Dear Editor,
This has relevance to your editorial (Sept 12) and news report (Sept 9) on the Scottish vote for independence from the United Kingdom. Just months ago, political leaders in Scotland and England, and analysts as well, did not see the referendum as having much chance of passing. They, and indeed most Britons, could not imagine the Scots would want to break away from the British union given the financial support they receive from England. But in recent days, it has appeared that the Scottish people are serious about breaking with England as opinion polls are showing the yes vote leading. Neglected for so long, it appears that the Scots want attention from London. The leaders of the three main parties – Cameron (Tories), Clegg (Liberals), and Miliband (Labour) – have rushed to Scotland to convince voters to vote for the status quo. They point to themselves being a family and how they benefit when they stick together. This appeal may work to reverse the slide in support of no. Labour has a lot to lose if Scotland becomes free – Scotland sends 40 MPs to London, most of them Labour without which Labour is unlikely to govern England in the near future. Miliband and other Labourites are rounding up the votes to maintain the status quo. Also, both sides benefit financially from the union and the markets in Europe have been jittery as a result of polls showing yes ahead of no.
Although polls show the yes vote ahead, in the end I think the Scots will vote to stay in the union (held together for over three hundred years) with England, as voting no would be cutting their nose to spoil their face. An ethnic group or subjected territory should have a right to determine its own political status and England has granted the Scottish people the right to a referendum, unlike, say, in many Third World societies where ethnic groups can’t even get the right to exercise the vote in a free and fair election to determine their political future. Wherever the vote was allowed for territories to determine their political status via-à-vis a wealthy empire (mother country), they almost always vote no.
People vote their pocket books instead of being influenced by nationalist feelings; they recognize now they can’t eat nationalism. During the 1960s, colonies demanded their independence and today some of the people in those independent countries regret breaking from the mother country. Puerto Ricans, Arubans, Curaçaoans, voted no to a total break from the mother country. They recognize the huge benefits they receive when they stick to the aprons of their benefactor. Ethno-nationalism plays well in Scotland as it does in other European societies like Belgium, Spain, Switzerland, France, Germany, etc. Leaders have to talk tough and rally their troops to win votes. That is the nature of ethno-politics.
In Scotland, the yes vote is being championed by Alex Salmond’s Scottish National Party that won a majority in Scotland’s parliament in 2011. He had lost ground since then but is being helped again by the nationalist appeals – that has always worked in ethnically divided societies. Leaders have successfully used ethnic appeals to rally support all over the globe including in the US and England. In Guyana, for example, political leaders of all parties appeal to ethnicity to survive politically. That is the nature of politics in multi-ethnic societies. But in the end, analysts expect that people will vote soberly and stay with the union. They should vote their heads (financial well-being) not their hearts (emotion). It will be most surprising if there was a majority vote to break from the United Kingdom as it would go against tradition.
The whole of Europe is watching the Scotland vote carefully. If the Scots vote to separate from England, it could lead to demands for a vote in so many other countries where there are ethno-nationalist sentiments and calls for independence, not the least being Belgium, Switzerland, Spain, Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Turkey, Albania and Georgia, among others.
Yours faithfully,
Vishnu Bisram
