Even if your ancestors left Scotland more than 200 years ago, you can still rise to the skirl of the pipes, honour a haggis with other fans of Robbie Burns, sing along with old Harry Lauder recordings and dance the Gay Gordons at a ceilidh. What you cannot do is read the mix of emotions in Scotland on the upcoming referendum. On September 18 this year, Scotland will be voting on whether or not to become a nation that stands alone.
While Scots nationalists have been vocal and demanding for many years, the Scottish National Party might be misreading its own people. In the same way Britain’s bookies current 5–1 betting odds in favour of separation have to be viewed in emotional terms and are not realistic. If you know one thing about the Scots is that they are a very practical people.
What there is not in the Scottish situation is any comparison to the referendums held in Quebec. In a recent article by the Toronto Star’s Chantal Hébert, she points out that Quebec voters would never agree to risking an after the fact negotiation with the rest of Canada as is part of the agreed vote in Scotland. She sees the conditions of the Scottish vote as anathema to the selling of separation in Quebec.
One of the factors making it hard for anyone to read the tea leaves in Scotland is the fact that the vote has been extended to people from age 16 up. The youth vote was pushed by the nationalists in hopes that this younger vote will take the emotional aspects of the vote to the polls.
But what we know from past experience is that there seems to be a balance in that age group from 16 to 19 that matches the overall result of their parents. Lowering the age to vote is not the answer and just getting them to the polls is enough of a problem.
There is no question but the romanticism of university-level Scots nationalists will be voting for separation but they are not the ones needing a job the next day. These nationalists will also be joined by the disenchanted, the losers and the bitter. That adds up to a solid vote for separation.
But it is probably not enough. The realist is going to wonder why they should want to swim in a smaller economic pool. All they are guaranteed by separation is the probability of higher taxes and lowered economic opportunity.
But the realist is pitted against such words of Robbie Burns as: “The story of Wallace poured a Scottish prejudice in my veins, which will boil along there ‘til the floodgates of life shut in eternal rest.”
-30-
Copyright 2014 © Peter Lowry
Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to [email protected]