on Scotland's Independence Referendum

It was an interesting week on planet earth. After being a member of the United Kingdom for over 300 years, Scotland had a referendum deciding whether to end that union and become an independent nation or not; a simple Yes or No were the only answers on the ballot. In a record turnout, Scotland voted 55% to 45% to remain with the UK. As a result of the No vote, the UK Parliament in London has offered to grant Scotland and the rest of the other nations that comprise the UK further devolutionary powers to their regional Parliaments.

As a bit of a romantic and a sucker for long shots, lost causes, self-determination, David vs. Goliath ... you get the picture, I was hoping to see Scotland gain independence and was very interested in seeing if the new country could function on its own. The history of the UK is long and complicated and the way the UK is organized even more so, but a couple of good informational videos by YouTube's CGPGrey explaining these items are below.

As exciting as the prospect of asserting your independence and establishing a new nation can appear, huge hurdles would have needed to be overcome. What currency would an independent Scotland use?  Would it have to reapply for membership in the European Union? (The EU is a different animal; to see a snapshot of its asterisks an addendum's, please see another of CGPGrey's videos below (yes, I waste many hours sometimes into the wee hours of the morning watching these videos, but they are informative, entertaining, and convey a point that I am trying to convey better than I could in a shortish blog post.)

Members of the EU, EEA, Schengen, or EuroZone have an assortment of benefits that allow them to
move around the continent with ease. An independent Scotland would lose these benefits, at least at first. Scotland is actually more liberal than England and liberal Europeans prefer continental integration instead of regional nationalism and would therefore probably seek to integrate more with Europe. (Which I think is ironic seeing as how Scotland was voting for independence). The UK is a member of the EU, but has an opt out for currency and has its own border controls. Scotland would have to answer many of these questions and more from scratch. What would happen to British military units and gear - Britain's Trident submarines were a huge sticking point, what would happen to Scotland's membership in NATO, would the new country be able to support itself financially? The idea was that a plan would be decided upon and enacted before March 2016, but the uncertainty about how Scotland would proceed probably tipped the "No" scale into their favor.

In any case, Scotland, Wales, England, and Northern Ireland will have the opportunity to gain more local autonomy. At the very least, it got London's attention ... at least that is the hope.

The concept that people have the right to govern themselves in a manner that is best for them is one
that is not lost on many people around the world. Sometimes the application of that concept is civil and sometimes it isn't. I applaud the Scots for making the attempt; although the debates were fierce, the losers aren't in an uproar or rioting in the streets, though I imagine a few bottles of Scotch were consumed over the past few days. Something had to go seriously wrong in London for the Scots to seriously consider a vote at all. 45% of your population deciding it was time to form a new country is quite significant, especially since only about a third of American colonists supported independence from the British Crown.

In my opinion some of the world's strife can be solved by letting people govern themselves. The middle east today was drawn on a map after the Ottoman Empire was defeated in World War I or other mandates imposed by - ironically - the British Empire. Iraq is the mess it is because democracy won't work in a region with many conflicting ethnic groups that are loyal to their communities more than their country anyway. Would it be easier if Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds were allowed to govern themselves separately provided they didn't attack the other groups? Iraqi Kurdistan is making a case for independence with IS wreaking havoc on an impotent Iraqi government. Heck, even Turkey might consider it and they have despised the idea for years. Would it solve their problems overnight? Absolutely not, but I think peace is more likely if people are ruled how they want to be ruled ... consent of the governed anyone?

For me it is refreshing to see a country act on what it thinks is its best interests and the opposition sitting down and trying to determine an amicable solution. America is wracked with deadlock and extreme partisanship. Would certain US states get so fed up with the status quo so as to try something similar? At this stage I doubt it. The most I see is states taking the initiative and trying to solve problems themselves. The notion of a state trying to break away from the Union is a romantic one, but is pursued by a very small portion of the population; though admittedly enough people voted in a poll on a White House website to get the Administration to answer whether they'd let Texas split from the Union if they wanted to (which they do not have the right to do legally speaking). Without a solid plan, forming a new country in all likelihood would not work so well. The Founders of the US didn't have the clearest picture of the country they wanted to create, but they had a goal in mind ... preserving and protecting the rights of Americans. The Declaration of Independence gives us permission to form a new government if the one we have does not abide by the wishes of the people it governs. Granted, the Declaration of Independence carries no weight in
Scotland and really only carries any weight in the US if people actually believe and act on it, the principle of self-determination and consent of governance applies. The people of Scotland gave the Crown consent to continue to govern ... with caveats. Hopefully the MPs at Westminster can follow through.