Devolution is a one way street: it is rare that - in the neo-functionalist sense - you get 'spill-back'. So it looks likely that Scotland will be having a referendum in 2014 - if Alex Salmond gets his way, and I see no reason why he should not - to decide whether it wishes to remain a constituent and equal nation of the United Kingdom.
The United Kingdom that Salmond wants Scotland to leave is one that led a global wave of industrialisation, held sway over a quarter of the world's population, the largest empire the world has ever known, fought two world wars, English, Welsh/Cymraeg, Irish/ Northern Irish and Scottish service men and women fighting and working alongside each other in the two biggest conventional interstate wars the world has ever borne witness, and continues to have a large influence over the world. On a daily basis, British service personnel are giving their lives in Afghanistan to keep these islands, perched on the European continent's north west flank, safe - regardless of nation of origin.
And even if Scotland was to vote to become an independant nation, lots of problems and hurdles would still remain.
-What currency would an independant Scotland use?
The two options that have been put forward by Alex Salmond in the last few weeks both look rather dubious. The idea of Scotland keeping the Pound Sterling as an independent country - whilst theoretically not impossible - would leave the Scottish economy's fiscal and monetary policy split. This eventuality is akin to Zimbabwe adopting the US dollar a few years ago because its own currency became worthless as pointed out by Alistair Darling last week. Scotland would be in the bizarre position of having an independent fiscal policy whilst being in monetary union with what would remain of Great Britain. The difficulties in the Eurozone can be explained in the same way: the countries that have the Euro can indeed share the same currency, the difficulty is that each state runs a separate fiscal policy. This leads to stronger Eurozone countries metaphorically 'dragging weaker, less financially stable, countries through a bush backwards'- enforcing their economic model on other states.
The other option would be for Scotland to join the Euro. Although for the arguments stated above, this seems a self-defeating and stupid policy. In all likelyhood, Scotland - when its portion of the UK's debt is repatriated to Edinburgh, despite receiving income for North Sea oil- will not reach the entry requirements of a 3% or less budget deficit and 60% debt to GDP ratio required to join the single currency. This then seems another pie in the sky option given current economic circumstances. Not to mention that not so long ago Salmond's economic policy for an independent Scotland included creating an 'arch of prosperity' including the Republic of Ireland and Iceland - two countries that no longer appear to be examples of fine economic governance. On the back of shouldering more debt, Scotland would have to get a credit rating in order to borrow money. It would appear unlikely that an independent Scotland would be awarded a prestigious triple A rating.
-The nuclear detterent based at HMNB Clyde and Scottish industry
Another issue that would of course have to be resolved if Scotland was to become an independent nation is the UK nuclear detterent which is currently based at HMNB Clyde, near Glasgow. Who would take command of the detterent? It has been payed for out of taxpayer's money from across the UK and with Salmond's SNP determined not to enter NATO and to oversee a pullout from Afghanistan what would happen to it is in doubt. Post independence, if Scotland were to maintain the nuclear detterent for a brief period of time, and was viewed as signature of the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Treaty (NPT), given its previous link to the United Kingdom which ratified the treaty in 1968, than it would be in breach of Article 2 of the treaty. The portion of Great Britain that remained united - viewed as the primary successor state - could also conceivably be in breach of Article 1, even if Scotland did not maintain nuclear weapons. States now party to the treaty but that were still part of the British Empire when the treaty came into force have since had to ratify as non-nuclear weapon states in accordance with the treaty .
So with these two difficulties that would have to be overcome and the common sense of unity that has existed for over three hundred years between Scotland and England, it would appear that independence is not going to quite as simple as Alex Salmond wants it to be. Nevertheless, with an overall majority in Edinburgh and the Unionist parties in complete disarray, it looks as if the we may well see the breakup of the United Kingdom into its contituent ethnic groupings. The largest party in the current government, the Conservative Party, is almost an irrelevance in Scottish politics holding only one out of a possible fifty nine seats and winning less than 20% of the votes in the 2010 General Election in Scotland, and with Labour's current general confusion - the Unionists are not in a very strong position.
The next two years will decide the fate of the United Kingdom. Once one country goes, I think the entire union will likely disintegrate into its constituent chunks. Devolution was always going to lead to a looser union between the four countries that comprise it. We have now arrived at the inevitable: the time when the United Kingdom has to choose its future. Does it want to continue united - as it has successfully done for the past three hundred years - or break up. It will be sad if it chooses the later, considering what the United Kingdom has achieved in the last three centuries and can continue to achieve in the future. Devolution means that from many come one. It should represent that fact that the United Kingdom is a patchwork quilt of various cultures and languages. It does not - as Alex Salmond wants - mean that we should all go our separate ways. Together the United Kingdom is stronger than divided for all its citizens lest Alex Salmond forget.
