MOSCOW, September 15 (RIA Novosti) - Possible secession of Scotland after the independence referendum scheduled for September 18 is viewed differently by the experts: Scottish analysts underline benefits, while experts from abroad draw a much less positive picture.
INDEPENDENT SCOTLAND WILL FLOURISH
If Scotland votes for independence, it may become a prosperous country, according to Duncan Ross, Glasgow University lecturer and a former national secretary of the Scottish National Party (SNP).
“Scotland will thrive as an independent nation, and we will be able to tackle the problems bequeathed by the Union and its dysfunctional and failed politics. The UK is the 4th most unequal country in the Western world; parts of Glasgow have a male life expectancy lower than Gaza; up to 25% of our children live in poverty; thousands of our citizens rely on charity and food banks just to feed themselves. This is the legacy we have been left. Independence does not offer a magic solution to these problems. But it offers the opportunity to do something different and better. It is an opportunity we should grasp with both hands,” Duncan Ross told RIA Novosti.
“The arguments [of the unionists] have been drearily familiar: Scotland is too wee, too poor, too stupid to manage things on its own. Better by far to leave decisions to the grown -ups in London who know what is good for you. Bereft of activists and lacking ideas, they have relied on fear as their prime weapon in the debate.”
Ross, on the contrary, believes Scotland can become a prosperous country, as it produces oil and gas, has a powerful tourism industry and educational institutions – Scottish universities are well-known around the world. Scotland is also highly competitive in such spheres as biology, medicine and advanced technologies.
LOSSES FOR BOTH SIDES
Alexey Gromyko, director of the Institute of Europe of the Russian Academy of Sciences and head of the Center for British Studies, is much less positive. He believes “Yes” vote will bring about a wide range of problems that will not be easy to solve.
According to the expert, both countries will lose in case Scotland becomes independent. Secession of the second-biggest country in the UK will hit hard Britain’s economy. Scotland, in turn, will be able to reap the benefits of independence only after it bears inevitable expenses on technical issues related to establishing an independent state. However, this is just one, positive, side of the issue.
“Scottish independence may allure only those who view it as a matter of culture and identification or from the emotional perspective. It is enough to say that Scotland will not have its own currency, and it suggests using pound,” Gromyko commented.
Immediate losses after the declaration of independence are obvious, the expert believes. Scotland will become a rather small country with the population of 5 million, torn apart by independence supporters and unionists. It will not have any particular status neither in Europe, nor in the world. Only those who seek independence as the aim itself can agree on it. “There will be a number of benefits if independence is declared, but they will never outweigh the drawbacks,” Gromyko said. He views the fact that Scotland may become independent of the ruling parties in Britain as one of the benefits.
“We survived the period of romanticism in our views on independence when the Soviet Union was falling apart. At that time it seemed that the smaller is better than the bigger,” Gromyko reminded. “And Scots are still to survive it.” The expert thinks that the Scots will be driven not only by emotions, but also by pragmatism while voting. Nationalists claim citizens’ yearly income will increase by 1,000 pounds. However, both sides cite statistics, which makes common people feel lost and have a blurred vision of what can be the consequences of independence. “This is the game with rate too high and insurance too low,” Gromyko concluded.
RE-ENTRY TO EU AND NATO WILL BE REQUIRED
Scotland has enjoyed a wide range of rights as part of the United Kingdom, Elena Ananievna, head of the Center of British Studies of the Institute of Europe of the Russian Academy of Sciences, said.
The Scotland Act 1988 established the devolved Scottish Parliament, set out its legislative competences and granted the country vast autonomy within the UK.
Two thirds of the Scottish production are sent to other British regions. If these ties are affected by the secession of Scotland, both Scottish and British businesses will be in a quagmire.
“Scotland wants to impose income tax and get revenues from the North Sea oil extraction. However, this oil will be enough only for the coming 40 years, according to the experts’ estimations. Scotland hopes to continue being a member of the European Union and NATO, but these organizations claim Scotland will have to reapply for membership,” the expert said.
Moreover, independent Scotland will have to bear part of the British state debt proportionate to its population. In addition, nuclear weapons will have to be removed from the territory of Scotland.
Ananieva thinks that such “umbrella organizations” as the EU and NATO fuel nationalist tendencies, as separatists hope to stay within these structures after secession. Another reason, according to the expert, is the traditionally negative attitude of Scots toward the ruling Conservative party. Labors disappointed Scots as well for the last 13 years of their rule. Therefore, the Scottish National Party managed to come to power in Scotland.
“Even if Scotland remains part of Great Britain, three major British parties [Conservatives, Labors and Liberal Democrats] promise to grant it more autonomy.” At the same time, Ananieva notes that the British government cannot seek to win “No” votes by any pledges, which is one of the principles of the referendum.
The long-standing issue of the Scottish independence is to be settled on the referendum scheduled for September 18. Initially planned by the ruling Scottish Nationalist Party as a three-option ballot (independence, independence-lite and further devolution with the remaining union), the referendum was allowed by the central British government (Agreement of October 15, 2012) to have two options only (independence, union). As a result, the majority of voters (around 60 percent would rather prefer an intermediate option of further devolution) have to make a difficult choice with no option that fully corresponds to their preferences, which makes the results of the referendum unpredictable even now.
According to the results of the YouGov latest opinion poll, Scottish Yes side showed an eight point swing in less than a month. 47 percent of respondents would rather vote for Yes, 45 percent would rather vote for No, with the rest undecided.
If the majority votes for secession, Europe could witness the rebirth of the Scottish state on March 24, 2016.
