So, the vote for Scottish independence has come and gone.
Like most Americans, I didn't really have a dog in this fight. I was half-heartedly against it, until I started hanging out with a Scottish nationalist friend, and then under his influence I became half-heartedly for it. But either way it was with the same sort of minimal emotional investment I might have put into the outcome sporting event that had no effect on my life either way.
The one thing I do feel passionately about, however, is that this whole thing proves what I've been saying all along--that Scotland, England, and Wales are not separate countries.
I got into this argument with some British friends in Japan several years ago, and I've never really let go of it. (I'm still having this debate now with British friends in Cambodia). I can understand that Scotland and Wales may want to be separate countries, but I can't understand how any could argue that they currently are separate countries. I mean, by any sane definition used of the word "country" in any other part of the world, they are clearly not separate countries. (The same monarch, same central government, same currency, same army, same fiscal policy, same seat at the U.N., same Olympic team, same foreign policy, et cetera.)
The fact that Scotland had a vote on whether or not to become a separate country seems to me to prove my point. I mean, clearly if Scotland was voting to become a separate country, that must prove that under the current state of affairs they aren't currently a separate country, right?
Link of the Day
The Future of Humanity
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I was rather blase about the whole spectacle as well, in no small part because I remembered so well the Quebec Referendum of 1995. In the weeks leading up to it I felt quite anxious about the very real possibility of a "Yes" result. Then, at some point, I did a quick reality check, and thought, "It's not like God decrees who's a country and who isn't. So somebody wants to be their own country: why not just let 'em?" Then, of course, there was also the "Velvet Divorce" that Václav Havel campaigned so urgently against. When it went ahead regardless, he had to shrug and admit that sometimes it's alright to secede.
But I dunno: I just can't help superficially thinking that, for the most part, secession is just another way to complicate things that are already pretty bollixed.
I hear you. That's why I was half against it at first. It seemed like another example of petty tribal nationalism. My Scottish friend eventually brought me round by explaining that Scotland consistently votes left, but for years has been dominated by right wing London governments and so has been unable to implement the progressive policies they desired. If independent, my friend predicted Scotland would be able to follow a Scandinavian socialist model.
Similar thing happening here with the provinces vs. the federal government, which our current PM has cheerfully exacerbated. I suspect Scotland will, like Quebec, receive preferential treatment for a stretch. I also suspect your friend's prediction is a wee bit overly optimistic. When you stop asking Dad for money, you start getting parsimonious about the coin you do have.
Quite possibly. And in fact I used to tease my Scottish friend by reminding him of Orwell's Animal Farm, and telling him that his new Scottish government would just become as corrupt and reactionary as the
British government he hated. And yet, I thought the experiment might be worth running anyway, on the off chance things did get better.
Post a Comment