Kevin Rafferty
20 September, 2014
Kevin Rafferty says the governance problems that led the Scots to this day can be found elsewhere
A pro-independence rally in Glasgow. The Scots were privileged to have a choice. Few people anywhere get the opportunity. Photo: Kyodo
Where Scotland leads, who will be brave enough to follow? The hullabaloo of the referendum on independence is over. But tough questions remain: in a globalising world, what is the best and most efficient form of government (the two are not synonymous)?
The Scots were privileged to have a choice. Few people anywhere get the opportunity. This is not just a case of "eat your heart out, Hong Kong". The famous "velvet divorce" of Czechoslovakia into the Czech Republic and Slovakia was hammered out by political leaders; the people were not consulted or given the chance of a referendum.
Scots were particularly lucky, especially since one party to the proposed divorce, the other 59 million people in the United Kingdom, did not get to vote. Residents of Scotland are a mere 8 per cent of the population. It's a funny old world where the minority gets to choose; no wonder that Beijing wanted to vote "No" on behalf of Hong Kong.
The "no" victory in the referendum clearly isn't the end. Politicians from Westminster rushed north to promise the Scots maximum devolution if they stayed in the UK, and the defeated Alex Salmond will no doubt hold them to that promise. Scotland is a wounded country, and the question remains whether the discredited politicians on both sides will be able to heal it.
In working out these details, the people of Scotland and of the rest of the UK will not be consulted. This is one of the flaws of democracy for those fortunate enough to enjoy it: you get to vote and then you have to wait years to throw out the rascals who have ruined what you intended.
Political scientists have had a field day. If you look at the map of Europe, Scotland is only the vanguard for many possible peoples who would clamour for independence if given half a chance. The European Free Alliance counts "40 progressive nationalist, regionalist and autonomous parties throughout the European Union". The Basques, who straddle Spain and France, are disadvantaged because they have a landlocked territory hemmed in by two countries which staunchly oppose their freedom. Catalans have shown their feelings in recent marches by an estimated 1.8 million people through Barcelona.
Italy has pockets of historic nationalism stirring again in the South Tyrol, Veneto and Sardinia. Germany still has strong regional feelings, but so far they have been better managed within the federal state than the fragmenting UK.
As for viability, if Luxembourg, population 537,039 at the last count in a mere 2,586 square kilometres of landlocked territory - motto "We want to remain what we are" - gets to be an independent country and a founder member of the European Union, who can deny the others?
The demands for independence are stirring within the EU. Is this a smack in the eye for the greater European market and globalisation? Or could it be that, within a united Europe, the old regions would be better subdivisions than the cumbersome modern states where there is too much distance between the rulers and the people?
Some voters in the Scottish referendum displayed a touching naivety. "We want to have independence to be free to make our own decisions," said one innkeeper on Loch Lomond.
As if: in an independent Scotland, decisions affecting Loch Lomond would be taken in remote Edinburgh rather than remote London. It remains unproven whether the quality of the decision-making would be better in a smaller country.
Clearly, the Tory toffs in London have alienated too many Scots. They have alienated large parts of the rest of England outside prosperous London and the southeast, but not enough to make regional autonomy a burning issue yet, though some friends, from Carlisle to Newcastle, would like to redraw the boundaries of Scotland southwards, and I would support a Greater Yorkshire.
Most of the rest of the world does not get the luxury of taking part in referendums or consultation about their rulers. Vast swathes of Africa and the Middle East have to put up with national maps drawn up by the old colonial powers.
But be careful what you wish for: the new colonists, particularly of the self-proclaimed "Islamic State", are less careful of the wishes of their people than the old ones.
This is not a trivial matter, and nor is democracy. Without respect for the lives and wishes of their people, countries cannot prosper in this modern age. India and China, both victims of 19th-century colonialism now conducting their own bromance, with Xi Jinping fêted by Narendra Modi, have different approaches.
In India, powers are split between Delhi and the states and there are regular elections to keep the country united. Beijing is banking on economic growth and nationalism, which could prove a dangerously Faustian bargain and may be why Hong Kong is left out.
Kevin Rafferty is a Celtic mongrel, 50 per cent Irish, 25 per cent Welsh and 25 per cent English, but 100 per cent Yorkshire spirit
This article appeared in the South China Morning Post print edition as One referendum on independence down, how many more to come?
No comments:
Post a Comment