MOSCOW, September 12 (RIA Novosti), Ekaterina Blinova - As Scotland suffers from a 'democratic deficit' in the British Union, the basic ambitions of Scottish nationalists seem to have merit, deems Mark Blyth, a Professor of International Political Economy at Brown University.
"Since the 1980s, Scotland has overwhelmingly voted for the Labour and the Scottish National Parties, whereas the United Kingdom has voted Conservative. As a result, most Scots feel that they often end up with a government they didn’t vote for. The establishment of the Scottish Parliament in 1999 went some way toward addressing the democratic deficit. But since the body has limited fiscal powers – and no independent monetary powers – it has provided only a partial fix," the professor explains in his article "It's Not About the Money," which was published in Foreign Affairs.
Indeed, in accordance with the Scotland Acts of 1998 and 2012, the Scottish Parliament has powers to develop and pass laws on limited range of issues. However, such issues as defense, benefits and social security, energy, employment, trade and industry, immigration, Constitution, and etc. remain under of the UK Parliament's domain.
Independence supporters also point out that the present London's administration has no authority to govern Scotland since it had not gained support from Scots during the democratic elections. Furthermore, the Yes camp representatives argue that the British electoral system forces Scots to choose between Tory and Labour while both alternatives do not reflect the views of the Scottish majority.
In response to these claims, Unionists stress that Scotland is only one of the UK's regions and that is why it cannot pretend for more preferences at Westminster than any other of the British Union members.
Obviously Scots are discontent with the Unionists' stance. The "Scotland's Future" white paper states that the first and foremost gain from independence would be the right to elect the Scottish government, which would make "key decisions" in accordance with Scotland's electorate views and concerns.
"An independent Parliament elected entirely by people in Scotland will replace the current Westminster system. Under that system, elected representatives from Scotland make up just 9 per cent of the 650 members of the House of Commons; the House of Lords is wholly unelected," reads the White Paper.
The Yes vote camp is slamming the Westminster system for an unbalanced economy and growing inequality. Blair Jenkins, Yes Scotland Chief Executive, emphasizes that "unfair distribution of wealth and opportunity in the UK" has made it the fourth most unequal state among developed powers.
"Under successive Labour and Tory governments over the last thirty years, the UK has become the fourth most unequal country in the developed world and is well on its way to becoming the most unequal," he said, as cited by Yes Scotland web resource.
"Those are not the values on which Scottish society is based. If we make our own decisions and live by our own values, we can have a fairer and more socially just Scotland," Blair Jenkins added.
Experts claim that the current wave of Scottish "separatism" has been triggered by both democratic deficit and growing social crisis in the UK: Scots, youths particularly, have become frustrated by the diminished opportunities. Thus, they are inclined to consider a would-be Independent Scotland a "fairer welfare state," where they would be able to exercise their democratic rights and form more just society.
"Raised in a country where the policy choice of the past 30 years has been neoliberalism with airbags (New Labour under Prime Ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown) or neoliberalism on steroids (under the Tories), and faced with falling real wages and diminished opportunity, young people in Scotland want another choice. This is perhaps why nationalism retains the capacity to surprise. It’s not about costs, risks, or uncertainties; it’s about the idea that a different future is possible," writes Mark Blyth.
The professor underscores that if Scotland votes for independence it will inevitably face economic hardships and the British hostility. Although the Yes camp seems to be aware of high costs and economic risks of independence its willingness to build the new state based on high values of democracy and social just eclipses economic concerns.
