Tanay Singhvi, Year 13
When you first hear this term, the first thing that jumps to mind is this:
Mel Gibson’s Braveheart is mid-90s film about a Scottish revolution in the 13th century. Proclaimed as one of the most inaccurate historical movies of our time, Braveheart follows the William Wallace’s life and the story of “The First War of Scottish Independence.” Today, thoughts of a bloody revolution in a first world country are insubstantial at best (unless you’re planning one) which is why when Scotland fought for its independence a few weeks ago, it was a little more subdued.
A national ballot took place where any Scottish National, who wanted to vote on the issue, was asked, “Should Scotland be an Independent Country?” The answer, despite what history and a number of Scottish revolutions would have told us, was a resounding:
No.
Sorry Will, but they did. Scotland chose to vote “No” and that it would prefer to stay with the United Kingdom and not become an independent country. To most, this is fairly common knowledge. A lot of people could have told you with fewer pictures and words that the UK was still going strong. What they couldn’t tell you is why. Why did Scotland try to leave, why did they decide to stay? And that ladies and gentlemen is where I welcome you, because that is what this article is about.
Scotland: To Go or Not To Go
Let’s deal with the Scots first, and I realize that this is not the first time that this has been said by someone with British affiliations. Why did they try to go? I mean, Scotland’s not a bad country. It’s a first-world country, it has no lack of necessities, and generally people are happy. No form of repression, no secret police picking you up and dropping you off. No moustached villain in power abusing his rights and, generally, hurting the Scottish people.
 |
Though some might say having him is bad enough.
|
It all comes down to, as it always does with these things, politics and economics. As a country, Scotland is generally liberal, which makes it a little difficult for it to be run by the English, considering that the English normally have a conservative party running things. Scotland’s more into running ahead and meeting a lot of the new, forward-thinking policies and ideas of the new century, while England is more at ease with staying behind and sticking with what they have been doing. Each ideology has it benefits and drawbacks, but you can see how this might present a conflict of interest for the Scots.
I suppose the main embodiment of the differences between the two nations’ governing styles would bleed off on weapons. The United Kingdom is a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and they have nuclear weapons, which they store in, you guessed it, Scotland. The leaders of the Scottish National Party and many Scots in general, have called this situation
an obscenity and considering the amount they spend a day keeping them there, you can see where Scotland is coming from. However, I actually found something that is more shocking than this. The nuclear weapons are kept 25 kilometres from the most populated area in Scotland. How’s that for living with a bomb over your head – an explosion waiting to happen.
Moving on the economic side to things, we see the influence of black gold. Sorry, I meant oil. One of the most sought after resource on Earth, this commodity literally has had wars fought over it, so when you realise that Scotland has oil, things get a lot more complicated.
Scotland says that the UK takes the majority of oil revenues from Scotland and spends it on development in its country. Scotland, obviously, thinks that this is unfair and, while it may have a point, this really isn’t how governments work. Funds from taxes and revenues all get mixed up and spent on things that need to be spent on. Therefore, government isn’t directly spending money from Scotland and Scottish needs may not be as deceptive as the Scots imply. However, we could be wrong and the United Kingdom could be purposefully denying Scotland full access to their natural resources. In this case, there would be a lot more upheaval than just a national ballot. Strikes and revolutions may breakout.
Of course, a lot of this might seem a little pointless. After all, the Scots voted NO. It’s still important, however, to know where they were coming from, because Scotland, despite choosing a unicorn for their national animal, had some serious reasons on why it should govern itself, without the UK.
So why did the Scots vote “no”? Well, there are a number of reasons. The major reason is that they didn’t want to lose the pound. Not being a part of the UK, they would lose the currency, meaning that Scotland would have three choices. First, join the EU and their unstable Euro, if they even reach the EU requirements. Second, revert back to their old currency which was the pound Scots, so not much of a difference, aside from the fact that this old currency is pretty archaic since it was last used before 1707 or during the pre-unification period. Third, make a new currency, which is still a relatively un-researched topic. Each of these options has its own drawbacks, especially since the pound is such a strong currency in the present world.
Another reason was that the UK’s government promised to give more power to the Scottish party and administration.
So, you can see that there were compelling arguments for both sides, but the fact remains that Scotland is still a part of the UK and that this fact won’t be changing for a while.
0 comments: