WITH NEXT WEEK’s referendum on Scottish independence fast approaching and with the polls showing a very tight race it’s worth reflecting on what impact independence for our Celtic cousins might have on Ireland.
Like many Irish people emotionally I’m instinctively in favour of Scottish independence.
Romantic notions of our sister Celtic nations acting in concert on the world stage are hard to push aside. Inevitably, cooperation and awareness of each other would increase hugely with independence, which would be welcome. It’s very likely we would find many common causes at European and international level.
But it’s not hard to see how Scottish independence could lead to trouble in the North, where it would hugely destabilise the Unionist community. It could possibly bring Irish unification closer, but might do so in a messy way that few would want.
It would also likely leave behind a hurt, weakened and isolationist UK. This could damage Western security and weaken NATO just as Russia becomes newly aggressive. It would also make an English exit from the EU more likely, which would open up a whole second phase of problems for us. It’s a classic heart versus head clash and I’m guessing that’s the dilemma in a lot of Scottish minds as people decide how to vote on Thursday.
High public engagement
People in Scotland know this vote matters and a truly national debate is taking place across the country. It’s been heated at times, but civilised. Predictions of an 80%+ turnout are widely accepted.
The voting age has been lowered to 16 and people who never normally vote will do so in large numbers. Are poor, disenfranchised council estate voters likely to vote Yes and No in the same proportion as those interviewed by polling companies? The First Minister, the SNP’s Alex Salmond, believes he has an unappreciated reservoir of Yes voters amongst this demographic. All this makes predictions and polling difficult, but there is no doubting the intensity of the debate.
In an era when most politics is dismissed as irrelevant it’s both fascinating and satisfying to see the really high public engagement with this debate people get that this really matters.
And of course it’ll have impacts that are much bigger than Scotland itself. Negative campaigning by No side One big feature of the campaign that has jumped out is the negativity of the No side campaign, Better Together, headed up by the former Labour chancellor Alistair Darling. They obviously cynically decided early on that scare tactics, especially on economic topics, had a better chance of success than a positive message about why Scotland is better off in the Union.
Tactics leave a bad taste
However it doesn’t say much for the Union when even its proponents can find little positive to say about it. And these tactics will leave a bad taste in Scotland’s mouth towards the rest of UK after the result, whichever way it goes.
Fostering fears over whether Scotland could keep using sterling after independence (the SNP’s preference) has been a major theme of the No side, backed up by the three main UK political parties. The currency line is ugly, rough politics, but early on it seemed to have worked at creating fear over a Yes, however latterly it may have caused resentment that might be helping fuel the late Yes surge.
Similar concerns were raised about Scottish membership of the EU and in general the No side have tried to create the impression that Scotland could not succeed on its own.
Together may be right that these negative tactics will win the day, but spending two years telling your own people they would be a flop on their own is a bit depressing and it’s not much of a prospectus. It says a lot about what even many pro-union Scots think of the Union.
The fear-mongering also risks flipping a resentment switch in voters who want to vote No but haven’t been given a positive pitch and feel like their nation is being insulted. Its a dangerous game. This will be a cohort to watch out for in the exit polls.
In reality the UK and EU would resolve all these ‘problematic’ issues amicably in the case of independence as it would be in all parties’ interests to do so.
Could Scotland vote Yes?
Disenchantment with politics and inability to change policy through elections (since most parties share similar programs) means voters today are willing to take disruptive risks, meaning a Yes vote is perhaps more likely than it would be in more settled times.
In recent years we’ve seen such disenchantment appear as votes for UKIP in England, but it’s a phenomenon with deeper roots in Scotland, where they have never got the governments they voted for. A Yes vote would separate them from a Westminster that has never reflected Scotland’s politics that has a big appeal.
Concern over hard economic realities means the referendum may still result in a No vote, if only narrowly. However the Union will be weakened either way and if it’s a close No result the issue will not be settled with any finality. The tactics of the UK political class in opposing independence will leave long term resentment too.
It’s certainly going to be close. The nasty, scary No side stuff seems to have backfired after some initial success. And Salmond has run an superb campaign. It had at one point looked like the Yes side had peaked too early, but recent polls show that isn’t so. And we know from Irish referenda that with momentum like this and a tight margin in polling this far out the result on polling day often goes against the establishment side.
Boost for democracy
Regardless of the result the referendum process itself has been excellent for democracy. Citizens have been reminded that their vote can change their country.
Many voters have stopped believing this truth in the demoralising years since the 2008 crash, which have been dominated by unresponsive parties that refuse to deliver change. Whether they vote Yes or No Scottish voters are radically altering their political dispensation by the ballot box, reminding us that democracy can still be used to change our societies. It is a timely lesson that voters looking in from Ireland might well be influenced by in the years ahead.
Impacts on Ireland
There has been surprisingly little coverage or comment on Scottish independence in Ireland, but a Yes vote would affect us on many fronts. Irish politicians’ silence on the topic can be justified as a polite respect for the sovereignty of the Scottish people and not interfering in their decision-making, but its also due to the fact many Irish politicians are conflicted it’s heart versus head again an instinctive support for independence versus an awareness that it would bring with it lots of complications.
However independence could happen and it should be more on our radar. A selection of possible issues that come to mind includes:
● instability in NI politics
● changes to Common Travel Area with UK will it be extended to Scotland?
● impacts on residency rights of Irish in UK and Scotland and vice versa
● immigration changes in UK and/or Scotland that impact here
● practicalities around NI border and onward travel to Scotland
● new FDI competition with a Scotland offering similar product to us
● new trade barriers (unlikely as Scotland will stay within EU)
● currency changes (unlikely to be a major issue but needs consideration)
● changed relationships and power balance with UK and within EU
● defence issues if UK moves assets (e.g. Royal Navy ships) from Scotland to NI
● energy issues one of only two existing UK interconnectors lands in Scotland
● fishing rights conflicts
● other unforeseen consequences
We will successfully adapt to whatever the decision the Scottish make, but we should be putting more thought into the issues independence might raise.
Northern Ireland
Although a Yes vote for independence would have a huge impact on Northern Ireland it has not featured much in the campaign in Scotland. Of course the Scots deserve the right to make the decision about the future of their nation on their own terms. They shouldn’t be constrained by the potential impacts a Yes vote might have on the various tribes in the North.
If independence is the decision, the North, and everyone else on these islands will have to accommodate themselves to Scotland’s sovereign choice.
Politicians in the North have been very careful to say little in the Scottish debate. Because the sectarian conflict in NI has seeped into Scotland (the Celtic Rangers rivalry being the most visible example) any comment by a Northern politician can be inflammatory, but also counter-productive.
A Northern Unionist speaking for a No vote is more likely to motivate potential Yes voters and any Sinn Féin call for a Yes vote would reinforce the determination of certain No voters. The big No march by the Orange Order in Edinburgh this weekend makes the point the official No campaign see it doing them damage and are trying to distance themselves from it.
Serious situation
Nevertheless, if Scotland does break away it will cause a serious situation in the North that we and the rump UK will have to manage. Scottish independence could hugely destabilise the unionist community there. The people they have the most natural political and cultural affinity with will have left the political union that they will remain attached to.
The Crown and the British Army would still offer an historic link to the UK for Northern Unionists, but for most it was never the English they valued unity with on a cultural or personal level, it was the Scots. The consequences are hard to predict, but it is no small issue, the impact could be enormous.
Parallels with 1922
Interestingly both the Scottish government and the UK government look to the example of the exit of the Irish Free State from the UK in 1922 for inspiration as to how independence might happen in practice.
The Scots use it for precedent on maintaining a currency union (we only unpegged the punt from sterling in 1979) and a free travel area (with generous residency and political rights) after independence. Both of these issues make hesitant would-be-Yes voters nervous so to be able to point to a real example is very helpful to Salmond.
In the case of the UK government 1922 let’s them make the unambiguous case that they would be the successor state after independence, keeping the UN Security Council seat, the nuclear weapons (something the SNP don’t want anyway) and the Bank of England and hence control over sterling. 1922 laid much of the legal and constitutional groundwork that would be needed to accomplish Scottish independence in practice.
Of course the big difference with Irish independence is that the current process has featured no violence a democratic choice is being freely made by the people of an ancient nation, in a process that both the Scottish and UK governments approved. And internally, despite heated debate, there has been no violence and little trouble around the campaign. This is a most welcome aspect of the current process.
Scotland decides its destiny
Turnout will be exceptionally high, and all the latest polls indicate an extremely close race. However, given the atypical nature of the voters turning out traditional polling will have struggled to have captured their views. The lower voting age and the participation of marginalised voters that normally don’t engage in the political process favours the Yes side.
Combined with the current disenchantment with mainstream politics and the longstanding Scottish disenchantment with Westminster it’s very possible Scottish independence will be carried.
If it is, it will be a political earthquake for these islands, one we are not ready for. It might be time to start thinking about who should be Ireland’s first ambassador to Scotland.
Dr Kevin Byrne writes about Irish policy and politics at NowOrSoon.com. You can follow him on Facebook or @noworsoon
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
have your say