Across the pond in Scotland, citizens went to the polls to answer a simple yet crucial question: “Should Scotland be an independent country?” On September 18, the citizens of Scotland turned out in record numbers and ultimately voted “No” with a majority vote of 55 percent, according to the BBC.
Upon first learning the results of the poll, scenes of the Academy Award winning film Braveheart began playing in my mind. I began to think about how disappointed Sir William Wallace would be if he were alive today. Wallace sacrificed his life in an attempt to gain Scottish independence from the British rule in the early 14th century. Surely he would disapprove of his people’s decision to remain within the United Kingdom. After coming to my modern senses, however, I realized how much was actually at stake in the decision of the Scottish people and why they voted, “No.”
In today’s modern era, there is a lot of legality involved in a union between countries like the United Kingdom. A “Yes” vote would have had significant and complex changes to the Scotland’s economy and government.
Economically, the currency of Scotland would have likely been changed from the current British Pound Sterling. Gordon Osborne, the Treasury Chancellor of England, stated in an interview with the BBC that it was “highly unlikely that Scotland will be allowed to keep using the currency [Pound] if independence is declared,” adding “It is not like a divorce where you are dividing up a CD collection, this is something very different.”
The shared military power of the United Kingdom would have also separated. This was a very sensitive topic in debates leading up to the vote because the implications of a divided military would be detrimental to Scotland. British Defense Secretary Lord Robertson told the Scotsman newspaper in an interview that to “pretend Scotland would be defended by any British soldiers after a ‘Yes’ vote is a dangerous fiction.” If a “Yes” vote occurred, Scotland’s military forces would have decreased drastically to only about 20,000 active duty soldiers according to The Guardian. This number is miniscule compared to the 500,000 active duty soldiers the United Kingdom has. In today’s world, where violence seems inevitable, a strong standing army is a necessity. If Scotland were to have voted “Yes,” they would have still remained reliant on the protection that Britain provides, but I’m not sure the English would still be willing to help its neighbor if violence arose.
Frances Coppola, a finance contributor for Forbes, also states there were no established plans on how the Scottish government would have handled these issues if they did become independent. “Scotland was nowhere near ready for independence. The Scottish government did nothing whatsoever to prepare for a solo flight” Coppola states. This lack of planning could have done serious adverse impact to Scotland’s already established government and economy.
It is clear why the Scottish people voted “No.” There were too many risks and not enough rewards at the time of the vote. Although this vote may not have passed, an independent Scotland is still plausible in the future. According to Coppola, the majority of the 55 percent who voted “No” are elders, and the majority of the 45 percent who voted “Yes” are youth. If this goes to vote again in twenty five years, I think the result would be different.
I firmly believe that we will see an independent Scotland in our lifetime. The timing was not right for this vote, it was rushed and needed far more thought in order to be successful. When a planned approach from the pro-independence party does come forth, I think it is possible the majority will vote for independence.
Scotland’s youth are already in favor of independence and will eventually become the majority. Although William Wallace may be turning over in his grave right now, he should remain confident that his ideology may still become a reality.
Cameron Gildea can be reached at cameron.gildea@spartans.ut.edu