Next September, Scotland will be voting on the issue of independence. Growing numbers of Scots suspect the benefits of a “united
kingdom” no longer outweigh the costs and look to separate from Great Britain. The
sentiment extends far beyond an old-fashioned nationalism: a political chasm
has opened between the English and the Scottish electorates—the Scots believe
policies implemented by the relatively conservative English majority over the
objections of Scottish representatives hold the Scottish economy back from its
full potential. The Scots are not alone in their separatist inclinations. The
Basque Country and Catalonia in north-eastern Spain both possess long-standing
separatist communities with considerable local support. Like the Scots, Catalonians
may head to the polls in 2014 to vote for or against independence from a
central government they increasingly perceive as restraining. How should we
consider such proposals?
I must confess that no small part of my initial reaction is
a product of the computer games that first sparked my interest in world history
and current affairs. Playing a game such as Europa Universalis 4, a separatist
movement is only ever a good thing when it happens to someone else; otherwise,
it is an annoyance worthy only of suppression. It is no wonder that a game
focused on the expansion of state-power in the modern era—both domestically and
around the globe—should ignore the merits of the separatists themselves. A
strong state with long-term viability is united and nationalistically
homogeneous. Looking at the real world through that lens, one would see Scottish
separatism as both a symptom of and potential catalyst for the decline of Great
Britain as a global actor. Allowing such a division would leave two relatively weaker
countries in the place of a single, stronger state.
America’s own history with separatism also lends itself to
my bias against the idea. The Confederate States of America seceded from the
Union for truly reprehensible reasons and all talk of separatism since comes
from those equally awful, if not outright loony. The rhetoric of secession in
America comes almost entirely from (right-wing) politics and lacks the more
justifiable foundations of separatism exhibited in Europe. Those employing the
rhetoric typically ignore that their states—typically Southern—receive more
money back from the federal government than the revenues they generate. Fewer
still approach the levels of national identity possessed by the Scots. Former
Texas Governor and Republican Presidential Candidate Rick Perry has made the
valid point that the state’s history and the unique nature of its admittance
into the Union lend it a degree more credibility in its brandying of
independence from Washington, but it is hard to believe that any American state
is prepared to step outside the benefits inherent in the current arrangement,
though no few Northerners would be ready to wish them good riddance.
That all said, I find myself supporting peoples in Scotland,
Catalonia, and Northern Italy. To work out why, let’s take a look at the
factors that influence separatist attitudes.
1) Economics
Money makes the world go ‘round and there’s nothing like
feeling deprived of potential earnings to stir the pot of separatism. Some
would say that the other factors I've listed below are mere justifications,
reasons tacked on to the central motive: profit. This can entail an entire
population in a resource-rich and industrious area rejecting adherence to a
more lackluster whole, or merely a small cabal of elites working toward their
own personal enrichment. I argue that it is important to take the other factors
into serious consideration, but it is obvious that economic frustrations add
enormous potency to any separatist movement.
Examples: Scotland is economically well-off, not least for
the extensive undersea drilling in the North Sea. Contributing more to the U.K.
per capita than anywhere else, some Scots believe their economic futures would
best be served by severing with the woefully austerian policies of conservative-dominated
England. Catalonia bears many parallels: with a strong economy drained by an
ineffective and austerian government in Madrid, no few Catalans are raising
their voices for independence. Northern Italy is not far different. The far
more industrialized northern regions look down on the sclerotic south, whose
culture is maligned as slothful and corrupt. (Of course, foreigners look on in
disgruntled confusion as Italians, Northerner and Southerner alike, have
repeatedly handed the country’s reins back to the blatantly-criminal Silvio
Berlusconi…)
2) Politics
It should hardly be surprising that a minority long subjected
to the policy preferences of a markedly different majority will look to gain a
degree of autonomy. Scotland, being on England’s political left, has chafed
under the rule of Prime Minister David Cameron’s Conservative government. Even
the principal opposition party, Labour, has seen its reputation plunge
following the uninspired performance of Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, and the “New
Labor” movement as a whole. Thanks to the bungling and distant government in
London, growing numbers of Scots believe that local rule would carry greater
effectiveness and legitimacy. A few examples of successful separations include
Bangladesh—formerly a non-contiguous province of Pakistan, the local population
took advantage of the high tensions between New Delhi and Islamabad to throw
off the yoke of the latter’s distant and repressive government—Syria—a country
whose entry into a political union with an arrogant and demanding Egyptian
state was quickly reversed as Syrian elites realized they were better off on
their own—and much any anti-colonial independence movement—local people
resisting the will of rulers they have deemed illegitimate. These issues also make
up the majority of the unserious separatist rhetoric in the United States.
3) Nationalism
Nationalism is a funny thing: consisting of ephemeral,
socially-constructed, imagined-communities, various nationalisms have given
rise to some of the most violent conflicts and worst regimes known to humanity,
yet can wither and fade into nothingness in the span of several generations.
Nationalism is a creature of the public consciousness, influenced by education,
media, and a population’s internal social dynamics. It emerges from perceptions
of a shared experiences, be they ancient history, contemporary tragedy, or idealistic
goal for the future. Interestingly, these experiences can be embellished or
even fabricated entirely. Though Scotland and Catalonia both possess
longstanding histories as independent peoples, the American national identity
was forged relatively recently in the Revolutionary War and expanded upon
through sometimes-overwrought and unnuanced retellings of events such as the
Battle of the Alamo, Pearl Harbor, and 9/11.
Yet these identities can be chipped away from both above and
below. Napoleonic France set about systematically undermining the diverse local
identities within the borders it had defined solely by right of conquest,
forging a unified French identity from populations that would have previously
defined themselves by their region or town. Spain underwent a similar, if
lesser process that has seen significant reversals over the last decades as
local identities gained new relevance. With the proliferation of communications
technologies and digital communities, location-based identity has had to
contend with a wide array of alternatives. Though none necessarily supplant
national identity, there is a crowding-out effect.
I would argue that nationalism is almost always a
second-order factor in modern separatist movements. Those with grievances
against a central authority look to differentiate themselves, and inflaming
nationalist sentiment is a good way to do so.
4) Religion
Very similar to nationalism, religious identity today serves
more as justification and multiplier for correcting other grievances rather
than the spark that lights the fire. While religious conflict and tension can
maintain a steady burn for centuries once set alight, many such struggles have
roots in leaders and elites pursuing their own ends instead of peasant rabble independently
roused to fervor by some divine spirit. Take Sudan, for example: The declining
British Empire handed over governance to the more pliable elites, Muslim
descendants of Arab migrants in the North, giving them dominion over the previously
separate Christian South; while religion factored in, the civil wars that
followed and subsequent secession of South Sudan had their roots in the
Northern regime’s political interests. Like national identity, a people’s
religion can become a way it divides itself from the disfavored government,
while rousing them to greater action.
------------------------------------------------
The reasoning behind Scotland's drive for independence is hard to dismiss: the country is economically-strong, may be better served by self-rule, and possesses a national identity of real legitimacy. It is as of yet difficult to predict the results of any referendum--plenty of Scots don't care to upend centuries of established institutions--but it is hard to deny them the right of self-determination. An independent Scotland need be no less friendly with their neighbors to the south. At worst, England takes notice and allows for greater autonomy.
No comments:
Post a Comment