A little over two hundred years ago, the Boston Harbor became a bath of tea and blood as roughly fifty thousand American and British lives lay slain in a struggle for independence. For eight years, American colonists fought arduously for complete separation from the British empire, a difficult and monumental task that sparked revolutions around the world but also created, arguably, the most prosperous and McDonald’s-loving country in the world today.
The idea of revolution generally evokes these images of courage and bravery, whether it be the American underdogs we pay homage to on the Fourth of July or the uncomfortably zoomed-in faces of the Les Miserables movie cast.
Scotland’s most recent vote for independence from Britain, however, was not so much wretched French men singing about empty chairs at empty tables, but rather democratic citizens campaigning peacefully for their respective points of views. Nevertheless, the apparent pleasantry behind the entire ordeal begs the question: why was the Scottish referendum even necessary?
Flashback to roughly three hundred years ago when Scotland officially joined the U.K. Whether this union was a result of corrupt Scottish nobles who sold their entire country out for a laughable 20,000 euros or whether it was for the legitimate benefit of the Scottish economy (as they had lost almost half of their nation’s capital to a failed business venture in Panama) remains disputed, but one thing is for sure: Scotland’s capital has skyrocketed since the days of the casual kilt. While a boon in and of itself, does this prosperity still call for a union with England?
Assuming that the main reason behind Scotland’s annexation was for stable economic support, this arrangement has since been scrutinized by supporters and opposition alike. The vote for independence was a groundbreaking event that attracted more voters (84.6% of the eligible population) to the polls than most presidential elections in past years. Under a tacit campaign of “Yes” or “No,” Scotland’s referendum took place on September 18, 2014. The decision was incredibly marginal – a win in favor of “No,” or those who opposed independence, but by a mere 55.3%. People have voiced their opinions around the world – among which, a few politically conscious Ridge students.
Senior Olivia Seltzer ‘15 comments that “The Scottish Referendum did not end the way it should have ended. For starters, England has been exploiting Scotland’s natural resources for years, whether it be through their vast oil supplies or their booming economy that England uses to pay off its own debts. Scotland also has a much more functional health system while that of England’s falls tremendously flat in comparison. Plus, it just would have been so much more exciting if they could be independent. I mean, their national animal is a unicorn! They deserve that on a flag, don’t they?”
Jokes aside, Scotland is indeed among the most prosperous nations in the world. With thriving industries in construction, tourism, agriculture, business, and manufacturing, and not to mention huge oil deposits from the North Sea (with a value of approximately 1 trillion pounds), Scotland rakes in higher tax revenues every year than does England, most of which are pooled into funds for England’s debt. An estimated 64 billion pounds could have been saved every year under Scottish independence and redirected into reforms like simpler tax systems, migration campaigns to diversify Scotland’s demographic, and labor sector improvements for better employer/employee relations.
Moving on to health care, both England and Scotland operate under a system called “NHS” (National Health Service), which provides free healthcare to the permanent residents of each respective country. Scotland’s NHS, however, completely abolished the formation of trusts within the NHS branches after Malcolm Chisholm stepped up as the health minister in 2001.
This radical policy minimized competition between trusts and promoted the true focus of the organization – tending to the ill and ensuring the health of the country. Scotland was thus able to resist the market reforms (which would negatively impact other service sectors) that large-economy countries like England had to make in order to ensure the NHS continued its policy of free healthcare for all permanent English residents. In a study conducted by the SSAS (Scottish Social Attitudes Survey), it was found that many Scottish inpatients were very satisfied with the care that they received, reporting an estimated 85% satisfaction rate in 2013, far above the satisfaction rate amongst English inpatients.
Others, however, would disagree. Junior Wei Wen ‘16 argues, “The Scottish Referendum, for what it was worth, was more or less an immature reaction to the Crimean State Referendum in Russia, as Scotland had both the means and the time (three hundred years, to be exact) to declare independence from England. Also, logistically speaking, separating from the U.K. would be unwise as officiating this mundane rite of passage would definitely result in economic instability and hidden costs.”
Taking the potential economic gains at mere face value would be, as Wen contends, ignoring the many economical facets that go into officially declaring complete separation. Whether the initiative stemmed from the Crimean Referendum or not, a simple decision of yes or no does a poor job at encompassing the complete situation, an overly basic approach that may prove impulsive in the long run. If Scotland were to completely separate from the U.K., for instance, the currency, according to Chancellor George Osborne, would have to change. The rejection of the pound to something of a shadow currency (perhaps a combination of the euro and sterling) would pose a pretty significant inflationary/deflationary risk to investments with the U.K. Another fallback of complete separation would be the privation of any rebound capital, were Scotland’s fledgling economy to completely crash.
While Scotland may appear to be stable right now, the risk of the North Sea’s oil supplies drying up would cause an incredibly destructive chain reaction. Without security or insurance from the U.K., tax breaks offered from the English government would be void, along with any internal bail outs. Taxes would be levied to protect the extremely volatile government funding that would allow free healthcare and college education—a digression from the values that Scotland so adamantly adhere to.
This issue, while distant from many of our own immediate interests, is compelling, to say the least. The campaign was quite a stretch from the fanatical tea-dumping colonists for which we credit the founding of America, which suggests just how rapidly the world is changing. From an independence rooted upon blood and vindication, to one resolved by intellectual debate and democratic voting, there is something we can all learn from the Scottish Referendum.