Be Careful What You Wish For!

                                      Be careful what you wish for.....

  

      As we are very near to Scotland's referendum regarding separation from Great Britain  it is very tempting to become infused with a sort of  spirit of adventure and of the unknown that tends to evolve from such momentous events. It is my opinion that the more generally uninformed one is, the more the "romance" of such efforts seems to enthuse and inspire.  The problem with such persons is that , unfortunately, their votes count as much as those of  the informed literate and politically aware.

        As an American observer, detached from all the hoo-hah and especially from the jingoistic Scottish nationalism of Alexander  Salmond, Scottish First Minister and  prime proponent of  separation from the United Kingdom it is, no doubt  somewhat easier to be objective. Since I am also a historian, bear with me for a brief review of how we (they) got here. It is generally accepted that the Britons and Scots , while having mixed their DNA freely over the centuries, come from somewhat different stock as settlers of the island (we'll call it Britain, for simplicity) which they co-inhabit. The Scots, as well as the Irish, another group who have already (for the most part) become independent  of England, are largely  of early Norse, (before the word Viking, used to describe their raids on the island(s) came into use) stock. In fact many Scots immigrated from Ireland, Dublin being originally a Viking town, and interwove their gene pool with the remnants of the Picts whose civilization inhabited  Neolithic and Bronze Age northern Britain, essentially most of what we now call Scotland.  It was these Picts and their descendants that caused the Roman emperor Hadrian to have the famous wall built to keep the "savages" above more civilized Roman Brittania. By the 5th century, the Roman occupation of Britain ended, and the Picts had generally consolidated rule over most of what we now consider as Scotland. It is worthy of mention that at the same time, the settlers of southern England were of Celtic and Saxon descent, differing in language and, because of long contact with Rome, religion. 

        A second wave of Norse derived settlement occurred in the  sixth and/or seventh century from Irish immigrants and in the seventh century by the Irish Christian missionary, St, Columba.   According to 9th- and 10th-century literature, the Gaelic kingdom of Dál Riata was founded on the west coast of Scotland in the 6th century. Irish missionary Columba founded a monastery on Iona and introduced the previously pagan Scotti to Celtic Christianity, and with less success the Picts of Pictland.   The King of the Picts later expelled  the Columban (Gaelic) church in favor of the Roman,  to hinder  the influence of the Scoti on his kingdom and to avoid a war with Northumbria, A Brittanic kingdom to the south.  In the same period Angles had conquered the previously Brythonic (Brittanic)  territory south of the Clyde and Forth, initially creating the Anglo Saxon kingdom of Bernicia, later becoming a part   of Northumbria.  Towards the end of the 8th century all three kingdoms were raided, settled and to some extent came under Viking control. Successive defeats by the Norse forced the Picts and Scoti to mute their historic hostility to each other and unite in the 9th century, to form the Kingdom of Scotland.

        The Kingdom of Scotland was united under the descendants of Kenneth MacAlpin,  first king of a united Scotland. His descendants, ( House of Alpin) , fought among each other during frequent disputed successions over several hundred years,  with the last Alpin king, Malcolm II, dying without issue in the early 11th century and the kingdom passing through his daughter's son, Duncan I, who started a new line of kings known to House of  Dunkeld . The last Dunkeld king, Alexander III, died in 1286 leaving only a single infant granddaughter known to history as the Maid of Norway, as heir. Four years later, Margaret, Maid of Norway herself died in a  shipwreck en route to Scotland.  At this point reflect that the throne and therefore the destiny of  Scotland England had been controlled by Scots liberally intermarrying with other Nordic peoples. The death of the maid of Norway and the muddled question of  Scottish succession drew the close personal attention of English King,  Edward I,(Longshanks),  who took  advantage of the questioned succession  to launch a series of conquests into Scotland.  (See Braveheart!) The resulting Wars of Scottish Independence were fought in the late 13th and early 14th centuries as Scotland passed back and forth between the House of Balliol and the House of Bruce.

        Scotland's ultimate victory in the Wars of Independence under David II confirmed Scotland as a fully independent and sovereign kingdom. When David II died without issue, his nephew Robert II established the House of Stewart (the spelling was  changed to Stuart in the 16th century), which would rule Scotland uncontested for the next three centuries. In 1603, Elizabeth I (Tudor) died without heir. The Tudor line survived in Scotland, as James VI, Stuart king of Scotland, was the grandson of Margaret Tudor, wife of James IV (Stuart). James VI,  therefore,  inherited the throne of England in 1603, and the Stuart kings and queens ruled both independent kingdoms until the Act of Union in 1707 merged the two kingdoms into a new state, the Kingdom of Great Britain. Queen Anne was the last Stuart monarch, ruling until 1714. Since 1714, the succession of the British monarchs of the houses of Hanover and Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (Windsor) has been due to their descent from James VI and I of the House of Stuart. This literally means, if you believe all that "king and queen" stuff, that in fact, Scotland is the hereditary ruler of England!

        There are numerous issues cited by the Scots in defense of independence, and some which have not been so publically debated, but are also historically relevant, religion being one of those. Until the mid 1500s, the Scots monarchy had been relatively sympathetic toward the Roman Catholic Church, but with the Protestant reformation, began to be riven by disputes between  Catholics and the new strenuous Protestantism of John Knox and others. While Henry VIII  had  split from the Roman church in 1532, there was significant difference between the Church of England, with Bishops and the King as titular head and the more independent minded Kirk (Church of Scotland), Protestant, Calvinist and not particularly fond of the Church of England (Anglican for brevity).- and especially of the political power granted Anglican bishops As an example, the Kirk recognizes only two sacraments, baptism and Holy communion, and certainly did not recognize the divine right of English monarchs! Catholic sentiment did remain strong among highland and island Scots, but most land owners, powerful lairds were Presbyterian.

        On his ascendancy, James VI took his position as head of the Anglican Church very seriously, and attempted to Anglicize the rites and rituals of the Kirk, with little success. His son Charles I went further, attempting to force the Anglican  Book of Common Prayer onto Scots, with results eventually leading in the mid 1600s to the English Civil War, as English Puritans, modeling their worship in some ways on that of the Scots, beheaded Charles. The Stuart restoration, in 1660, left Scotland once again independent, but with a very different Stuart on the English throne. Charles II, "the merry monarch" very mindful of his father's  beheading  refused to make waves. His younger brother James, however, just prior to ascending to the throne on Charles II's death, converted to Catholicism to the great dismay of  Parliament and the Anglican Bishops. Since James II was not a young man and had no son who would be a Catholic heir, it was a sort of tacit agreement that he'd be allowed to serve out his life, and a proper Protestant, his daughter Mary, it was assumed, would become sovereign. James II 
established Catholic toleration, elevated Catholics to important state positions and generally outraged numerous of his subjects. The final insult, however was his marriage to a young Catholic, Mary of Modena, and the prompt siring  of  a son, James Francis Edward Stuart to be raised  Catholic. James II was invited to leave and take his Catholic wife and son with him, and Mary, with her husband William of Orange, Dutch Stadholder  became king and queen, beginning the current unbroken string of Protestant, Anglican monarchs.

        In Scotland, The Estates issued a Claim of Right that suggested that James had forfeited the crown by his actions (in contrast to England, which relied on the legal fiction of an abdication) and offered it to William and Mary, which William accepted, along with limitations on royal power.  The final settlement restored Presbyterianism and abolished the bishops, who had generally supported James. However, William, who was more tolerant than the Kirk tended to be, passed acts restoring the Episcopalian clergy excluded after the Revolution.

        Although William's supporters dominated the government, there remained a significant following for James II, now in exile in France, particularly in the Highlands. He was referred to by the English and some lowland Scots, as "the Old Pretender" (to the throne), while  Highland and island Scots (in the Hebrides, Shetlands, etc) frequently referred to James II as "the King Over the Water" as he remained in exile in France and sometimes Italy.  His cause, which became known as Jacobinism, from the Latin (Jacobs) for James, led to a series of risings. An initial Jacobite military attempt was led by John Graham, Viscount Dundee. His forces, almost all Highlanders, defeated William's forces  in 1689, but they took heavy losses and Dundee was slain in the fighting. Without his leadership the Jacobite army was soon defeated at the Battle of Dunked. In the aftermath of the Jacobi defeat on 13 February 1692 in an incident known as the Massacre of Glencoe, 38 members of the Clan MacDonald of Glencoe were killed by members of the Earl of Argyll's Regiment of Foot, on the grounds that they had not been prompt in pledging allegiance to the new monarchs. The  Glencoe massacre hardened highland Scots, many of whom were Catholic sympathizers or worshippers, against the English Crown and even their own lowland compatriots, many of whom were of English descent, and far wealthier that the highlanders.   

        By the start of the 18th century, a political union between Scotland and England became increasingly politically and economically attractive to the Scots , promising to open up the much larger markets of England and it's Empire. The Scottish parliament voted in 1707 to adopt the Treaty of Union. It was  a full economic union, since most of its 25 articles dealt with economic relationships and arrangements for the new state of  "Great Britain". It added 45 Scots to the 513 members of the House of Commons and 16 Scots to the 190 members of the House of Lords, and ended the Scottish parliament (since restored in 1999).  It also replaced the Scottish systems of currency, taxation and laws regulating trade with laws made in London. Scottish law remained separate from English law, and the religious system was not changed. England had about five times the population of Scotland at the time, and about 36 times as much wealth.

        Skipping much that is only peripherally relevant, the present situation is that while Scotland has long been a labor Party (or its prior equivalents) stronghold, Conservative controlled British  Parliaments have in some ways continued to alienate many Scots. The reestablishment of  the  Scottish Parliament, while granting local control in local matters, has fallen short of allowing Scottish self determination, so here we are.

                     So what are the pros and cons of Scottish independents and what are the issues?

  

      Mr. Salmond tends to focus on the whole and has offered very little specificity in answering some of the thornier questions. In no particular order here are some of those.

The money issue: There is no certainty as to what monetary system might be enacted if the British refuse to allow Scots to use the Pound Sterling.  A corollary to this is the financial market uncertainty which would almost assuredly immediately ensue.

Loss of international influence: A divided U.K. would be a weaker member of NATO and would cause a "huge blow to Britain's political weight," according to  a senior fellow with the Europe program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Even more severe,  Scotland would have almost no international standing to start with. The new nation would likely have to reapply to enter the European Union. This seems a no brainer, until one considers that other  European governments (Spain for one) are dealing with separatist movements of their own and would rather not legitimize the Scottish government. Allowing Scotland to separate and then join the EU would place these other nations on a very slippery slope. The Spanish government is  wary and possibly "terrified" of the Scottish National Party. It is dealing with a strong separatist movement in Catalonia, and is afraid that a win for Scottish independence would make it harder to ignore Catalonian calls for a similar referendum. Belgium also has independence-minded Walloon politicians that may be emboldened by a win for Scottish nationalists. . One can almost envision  Basque and/or Catalonian separatists preparing the ballots!

Loss of Business and industry: One of the UK's most venerable and largest insurers, Standard Life has already weighed in on the issue -  The pensions and savings firm, which has had its headquarters in Scotland for 189 years, is drawing up contingency plans to potentially relocate funds, people and operations to England if Scots vote to leave the UK in September. This probably the tip of the iceberg if there is any currency uncertainty, which there almost assuredly would be.

Long term debt: Scots would be liable for their "share" of the UK's huge national debt.  Assertions by Mr Salmond that Scotland's  "share" of North Sea and Shetland oil reserves will make up much  the shortfall, look past the fact that the recovery cost for much of that oil is so high that tax breaks and incentives to producers will reduce profitability to the extent that national income will see relatively little improvement. This is problematic , since Scotland already uses rather more, per capita of UK social  services than the "lower " UK. Although Salmond pooh-poohs  these concerns, many feel there will be significant austerity  required which many of these same voters will feel.  

So what went wrong?  Start with a nation many of whose population have never forgiven the one time banning of the clans. Admittedly, these are highlanders, but it makes a good rallying cry. More importantly, consider a British parliamentary system which almost makes the US Congress seem efficient. Far from  a meritocracy, The House of lords still seats 96 "hereditary peers" who get to make national policy by virtue solely of their birth and the title accompanying it. even worse, the Lords still number among their number 26 Anglican Bishops who are members simply because of their office. Collectively, that means 122 members of the upper chamber are essentially answerable to no one! As these peers and Bishops tend to be conservative, it creates a cadre of Lords and Bishops essentially antithetical to the Scottish Labour/Liberal tradition. 

       Much of Westminster's  legislation is viewed by Scots as being passed by Englanders to solve English problems with everyone's money. What night have forestalled this crisis is meaningful reform of the system. While there have been numerous proposals from 1969 to the present to reform the House of Lords; as recently as 2012, such a measure was dropped, the committee reporting that those surveyed (who were 'they"?) believed there were more important national issues. Well, it's two years later and there may be no more important  issue in the foreseeable future than the upcoming vote. It seems to me that just as England lost her American colonies by mismanagement by incompetent government, history may well repeat itself. Hopefully if it happens, both parties will survive, but overshadowing events is  the nagging feeling that it should never have come to this. I fear if disunion takes place, both Britain and Scotland will be the worse for it.