Follow on to previous post

A dear friend sent the previous post re: Scottish independence to Scottish friends who liked the history part but who, as a couple, are split on the issue. The hubby asked how I would have felt if 1776  had never happened, and America was still ruled from England. A fair question. 

     While there are huge differences, I get his point, but he lives in a nation, not a colony, and whether or not he sees it this way, Scots  are a full fledged citizens of the UK, having a right to vote. Had England extended the franchise to it colonies, things might well be different. A better analogy would have been to compare the US' Southern states to the Northern states in 1860, but being a Scot, those events are probably not as well understood there as here. The huge difference is that while a terrible civil war was required to keep our union together, the Scots may accomplish separation it in a way that is far to easy to effect, and far to harmful to their interests to accept in time. Thomas Wolfe eloquently wrote: "You can't go home again."  What follows is the post from my Facebook page:   

     I would answer that then, as now, a Government which was run by rational intelligent men could have avoided both the loss of the colonies and, in the present, the loss of Scotland. One significant difference is the presence of many more non-English in America by 1776. The other significant factor is that because of such issues as raw materials and trade constraints between France and England which affected the largely un-involved and even less interested colonists adversely, there were actual advantages to separation from England which are not evident in the present situation.

     If you remember, at the close of the fourth French/English war, (the one fought primarily in North America, known here as the French and Indian War, known in Europe as either the Seven Year's war or in England (sometimes) as King George's War) good feelings between Britain and her American colonies were at an all time high. Then, in a reversal of a promise made by PM Pitt that England would finance it if Americans fought, taxes and tariffs were raised as a series of incompetent Ministers of Finance (among others) reneged on that promise. In a span of just 13 years, things soured to the point of revolution. 

     There are several other factors differing then from now. First, America was rich in natural resources beyond all European comprehension and could easily become self sufficient in all necessities, which is certainly not the situation in either England or Scotland today. Second, America had markets with other nations that assured their success (if GB let them alone) As it turned out, we got caught up in the friction between England and France caused by Napoleon. The resultant War of 1812 saw us at odds again, resulting in the White House being burned by British troops. Britain, tired of war by 1815, quit, we didn't defeat them. 

     The relationship of Scotland to England is far different, and each entity is much smaller and isolated from all but each other. Again, I am not a Scot (but I have spent time there periodically from 1967 to 1985 and again this past May) It seems a shame that two peoples with so much commonality will risk their economy and general happiness for the sake of issues that could be met in the middle by men of good will. In close, I have seen several comments by separatists citing a desire to model on the Scandinavian example. That ship has long sailed, due to the nature of present day Scotland compared to, say, The Finns, who have a far more homogeneous society. A closer look at Norway and Sweden shows huge numbers of state dependents, with drug use a common problem as well as astronomical taxes to support the system. Scotland would be wise to avoid even considering going that route.