There was an interesting party recently with a theme: The Separation Vote in Scotland.
There were two tasked, one to present each side. The Pro position was well-spoken with an interesting take. He said any revolution which resulted in the improvement of liberty was valid and just. For example he offered the American Revolution in 1776 as a good revolution, the Southern States revolution in the Civil War as bad. The freedom gained in the Scottish separation, he said, justified it.
The Nay position was presented by the host, a Scot, who argued that the Scots had virtual independence already with autonomous control of education, welfare, law and justice with Great Britain controlling only taxation and military. Thus the point is moot.
I offered nationalistic animosity as bait but no one took it. Indeed, the Pro said, the fact that so little animosity existed raised the level of debate to a purer sort.
This question is bigger than it looks. The Separation vote is quite vague. "Should Scotland be an independent country?" is almost adolescent in its simplicity. And the debate is youthful. There is a large Green contingent that wants nothing more than NATO's nuclear warships out of Scottish ports. A large segment fears that Scotland's predominate Social Democrat political feelings will be swamped by Great Britain's stable-looking Tory vote. These are small foundations on which to build a country. (One alarming observation showed that the vote for separation grew noticeably after Mel Gibson's fanciful "Braveheart.")
One opinion, from a young woman, was dismissive of the current Western structure, giving the back of her hand to the U.S. over what she said was America's poor "human rights" record, in support of the separation vote as sort-of morally deserved rebuke of the status quo.
While this argument is, I think, anti-historical and a bit askew it points to much of the problem here. "Should Scotland be an independent country?" is not a political question, it is a debating proposition for colleges. It is a position without a direction. The question is a starting point, not a solution, and attracts youth fervor, idealism, nationalism and heartfelt inaccuracy more than any other element. It is not a coincidence that sixteen-year-olds are allowed to vote on the question. But it is, indeed, a question for our age.
In truth, the separation of the two entities would have dramatic fallout, much unforeseen. What will be the currency? How will the debt be shared? What about the EU and NATO? Is the current momentum of paring political entities into smaller and smaller coherent shards a good idea? After separation, should the Shetlands go with the Danes and, if no, why not? The most important revolution in history, the American Revolution, took almost one hundred years to complete, and it is considered quite successful. Many of the objections to the current political status in Scotland would be solved by simply thinking out the government infrastructure. (For example, the problem of Scotland being submerged by its more populous opponents would be solved by an American-type regional based Senate.)
Countries as entities are under attack all over the world. The powers-that-be discourage nationalism which they think has led to much of the world's instability and conflict. But some countries are founded upon principle, not ethnicity, and those entities deserve respect. What is the positive motive for the separation? What are the new nation's energizing principles? More, those ethnic creations tend to be the real villains in nationalism.
The separation vote means much more than it asks but it is unlikely that a state initiated by the Greens, the Social Democrats and sixteen-year-olds will rise to the occasion. The lack of animosity adds little when the debate is over sentiment and not ideas. More, such a shallow notion should not be allowed the disruption it promises.
Incidentally, the vote at the party went 9 to 8 against separation.
There were two tasked, one to present each side. The Pro position was well-spoken with an interesting take. He said any revolution which resulted in the improvement of liberty was valid and just. For example he offered the American Revolution in 1776 as a good revolution, the Southern States revolution in the Civil War as bad. The freedom gained in the Scottish separation, he said, justified it.
The Nay position was presented by the host, a Scot, who argued that the Scots had virtual independence already with autonomous control of education, welfare, law and justice with Great Britain controlling only taxation and military. Thus the point is moot.
I offered nationalistic animosity as bait but no one took it. Indeed, the Pro said, the fact that so little animosity existed raised the level of debate to a purer sort.
This question is bigger than it looks. The Separation vote is quite vague. "Should Scotland be an independent country?" is almost adolescent in its simplicity. And the debate is youthful. There is a large Green contingent that wants nothing more than NATO's nuclear warships out of Scottish ports. A large segment fears that Scotland's predominate Social Democrat political feelings will be swamped by Great Britain's stable-looking Tory vote. These are small foundations on which to build a country. (One alarming observation showed that the vote for separation grew noticeably after Mel Gibson's fanciful "Braveheart.")
One opinion, from a young woman, was dismissive of the current Western structure, giving the back of her hand to the U.S. over what she said was America's poor "human rights" record, in support of the separation vote as sort-of morally deserved rebuke of the status quo.
While this argument is, I think, anti-historical and a bit askew it points to much of the problem here. "Should Scotland be an independent country?" is not a political question, it is a debating proposition for colleges. It is a position without a direction. The question is a starting point, not a solution, and attracts youth fervor, idealism, nationalism and heartfelt inaccuracy more than any other element. It is not a coincidence that sixteen-year-olds are allowed to vote on the question. But it is, indeed, a question for our age.
In truth, the separation of the two entities would have dramatic fallout, much unforeseen. What will be the currency? How will the debt be shared? What about the EU and NATO? Is the current momentum of paring political entities into smaller and smaller coherent shards a good idea? After separation, should the Shetlands go with the Danes and, if no, why not? The most important revolution in history, the American Revolution, took almost one hundred years to complete, and it is considered quite successful. Many of the objections to the current political status in Scotland would be solved by simply thinking out the government infrastructure. (For example, the problem of Scotland being submerged by its more populous opponents would be solved by an American-type regional based Senate.)
Countries as entities are under attack all over the world. The powers-that-be discourage nationalism which they think has led to much of the world's instability and conflict. But some countries are founded upon principle, not ethnicity, and those entities deserve respect. What is the positive motive for the separation? What are the new nation's energizing principles? More, those ethnic creations tend to be the real villains in nationalism.
The separation vote means much more than it asks but it is unlikely that a state initiated by the Greens, the Social Democrats and sixteen-year-olds will rise to the occasion. The lack of animosity adds little when the debate is over sentiment and not ideas. More, such a shallow notion should not be allowed the disruption it promises.
Incidentally, the vote at the party went 9 to 8 against separation.
No comments:
Post a Comment