Scotland wants to secede from the UK. The UK has left the EU: Scotland and Northern Ireland are leaving England for Brussels
On Thursday, British Prime Minister Theresa May was due to announce the start of the country's exit from the European Union. Instead, the main topic of the day was the Scottish Prime Minister's announcement of his intention to hold a referendum on secession from the UK. London can take the country away from Europe only at the cost of disintegration - either of its own state, or of a united Europe.
The former world hegemon cannot decide on the direction of his movement. After the majority of citizens (52 percent) last June, contrary to the expectations and wishes of most of the elite, unexpectedly voted for the UK to leave the EU, the British government still cannot begin the Brexit procedure itself.
Just a few days ago, Prime Minister May was expected to announce on March 9 that the time had passed - and the process, which is expected to take two years, would officially begin. But last week the House of Lords introduced a number of amendments to the Withdrawal Bill, so the start of Brexit had to be delayed until the end of March. However, there is no certainty that the UK will actually leave Europe in the end. More precisely, it is not clear whether all of it will come out of it. Scotland once again reiterates its desire to remain in the EU - which means London is being asked to choose between preserving the country’s unity and independence from the European Union. So, of course, it is possible to leave the EU - only as a result of the exit itself, part of it will break away from the United Kingdom.
Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said in an interview with the BBC that a new referendum on independence is possible as early as autumn 2018. Officially, the course for a referendum may be taken next week, on March 17, when a conference of the ruling Scottish People's Party in the autonomy takes place - but Sturgeon is its leader, and she formulates her position quite clearly. Even earlier, she said that “the inflexible May is pushing us towards a second referendum,” and now she directly stated:
“As the Kingdom's deal to leave the EU becomes clearer, I think it would be the right time for Scotland to make its choice.”
The Scots want to vote early, before the country leaves the EU - in order to say that in this case they are leaving the UK. The likelihood that the population of the north of the island between the EU and the UK will choose a united Europe is very high. Just look at the results of the latest votes.
Yes, supporters of Scottish independence lost the referendum in September 2014, but it took place under completely different conditions. And the Scots were scared that if they left the UK, they would have to leave the EU, and partly this argument worked. After this, statements were made that a referendum takes place only once in a generation, so the next one should not be expected earlier than in 20 years. However, further events developed according to a completely different – anti-European – scenario.
Nine months later, in May 2015, the Conservatives again won the parliamentary elections - largely because leader Cameron, wanting to attract votes dissatisfied with European integration, promised to hold a referendum on Britain’s membership in the EU. The elites thought that the majority would still vote to remain in the union - however, in June 2016, supporters of full British independence won.
They won, however, not everywhere. In Scotland, 62 percent voted against leaving, while in the UK as a whole - only 48. Thus, the Scots showed that they do not want to leave Europe. But the four-hundred-year-old alliance with England may well be destroyed.
The situation for London is extremely unpleasant. A referendum in Scotland requires permission from the central government, and Theresa May may not give it. So far, London denies the very possibility of the collapse of the state: “Our position is absolutely clear: we do not believe that a second referendum should be held,” May’s representative said on Thursday. At the very least, May does not want a referendum in Scotland to take place before Brexit is completed. The only problem is that Sturgeon does not agree with this.
And if the demand for a referendum is formalized at the level of the Scottish Parliament, London's refusal to allow the referendum will lead to a serious crisis in the relationship between the central government and Edinburgh. It will be impossible to block Scotland's resolve for long. If not in 2018, then a year or two later they will still have to be allowed to hold a referendum.
In addition, parliamentary elections are scheduled for 2020 in the UK, and by this time the country must decide both on leaving the EU and on Scottish independence. It will not be possible to combine one with the other - more precisely, the chances of this are illusory.
Theoretically, London has only one option to avoid a referendum in Scotland: to make concessions to Edinburgh on the issue of the European Union, that is, to maintain a single market for goods and services between Scotland and the EU. Then Sturgeon and her party will abandon the demand for a referendum.
But maintaining a common market between Scotland and the EU would be completely at odds with May's entire hard Brexit plan. Not to mention the fact that the EU will not be happy with this option, and the unity of Great Britain in this case will still be under threat. What kind of country is this, part of whose territory lives under different laws? Thus, in reality, there is only one way to preserve the unity of Great Britain: the Scots must become disillusioned with the European Union.
The former “mistress of the seas” herself is now unable to provoke confusion and vacillation in a united Europe - so we can only hope that Eurosceptics will begin to come to power in the EU countries. Thus, perhaps the only path to preserving the union of England and Scotland now runs through the victory in the French presidential elections Marine Le Pen and the defeat of the main European integrator Angela Merkel in the German elections in September. This is how the future of Great Britain and a united Europe is now being formulated through four women - May, Sturgeon, Le Pen and Merkel.
When Scotland voted confidently to remain part of the United Kingdom two years ago, naive minds believed that the issue of independence was off the agenda. But Canadians know well that the inviolable rule of separatist movements is to repeat attempts as often as necessary to wear down those who oppose them. The Separatists only need to win once, while their opponents have to win every time.
Nicola Sturgeon understands these dynamics, she announced the second stage of the implementation of plans to secede from the UK, nurtured by her Scottish National Party. As Scotland's First Minister, she told the party conference she was prepared to introduce legislation to create the conditions for a second referendum to be held in the next two years. It is no coincidence that these dates coincide with Britain's planned negotiations on leaving the European Union.
The British vote for Brexit means that "Scotland faces one of those specific scenarios where the government says the Scottish Parliament has the right to hold a referendum on independence," Sturgeon said. “There are unacceptable risks to our democratic, economic and social interests, and to the rights of the Scottish Parliament to have its say,” she concluded.
While English voters voted to leave the EU, the vast majority of people in Scotland voted to remain in it. This part of the United Kingdom has no choice but self-determination, only as an independent state can Scotland remain in the European Union, retaining all the benefits that open borders and a 28-nation market bring.
However, secession from the UK will not be as simple as Scottish nationalists imagine it to be. The right to call a referendum belongs to London, and the first plebiscite was held only because the Prime Minister David Cameron agreed to carry it out. There is no guarantee that his successor Theresa May will be just as loyal, especially considering that the results of the first referendum literally hung by a thread in the last minutes of voting.
Sturgeon could hold a “consultative referendum” in the hope of winning the support of the vast majority of citizens over May’s head. The results of such a referendum would not have any official status, but if May ignores them, the Scots will feel offended and separatist sentiments will grow. Sturgeon would have liked just such a development of events, she has already noted that the discontent of the Scots could be mitigated by “significant additional powers of the Scottish Parliament.”
Yes, just as Quebec uses the threat of secession from Canada to shake out habitual concessions from Ottawa, the Scottish National Party uses this threat as effective means obtaining maximum powers for Scottish legislators sitting in Edinburgh. Ideal results would be those that fit into the invented René Leveque* the "sovereignty-association" formula, according to which Scotland gains all the benefits of independence without experiencing the disruptions that secession brings.
Avoiding these upsets is important because there is no guarantee that a second referendum will be more successful ( for supporters of secession - ed.) than the first one. During the build-up to the 2014 referendum, it was proclaimed that Scotland's share of North Sea oil reserves would help overcome any financial difficulties when access to the mother's purse ceased. But oil prices have fallen, and no one knows when they will rise again, if they ever rise at all. Usually they grow, this happens over time, but the formula “over time” is not suitable for governing a country.
Scotland is adopting the same method as for a long time Quebec was successful. She makes demands and forces London to respond to them.
Sturgeon said Scotland would make constructive proposals, but “if it turns out that only independence can protect Scotland's interests”, she will hold a new referendum on how the results of Brexit will be implemented.
London responded to Sturgeon's threats. May seems to be a tougher politician than Cameron; she has already stated that there will be no review of the decision to leave the EU. This has given rise to discussions about hard Brexit and soft Brexit scenarios, which differ in that in the second case Britain could leave ( EU - ed.), retaining all trade ties and prerogatives. While Britain debates the most favorable conditions With his departure, Sturgeon will put pressure on May to do the same for Scotland.
For Sturgeon and her fellow nationalists, uncertainty is key. It allows you to make threats and demand a special approach just when London is considering the details of Brexit. The more their campaign unsettles England, the more likely weary voters will decide it's time to pack their bags and call it quits. This is exactly what Sturgeon and his separatists are hoping for.
*René Levesque (Rene Levesque, 1922−1987) - Quebec journalist, government and politician, founder of the separatist Parti QuebecoisPQ, 23rd Premier of the Province of Quebec (1976−1985). A staunch supporter of Quebec's state sovereignty. During his reign, the first referendum on independence since the formation of the Canadian Confederation (1980) was held in Quebec; 40% of the province's residents voted for secession.
Translation by Stanislav Varykhanov.
Scotland intends to hold a second referendum on independence from Great Britain, which is preparing to officially begin the process of leaving the European Union. Nicola Sturgeon, the leader of the country's parliament, believes that the interests of its residents were not taken into account when the decision to leave the EU was made, so they need “another chance.”
Photo all-news.net
In 2014, such a referendum already took place, and then 55% of Scots were in favor of maintaining a union with Britain, and only 45% supported the idea of independence. But a lot has changed over the past two years. First of all, in Britain itself there was a referendum on leaving the European Union with a positive result. At the same time, the Scottish authorities have always stated that they would like to remain part of the EU and maintain close economic ties with it. Unlike the rest of the UK, Scotland voted for the European Union.
Now it turns out that Brexit calls this into question, but the Scots insist on their own, for which purpose they again remembered to hold another plebiscite. Of course, the British authorities reacted to this with understandable skepticism. Prime Minister Theresa May said such a referendum could take place, but should not.
The question arises: why? Just because London doesn't want it? But this is not an argument. Of course, the Scots have the right to national self-determination, and the results of the first referendum were obtained under completely different conditions. Now the conditions have changed, which means these same results may change.
Theresa May has called on Scots to convey the message that a second referendum is not needed to the leadership of the Scottish National Party (SNP), which includes Nicola Sturgeon, during local elections in May. However, there is a good chance that the Scottish Parliament's demand for a second referendum will appear long before these elections - when the UK government announces to Brussels the official activation of Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty (presumably this will happen on March 17).
Of course, London will make every effort to ensure that this idea fails, because Britain is not leaving the EU so that separatism will succeed within itself. The firmness of the Scottish leadership's intentions is also not very obvious. Perhaps this is just the beginning of bargaining for new preferences and subsidies for Edinburgh. On the other hand, there are indeed many supporters of Scottish independence. There are many historical, cultural and other reasons for this.
The strategic course of development of the European Union is still unclear. Voices are increasingly heard that the EU will be radically reformatted. Within the union there will be significant differentiation between the core and the periphery, Europe will actually emerge “ different speeds" Where Scotland will end up in this case and whether it will be able to maintain close ties with both the EU and Britain is a big question.
As you can see, there are a lot of serious questions. And not only political ones. The economic consequences are generally difficult to calculate. Indeed, even after Theresa May’s statement regarding a new referendum in Scotland, the British pound sterling fell by 0.6%.
Indeed, the impact of Scotland's possible departure from the UK could be no less significant than Brexit. Scottish independence could have a negative impact on the financial services market, as almost every financial services provider in the country is linked to the UK rather than the EU market. That is, there is something to think about.
In any case, even if the decision on a new referendum is made, it will not take place until the “divorce” of Britain and the EU is fully legalized, when its conditions and forms of maintaining economic ties are clear. The Scottish authorities will be guided by this, and if these conditions are unfavorable or insufficient, then a return to the issue of independence may be quite realistic.
A 307-year-old alliance that once ruled one-third of all humanity is under threat. September 18 in Scotland - a referendum on the issue of secession of the country from the United Kingdom. UK and EU citizens permanently residing in Scotland will have to answer “yes” or “no” to the question: “Should Scotland become an independent country?” If the majority of voters respond positively, Scotland will be declared independent on March 24, 2016.
Street agitation in Edinburgh. Photo: RIA Novosti
The issue of Scottish secession has been openly discussed since the early 1930s, thanks to the emergence of the Scottish National Party. It was only about expanded autonomy within a single state.
Polls show that the Scots will still vote to remain part of the United Kingdom, but nationalists and Alex Salmond, head of the Scottish National Party, are adding fuel to the fire. The campaign for secession was aggressive, writes the Economist, with growing Scottish dissatisfaction with English complacency and indifference, as well as increased English resentment of the Scots for whining and freeloading: only high support for the campaign to remain in the union would bury the issue.
1. Improving the well-being of the population
Nationalists believe that in the event of secession, the Scots will be able to increase the level of income of the population by 1000 pounds per year per capita.
That number, however, according to the Economist, is based on implausible assumptions about the price of oil, Scotland's debt burden, demographics and productivity. The British government's estimate that Scots would have a £1,400 per year higher income per year if they remained part of the kingdom is based on more realistic assumptions. Scotland's population is older and less healthy than the UK average, and productivity is 11% lower than the rest of the UK. As a result, the government spends £1,200 more on each Scot than on other Britons.
Secession would also lead to new costs: Scotland would have to create its own army, social security system, currency and much more.
2. An independent Scotland will have more democracy.
The driving force behind the referendum question was the growing gap between the policies pursued by the UK coalition government in Westminster, led by the Conservative Party since 2010, and what Scots want.
The argument is that an independent Scotland will be more self-sufficient, more prosperous, suggests the Economist. Two generations ago there were as many Conservatives as Labor in Parliament, but Scots have not forgiven the Tories for the Thatcherite policies they imposed on their heavily industrialized economy. Recently, nationalists dressed up as pandas to remind Prime Minister David Cameron (a representative of the Conservative Party) that Edinburgh Zoo has more pandas (two) than Scotland has Tory MPs (one). Encouraged by the idea of devolution voiced by Tony Blair and the financial support of Westminster, Scottish social policy differs from England's. University education is free for Scots, but not for English or Welsh; The state provides care for a higher percentage of older people in Scotland than in England and Wales.
Healthy democracies tend to respond flexibly to regional differences, of which there are plenty across Britain. The north-east of England and Wales, both pro-Labour, also oppose the Westminster government.
The Economist believes that the balance of political forces in Great Britain does not deprive the Scots of power. Two previous prime ministers, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, were born in Scotland. Scotland is represented by a disproportionate number of MPs in Westminster. Edinburgh has an independent legal system and its parliament can decide wide range issues including health, education and housing. At the same time, the leaders did not exercise their right to change the rate income tax: This is unlikely to be due to the fact that the Scots are kept on a leash by legislators from Westminster.
3. Oil separatism
As with many other famous stories, sentiment for secession grew strongly following the discovery of Brent oil fields in the North Sea in 1970. Under the devolution project, North Sea oil will be used to create a special fund - like in Norway (and in Russia) - to help future generations. "Scottish oil reserves are enormous," says Independent Scotland, a website set up to support the secession campaign. "The majority of oil revenues go to Westminster. The Scots will become one of the richest nations in Europe if they secede."
At the moment, 40 billion barrels have been produced, the remaining reserves are 24 billion barrels.
Prime Minister Cameron believes that the North Sea is a British success story, and now more than ever it is important to support the industry with a broad British shoulder (according to SNP opponents, production is becoming increasingly difficult). According to estimates by the Office for Budget Responsibility, the drop in oil revenues will be 38% by 2017-2018.
4. Declining role of the church
According to history professor Dovit Brown from the University of Glasgow, Scotland and England have become increasingly distant from each other since the collapse of the British Empire. The decline of the Presbyterian Church in Scotland, which provided a sense of self-government and Scottish identity, also played a role in fueling the desire for independence.
5. Scotland has been independent for much longer than part of the UK.
Scotland was an independent state from 843 to 1707. It is believed that Scotland became part of the United Kingdom because it was desperate for money, but opponents believe that the Scots who signed the Act of Union were bribed.
The Scottish poet Robert Burns wrote: "We are bought and sold for English gold. Such is the gang of robbers in the country!" Now the Scottish Government is hoping to write a new chapter in Scotland's history.
Brexit has pushed Scotland to take new steps to separate from the UK. Holyrood (the Scottish Parliament) voted on Tuesday evening to hold a second independence referendum.
Debates in parliament began a week ago, on March 21, and voting was scheduled for the next day. However, on the 22nd, a terrorist attack occurred in London: 52-year-old Briton Khalid Masood first hit several people with a car on Westminster Bridge, then stabbed a policeman near the British Parliament building. As a result, four people were killed and 50 were injured. This tragic incident forced Scottish MPs to adjourn the debate.
They resumed on March 28. The referendum was opposed by Labour, Conservatives and Democrats. However, the parliamentary majority represented by the Scottish National Party (SNP) and the Greens who supported it prevailed. Result: 69 deputies voted for the referendum, 59 against it.
Uncooperative
The initiative for a repeat plebiscite belongs to the SNP, whose leader, Scotland’s First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, took it to parliament immediately after the congress of this nationalist party made the corresponding decision. Sturgeon said that the referendum should take place before the end of the Brexit procedure - between autumn 2018 and spring 2019.
British Prime Minister Theresa May reacted quite sharply.
"We need to work together now, not divide. We need to work together to get a good deal for Scotland, a good deal for the UK, and that's my job as Prime Minister. So I'm telling the Scottish National Party that now is not the time ", she said in an interview with Sky News.
According to the prime minister, in the current situation of uncertainty, holding a new referendum on independence is simply dishonest, because people do not have the information necessary for such a serious decision.
On the eve of the resumption of the debate, Theresa May met with Nicola Sturgeon, their negotiations were “cordial” and “businesslike”, but, nevertheless, Holyrood returned to consider the issue of a second plebiscite. As a result, the Scottish Parliament voted to give the First Minister the right to hold a referendum.
Nicola Sturgeon promised to submit a preliminary plan for its preparation to parliament after May 16. At the same time, speaking to deputies, she said that the referendum itself should still be held after the terms of Brexit become known, “in order to evaluate them and compare them with the challenges and opportunities that the country’s independence brings” - that is, in essence, repeated Theresa May's argument.
Scotland against Brexit
The Scottish government held a referendum on independence on September 18, 2014. If voters had voted then to secede from the United Kingdom, independence from it would have been declared on March 24, 2016. The Scottish government even drew up a detailed plan for further action, which, however, remained on paper: 55% of voters voted against ending the 300-year union with England.
The reason to once again raise the issue of an independence referendum was Brexit. On June 23, 2016, a nationwide plebiscite was held in Great Britain, in which 51.9% of the citizens of the United Kingdom who took part were in favor of the country leaving the European Union. At the same time, 62% of Scottish voters voted against Brexit, as did 55.8% of voters in Northern Ireland. England and Wales voted in favor of leaving the EU, although a majority of Londoners (59.9%) voted against it.
Scottish nationalists did not fail to take advantage of the results of the Brexit vote. Nicola Sturgeon said that such a significant change in the situation gives them the right to organize a second referendum, since the Scots, unlike the British, do not want to leave the European Union at all, and in order to remain in it, they will have to leave the United Kingdom. She even encourages all Britons who want to stay in the EU to move to Scotland.
"You are not welcome here"
Even before the parliament in Edinburgh decided to hold a second referendum, Brussels hastened to dispel its hopes that Scotland, if it gains independence, will be able to “remain in the European Union.” The official representative of the European Commission, Margaritis Schinas, said at a briefing that in the event of Scotland separating from the UK, it will have to “join the general queue” of states wishing to join the European Union, and it will also be admitted there on a general basis.
The same statement was made by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, who said that an independent Scotland would have to join the North Atlantic bloc as a newcomer.
Both will be very difficult, since in order to join these organizations a new state will need the consent of all their members, and the Spanish authorities have already announced that they will not only not support Scotland’s accession to the EU, but will not recognize its independence.
Spain, which has been experiencing a difficult problem with the separatism of Catalonia for decades, always perceives any process of national self-determination as extremely painful. For example, Madrid has still not recognized the independence of Kosovo.
“The European Union is not too interested in Scotland separating from the UK. It is not of particular value to the EU to facilitate its separation from the United Kingdom. Even after Brexit, Europe will be more interested in such a strong partner and mediator between it and the United States as an integral Great Britain. Therefore, in Brussels they make it clear in advance that they do not welcome an independent Scotland with open arms,” says Timofey Bordachev, director of the Center for Comprehensive European and International Studies at the Faculty of World Economy and International Politics at the National Research University Higher School of Economics.
For getting out from everywhere
However, the Scottish nationalists who are now in power are not stopped either by London's protests or by the cool reaction of the EU and NATO. As for the mood of the Scots themselves, they are indeed changing - and quite quickly: the share of supporters of independence in Scotland has reached its maximum since 1999, but the number of Eurosceptics has also increased. This is evidenced by the survey, which is conducted annually by ScotCen.
46% of respondents now support Scottish independence, double the level in 2012 when the campaign for the first referendum was launched. Separatist sentiments are especially strong among young people: separation from Great Britain is supported by 72% of respondents aged 16 to 24 years.
At the same time, 62% of Scottish residents now support Britain leaving the EU or reducing the powers of pan-European governments. It turns out that the desire of the Scots to remain in the European Union is becoming a very dubious argument for the fighters for Scottish independence. But that doesn’t stop them either.
There won't be a second Catalonia?
The situation in the United Kingdom is unlikely to follow the Catalan scenario and is unlikely to take on a violent protest form, believes Timofey Bordachev, according to whom, the situation in the UK will continue to remain within constitutional frameworks.
“The UK is not such a rigid unitary state as Spain, and the degree of civility of political relations there is still different. Therefore, I think that Theresa May’s clear indication of her position does not mean that she will be ready to go further,” says the expert.
“The dispute between Nicola Sturgeon and Theresa May has so far only concerned the timing of the referendum. I believe that Downing Street is unlikely to resist the decision of the Scottish Assembly and prevent the holding of the plebiscite within the time frame chosen by the Scottish authorities,” says the head of the Center for British Studies at the Institute of Europe of the Russian Academy of Sciences, an expert at the International Valdai Discussion Club Elena Ananyeva.
When holding the first referendum, London and Edinburgh committed themselves to fulfilling the will of the people, whatever it turned out to be, recalls Alexander Orlov, director of the MGIMO Institute of International Studies. By initiating a new referendum, Scottish politicians are retreating from previous agreements, he believes.
“Confrontation will inevitably arise, and the only question is what forms it will take. While it is of a political nature, it can then develop into a phase of a showdown at the legal level. Protests may also break out, however, it is difficult to imagine that London will begin to act like this using clumsy methods, like, say, Kyiv, and will, for example, bomb Scotland - especially since all British nuclear submarines are based in the Glasgow area. In any case, the situation there is unlikely to lead to violence,” says Alexander Orlov, who believes. that the Scottish nationalists have a better chance of succeeding this time than they did two years ago.