Scotland had its much anticipated referendum on September 18. The no side took 55% of the vote which on the face it seems like a positive outcome for those promoting unity as opposed to separation. The results also brought relief to those of us who believe in federalism as a method of keeping together states divided by ethnicity and religion.
What was especially fascinating was the world-wide fascination and interest in the eventual outcome. The United Kingdom no doubt remains an important country. It’s a key player in the European Union despite its nationalistic outbursts with regard to Brussel’s powers, and it remains a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. But equally important, the United Kingdom remains one of the most democratic and prosperous liberal democracies in the world. Why then would a region of Britain attempt to end a 300 year old union? This is not an academic issue. There are fewer than 200 countries in the world, but there are thousands of ethnic groups speaking an equal amount of languages and dialects, not to mention divisions along race and religion. Practically every country has either some form of ethnic, racial, or religious division. Usually these minority groups are indigenous to a particular region of a country. The concern is obvious. Imagine if the yes side had prevailed setting in motion eventual separation from the United Kingdom. What message would this send to the Catalans in Spain or to Muslims in the Philippines? Would a yes side have revived the separatist movement in Quebec, Canada’s second most populous province? Would it encourage countries in Africa to dissolve along ethnic, religious, or tribal lines? The Democratic Republic of the Congo with its numerous ethnicities and tribes come to mind.
Why did 45% of Scots vote yes? To answer this question one has to start with demographics. The vote was extended to 16 year olds, and of course the overwhelming majority voted to secede while older votes generally speaking voted to stay in the union. Men also voted at a higher proportion than females to secede. Lastly, and most revealingly, there was a class dimension, with the middle and upper classes generally voting no, while those suffering economically such as the poor and the unemployed voting to secede. British prosperity is regionally based, much as it is in the United States, China, Canada, Italy, and a host of other countries. And in this sense Scottish nationalism brings into focus a new dimension to the whole concept of separatism. Yes the Scots are an ethnic group separate from the English, the Welsh, and the Irish in Northern Island, but the similarities whether in regard to language, religion, or lifestyle with the rest of the UK is similar and far outweigh the differences. In the end, this vote was a way for Scots at the lower end of the economic scale to voice their objections to what the United Kingdom has evolved into, a phenomenon that started with Margaret Thatcher’s dismantling of the social welfare system and privatization of state run companies in the 1970s. The UK many would argue, especially in the poorer regions of Scotland, has become Europe’s version of Singapore, a kind of city state run from London, with an economy based on finance and real estate, and where the social and economic elite are better acquainted with other financial centers like New York than they are with Glasgow or even Liverpool.
British governments have been attempting to deal with Scottish nationalism through what the Brits call devolution. It’s not quite federalism as we know it here in North America. Many skeptics call it Britain’s attempt to alleviate Scottish feelings by giving them a Parliament with few powers. They may or may not be right, but now the real struggle begins as the UK attempts to devise some form of federalism that might put to an end the issue of Scottish succession. Federalism in and by itself is not the problem. Federalist systems in general tend to be both more democratic and prosperous than their unitary counterparts. By federalist is meant true federalist countries rather than unitary states like Russia that are federalist in name only. The United States, Canada, Switzerland, Belgium, Germany, and Australia are all examples of prosperous and democratic federal states. The British government has numerous states that it can borrow ideas from. But the problems facing the British Parliament are numerous. For starters, it has operated as a unitary state since the union with Scotland was created back in the 18th century. The Brits, in other words, simply don’t have any experience with federalism. This is also true for the British courts which have largely operated within a unitary state. One can imagine British judges scrambling to buy Professor Lawrence Tribe’s book on US constitutional law, or better still, Peter Hogg’s treatise on Canada’s constitution, since the British form of government is closer to Canada’s. It would be as if federalist states like the United States and Canada were asked to turn themselves into unitary states.
The other issue is English nationalism which seems to be on the rise and which seems to be a reaction to both Britain’s place in the European Union and Scottish nationalism. Should England also be given its own Parliament? In other words, should Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland, and England, each have their own local Parliament with equal & substantial powers? What would the effect be on the national government in London? Would it make the national government irrelevant as some traditionalists might argue? Or can a system be devised where each level of government would be given jurisdiction over matters that come naturally to it? The British have some extraordinary decisions to make with regard to how they’re likely to be governed for decades to come. Federalism isn’t created overnight. Do the British make piece meal changes or is some grand constitutional agreement negotiated between the different regions? The lack of British awareness with regard to how federalism works is obvious. Some English MPs believe for example that Scottish MPS should not be allowed to vote on matters affecting England like health care and education if Scotland is given special and exclusive powers over these two areas. I know of no federal system that works this way. Other English MPS think only certain regions in England like Cornwall should be provided with a regional Parliament. But why should one region be favoured over another?
The road ahead for the United Kingdom will be long and difficult, something which seems to have escaped Prime Minister David Cameron who naively believes that the issue of Scottish dependence has been settled for at least a generation. What then should the British government attempt to do in the next few years? The first goal is determine whether a form of federalism should be created for the entire country or whether the Scottish Parliament should be given more power over issues that matter to the Scots, like job creation, health care, social services, and education. The other equally important goal is to bring economic prosperity to regions of Scotland that never fully recovered from the British decision to end state subsidized industries and the social welfare system that went with it. History shows that federalism is the best model for protecting minority rights. Unitary states will likely become a thing of the past as minority groups around the world begin to fight for their rights as separate entities within a bigger whole. In conclusion, some form of federalism along with prosperity should keep the UK and other countries from splitting apart. A unitary model with regional disparities won’t cut it for either Britain or other countries divided by ethnicity or religion.
