The old country—the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—is going ape about the possibility of Scotland voting for independence in a referendum on Thursday, September 18th. After a YouGov poll published in the Sunday Times over the weekend showed the "yes" camp taking the lead for the first time, the London-based political and financial establishment, which badly wants a "no" vote, got the willies.
This Tuesday, the British government played its final card: an unprecedented political intervention by the governor of the Bank of England. Speaking at a trade-union conference in Liverpool, Mark Carney, a native Canadian who has only been in the job for a bit over a year, indicated that it wouldn't be possible for the Scots to have full sovereignty and still keep the pound sterling. (The leaders of the "yes" campaign had embraced the idea of a currency union; more on that below.)
What impact Carney's statement will have remains to be seen. In the meantime, as a service to those readers who find the whole thing a bit mystifying, here's a brief overview of the vote. (No, not an "idiot's guide." Let's call it a quick reminder for those of us who enjoyed "Braveheart" and "Gregory's Girl" but whose understanding of Scotland's recent history needs a bit of brushing up.)
1) How did the referendum come about?
David Cameron, the British Prime Minister, agreed to it a couple of years ago, in the so-called Edinburgh Agreement. The other party to that deal was Alex Salmond, the First Minister of Scotland, who is also the leader of the Scottish National Party.
2) Don't the Scots already have their own parliament and their own government?
They do. The Scottish Parliament came into existence in 1999, following a "yes" vote in a referendum on "devolving" some powers to an elected body confined to Scotland. Tony Blair's New Labour government organized the vote, and close to seventy-five per cent of the people who turned out said that they wanted a Scottish Parliament. Initially, the Parliament was controlled by the Scottish Labour Party, a sibling of English Labour. Since 2007, the Scottish National Party, which is usually referred to as the S.N.P., has held the most seats. And, since 2011, it has held a majority.
3) What powers does the current Scottish government have?
Under the terms of the Scotland Act of 1998, which paved the way for devolution, the Scottish government can pursue its own policies in a broad range of areas: education, health, agriculture, the environment, law and order, transportation, the arts. But the Parliament at Westminster, which still has a full complement of Scottish M.P.s, controls foreign policy, defense, immigration, most government benefits, corporate regulation, and energy. It also sets most of the tax rates that apply to Scotland and other parts of Great Britain.
4) Why didn't devolution satisfy the Scots who are seeking independence?
That's a complicated question. In seeking to win the vote, Salmond and his allies are concentrating on bread-and-butter issues, claiming that an independent Scotland would be more prosperous, more responsive to Scottish needs, and, ultimately, more democratic. But Scottish nationalism also has deep emotional roots. The vote marks the culmination of decades—nay, centuries—of campaigning for independence by Scots who dislike being ruled by the Sassenachs.
Ever since the second century A.D., when the Roman legions tired of attacks from the fearsome tribes of the hilly, rainy land they called Caledonia and withdrew behind Hadrian's Wall, Scotland has been its own country. In the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries, it fought two wars of independence against the English, during which Mel Gibson—sorry, William Wallace—emerged as a national icon. Ever since the 1707 Acts of Union, which joined Scotland and England under Queen Anne, many Scots have dreamed of restoring full sovereignty to their homeland. The S.N.P., which was founded in 1934, provided a political outlet for Scottish nationalism, and it has long been committed to independence.
5) If there is a "yes" vote, will Scotland break all of its ties with the rest of the United Kingdom?
Not quite. That's one of the things that has complicated the independence debate. On the one hand, Salmond and his allies have stressed that, following a "yes" vote, Scotland would be its own sovereign country, power would reside in the Edinburgh Parliament, and full independence would be established by 2016. But the exact terms of the breakup with the United Kingdom would remain to be determined. The new Scotland wouldn't have any representation at Westminster, but it would still have strong economic ties to its southern neighbor. Salmond says that the two countries would maintain a free-trade and -travel area. The S.N.P. also says that, rather than having Scotland establish its own currency or join the euro zone, it wants to keep using sterling: it says that it would enter a currency union with the rest of the United Kingdom, and would also take responsibility for its portion of the U.K. national debt. Carney appeared to be undermining this scheme when he said that a "currency union is incompatible with sovereignty."
6) What about national security and foreign policy?
An independent Scotland would be in charge of its own defense, and it would have its own military. Salmond has said that it would seek to join NATO and the European Union. Beyond this outline, though, much would remain to be determined. To begin with, the new Scottish government would have to negotiate with London about how to divide up the British military: What bases, personnel units, and equipment would Scotland get to keep? The Scottish government has already said that it would no longer wish to host Britain's fleet of four nuclear-armed Trident submarines, which are based at Faslane on Gare Loch, which opens onto the Firth of Clyde.
Scotland's future membership in NATO and the European Union would also have to be negotiated. The S.N.P. is committed to nuclear disarmament. It says that it would adopt a stance similar to that of Norway and Denmark, two NATO members that neither possess nor host nuclear weapons. As for the European Union, the Scottish government says that it would begin negotiations immediately after the referendum to secure entry in 2016, the date of independence. It's not clear, though, whether this could be done in time. "It would be extremely difficult to get approval of all the other member states," José Manuel Barroso, the president of the European Commission, said in 2102. "I believe it's going to be extremely difficult, if not impossible."
7) Queen Elizabeth: What role, if any, would she have in an independent Scotland?
That’s another tricky one. Contrary to popular perception, the S.N.P. isn’t a republican party. On the Web site where it provides information about the referendum, the Scottish government says that an independent Scotland “will continue to share the Queen as head of state, as 16 Commonwealth countries already do.” As head of the British Commonwealth, a community of former British colonies that includes Canada and Australia, the Queen has a purely ceremonial role. But speaking in Edinburgh on Tuesday, Salmond went further than this, suggesting that Queen Elizabeth could serve as the monarch of an independent Scotland. “I want the Queen as head of state, as Queen of Scots of an independent Scotland, as her ancestors were,” he said. (Between 1603—when James VI, King of Scots, also became James I, King of England and Ireland—and 1707, the two countries shared a monarch.) Of course, the Queen would have to agree to such an arrangement. Salmond suggested that she would: “I think Her Majesty the Queen, who has seen so many events in the course of her long reign, will be proud to be Queen of Scots as indeed we indeed have been proud to have her as the monarch.” There was no immediate response from Buckingham Palace, which, on Monday, announced that Prince William and his wife Kate are expecting another child.
8) Who’s leading the “no” campaign, and what arguments are they making?
Alistair Darling, a Scot and Labour Party politician who served as chancellor of the exchequer from 2007 to 2010, is the front man for a coalition that also includes Scottish Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. It was Darling who took part in two televised debates with Salmond. (He didn’t do badly: the pundits reckon he won the first one and Salmond took the second one.) But, as evidenced by the latest intervention from the Bank of England, the government in London is also playing a key role.
Both sides have enlisted the support of Scottish celebrities. In the "no" camp, they include Rod Stewart, Ewan McGregor, Alex Ferguson (the former manager of Manchester United), and J. K. Rowling, who was born in England but has made a home in Scotland for many years. On the pro-independence side, the celebrity endorsers include the actors Sean Connery and Alan Cumming, the comedian Robbie Coltrane, and the writer Irvine Welsh.*
Early on, the “no” camp sought to appeal to the better nature of the Scottish electorate, adopting the slogan “Better Together” and stressing the many contributions that Scots, and Scotland, had made to British history. “We want you to stay,” Cameron said in a speech in Glasgow. “Think of what we’ve done together. Thinks of what we can do together.... Team GB, the winning team in the history of the world.” As the opinion polls have tightened, the “no” camp has resorted to promises of further devolution and efforts to scare the voters, claiming that a “yes” vote would lead to heightened financial uncertainty and, quite possibly, an economic calamity. But in taking such a negative approach, many analysts now agree, the anti-independence forces have ceded the initiative to the S.N.P. and its allies, who are peddling hope and nationalism.
9) Is there anything to these warnings about the dangers an independent Scotland would face?
Yes, there is. On the face of it, Scotland has the resources and the manpower to establish a small but stable and reasonably prosperous state. But the transition process could be difficult, and the Scottish government would need to get its policies right. In saying that it wanted independence but also wanted to retain the British pound, Salmond and his colleagues may well have made a big mistake. The lesson of the Euro crisis is that currency unions without political unions are perilous: if you don’t control your own currency, you risk being held hostage to the economic policies of other countries. Although nominally independent, Scotland would still be beholden to London: that’s the long-term threat. In the short term, there is another danger: a “yes” vote could create panic in Scotland’s large financial industry, which is closely integrated with the rest of the United Kingdom. Some banks and financial firms may well decide to move their headquarters south. If the British government didn’t intervene to assure it would maintain stability, there could even be the possibility of a run on some Scottish banks.
The S.N.P. doesn’t want to join the comatose Euro zone. That’s understandable. And it evidently believes it’s too small for its own currency. But in saying that it wanted to retain sterling, it also handed the opponents of independence a political weapon, which they are now wielding. In order for Scotland to use the pound, it would need the full support of the British Treasury and the Bank of England. Over the weekend, George Osborne, British chancellor, said, “No ifs and buts, we will not share the pound.”
10) Which side is going to win the referendum?
The most recent poll, from the research firm TNS, showed the race statistically tied. Thirty-eight per cent of respondents said that they would vote in favor of independence, and thirty-nine per cent said that they would vote against. Among voters certain to vote, the race was even, with both sides getting forty-one per cent. Opponents of independence will be hoping that what now seems like a genuine possibility of a “yes” victory will prompt some Scots to change their minds and vote “no.” Until now, the Financial Times noted in an editorial on Tuesday, “many Scots have been under the impression they can vote Yes as a feel-good gesture of protest against London, believing the No campaign will prevail. That is no longer the case.”
It will be fascinating to see what happens next. My guess, from a long distance away, is that the independence bid will ultimately come up short. The British bookmakers, who trade in real money rather than verbal speculation, are of the same view. As of Tuesday afternoon, they were still offering odds of seven-to-four or two-to-one in favor of the “yes” side. Roughly speaking, this suggests that the probability of an independent Scotland emerging is about one in three.
What is alarming the “no” camp is that the independence forces have the momentum. As recently as the start of August, some polls showed the “yes” camp trailing by double digits. Now, virtually all of the polls are close. “In the past four weeks support for the union has drained away at an astonishing rate,” Peter Kellner, the president of the polling firm YouGov, noted in a blog post. “The Yes campaign has not just invaded No territory; it has launched a blitzkrieg.”
*Update, September 10th: This post has been revised to include mention of the Scottish celebrities who have weighed in on the referendum.
