July 13, 2007
Scottish ambition
Scotland ’s new first minister is in town on his first overseas visit since taking up the role.
Alex Salmond said he wanted Scotland to rediscover its sense of internationalism, adding that the country understood the need to raise its game on the world stage.
He also wants more of a voice for Scotland in the EU. He highlighted small members such as Slovenia (which has a population less than half that of Scotland’s) which assumes the union’s rotating presidency next year. “We recognise the success of so many small countries in Europe, and we aspire to the independent membership of the EU that they enjoy.”
And Scotland could pack more punch by leading British representation at meetings of EU fisheries ministers, the head of the ruling Scottish National Party added. (The UK government decides on British representation at the talks)
"It simply cannot be right that Scotland - with 68 per cent of the UK catch and the largest fishing zone of any single EU country - sits in a subsidiary position when these decisions affecting our communities are being made,” Mr Salmond said.
There’s a precedent for this. Belgium’s northern region Flanders (which has the coast) sometimes takes the lead for the highly-devolved country at the fisheries’ negotiating table.
Would such a move work in the UK case? What would happen when the views of Scotland and the rest of the UK diverged at these sensitive meetings, which can discuss quotas and more?
I think that Alex Salmond should spend more time sorting out the roles as first Minister and stop trying to break up the UK, it will do neither Scottish or the English any good, but I am guessing that this more of a grudge against the English rather than improving the lives of us Scots.
Robert C. Perth
Posted by: Robert C | July 13th, 2007 at 12:51 pm | Report this commentAlex Salmond’s visit to Brussels should be the beginning of a voyage of rediscovery of Scotland’s role in Europe. The Athens of the North will find friends and allies across the whole European board, and indeed globally. Apart from the Auld Alliance with France, Scotland has a natural affinity with the Scandinavian and Baltic members of the EU. She has historical links with many of the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. I believe an integrally restored independent Kingdom of Scots (resuming its pre-1707 identity), unhampered by unbending and unimaginative English insularity which does not want more than a minimal commitment to European integration. Scotland has its tradition of banking and finance - a kind of Jacobite polarity to the Whig oligarchies of the City of London - which is second to none. Provided Salmond uses the proverbial Scottish sagacity and breaks the mould of sterile anti-English knee-jerk politics, he will find sympathetic listeners in Europe to his Scottish overtures. How did his fellow Celts in Ireland manage so successfully?
Posted by: Stelios Rigopoulos | July 13th, 2007 at 1:29 pm | Report this commentThe most sure-fire way for the First Minister to signal a break with England and make a Scottish overture to Europe would be if he, or an SNP representative, could deliver his speech in Brussels in a language other than English.
Posted by: DH Glasgow | July 13th, 2007 at 1:52 pm | Report this commentWe have been of the view that the more members, the better and more efficient the Union becomes. The addition of another (Scotland) will be a double whammy, as it will both alienate the Brits further and also raise the stakes for other indepdent minded regions. Both noble causes that will undoubtedly streamline the already hyper-efficace European decision-making process. The more growth the merrier we say!
Posted by: europhobe | July 13th, 2007 at 5:40 pm | Report this comment“‘Scotland would be rendered un-perceivable in an EU Super-state”
What, other than self-based ego, & irresponsible motives could be behind the proposition of ‘Scotland’ advocating for the UK’s interests at international venues??
‘England’ is not seen to be (& UK politicians have attempted to say it was) representing the United Kingdom’s interests at international venues, such as as the EU committees, etc.
Shouldn’t responsibility to others rule over ‘nationalistic’ self-interest?
Roderick V. Louis
Posted by: Roderick V. Louis | July 17th, 2007 at 2:29 am | Report this commentVancouver, Canada,
ceo@patientempowermentsociety.com
No luck. When I read that 35% wanted independence and 65 % wanted to sleep and stay happily tied up with the name Great Britain, I think Scotland will be with the UK for years to come. What amazes me is the Certificate of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales. It leaves out Scotland but the Scottish can practice the accountancy anywhere in the world as British Accountants, excellent auditors and tax consultants.
This is one way entry is it not?
But known to few??????
I thank you
Firozali A.Mulla MBA PhD
Posted by: Firozali a Mulla MBA PhD | July 19th, 2007 at 4:32 pm | Report this commentP.O.Box 6044
Dar-Es-Salaam
Tanzania
East Africa
Ironically, the EU has helped spur Scottish nationalism with its willingness to recognize Scotland as a distinct “regional/national” entity at Brussels via the Scotland House, Committee of Regions, etc., as well as local EU offices in Scotland. I realize many of the bloggers don’t like Salmond’s calls for economic nationalism, but this is precisely what the EU has encouraged via its “Europe of regions” approach. Scotland could be the next Norway or Denmark of Europe (realizing Norway is not in the EU), but if mishandled, it could be a marginalized EU state like Slovakia–with its power curtailed after it leaves Britain’s orbit. I agree that would be unfortunate for the economic scene in Scotland if all Salmond hangs his hopes on are oil revenues and returns or even worse, fishing–remember what has happened to the Maritimes in Canada as they focused soley on fishing into the 1980s and 1990s (60%+ unemployment in some areas).
Posted by: K W Jefferson | August 21st, 2007 at 9:55 pm | Report this commentKW, that’s a very interesting take. I agree that the EU does encourage regions to develop their own agendas, but in my opinion this is done through fairly weak structural means - membership of the Committee of the Regions does not confer any significant legislative or policy-making power, and I was under the impression that the Structural or other funds that might be allocated to Scotland would be managed from London, although devolution may have changed that (does anyone konw?).
I’m not sure how you mean that Slovakia has been marginalised. Can you explain?
Posted by: Chris Sherwood | August 22nd, 2007 at 8:29 am | Report this commentChris, you are right on all fronts about the EU. Not sure about structural funds and if the control of those have been moved north. I was implying more about the symbolic politis of the EU’s actions. I am a political scientist and view this context from more of a political orientation rather than a purely economic one as many of the FT readers do. All I meant by the marginalized Slovakia comment was that Scotland may end up a micro-state in Europe with little power vis-a-vis the larger ones (Germany, Britain, France, Italy) and with the prospect of rising nationalism (as seen by the immediate pre-EU days of the SNS and V Meciar in power in Slovakia), it could leave Scotland in a precarious position. I know Scotland is a democratic political culture and it is not like Slovakia regarding its recent history, but nationalism can mutate in varying directions. I don’t think Scots will allow it to become a rabid anti-Engilsh nationalism (as the Slovak nationalism was very much anti-Czech, and some would say for good reasons in terms of historical asymmetries). I do admit it could also leave Scotland as a player like Slovenia where it can employ “soft power” (to use Joseph Nye’s term) which allows it to serve as a go between diplomatically between larger states. But, this will not perforce enhance Scotland’s economic prospects as a single market outside Britain.
Posted by: K W Jefferson | August 22nd, 2007 at 1:03 pm | Report this commentKW thanks for your comments. I’d say that the politics is intimately bound up with the money! Scotland can only really express its independence from London in the context of the EU through the CoR, its MEPs, and its control (if any) of the allocation of EU funds for Scotland. I can’t think of any other political leverage it has in Brussels. Since CoR and the few MEPs are not very powerful ways of expressing Scotiish preferences, I’d argue that any Scottish control of EU funds would be quite significant, but that in the meantime London is really completely in control (let’s not even get into Scottish control of the UK government!).
EU membership is one of the ways that national central governments exert some degree of control over regional nationalisms, like in Belgium and Spain. While environment policy in Belgium is a regional responsibility, the Belgian state, and not Flanders, Wallonia, or Brussels, is represented in the Council. The central government does end up exerting considerable control over what is theoretically a regional responsibility as a result.
On Slovakia and parallels with Scotland, I think they’re difficult to draw, mainly because Slovakia was independent before EU membership, and because it was dominated (at least as far as I understand) to a much lesser degree that Scotland. But I take your point about small countries and their power in a 27+-member EU. I guess you have to ask how the clout that the Scots have in London would compare to the clout they would have as an independent country. They’d certainly have more MEPs, and they’d have a veto on many issues in the Council, and they’d have a Commissioner from time to time (when was the last Scottish Commissioner?).
As an Englishman who lived in Scotland for several years, my impression was always that the tragedy of Scottish identity was that it was so often defined in relation to England, and that the Scots seemed to expend more energy on distinguishing themselves from the English than was necessary. I know I may get jumped on by some Scots for saying it, but I feel that freed of the burden of association in people’s minds with England (when was the last time you heard a Frenchman refer to “le Royaume Uni” and not “l’Angleterre”?), they might find an as yet undiscovered mode of cultural and political expression.
To be clear, I’m not an advocate of either Scottish independence or the Union. I’m completely undecided. But the independence scenario does seem to have some attractions.
Posted by: Chris Sherwood | August 22nd, 2007 at 1:43 pm | Report this commentChris, I appreciate these insights and comments they are very helpful and educational. I will share them with my students. I am an American who studies Britain (mainly Scottish and UK party politics) and teaches about Britain, Europe, and the EU to American (as well as international students) undergrads. Your comments on Scottish nationalism dovetail with what I have found in my research over the years. I remember a Labour MP (Brian Wilson–not the founder of the American pop group the Beach Boys!?!) from Cunningham North in Scotland (Brian Wilson) who wrote a piece in the NEW STATESMAN in the early 1990s about how (in his opinion) much of Scottish nationalism was more about anti-Englishness (ties to your comments); although Wilson was arguing this was a more extreme form of nationalism (and I would disagree and say most Scottish nationalism is a bourgeois type–with some exceptions like the group that was proscribed by the SNP when it advocated destroying English-owned property in Scotland, etc like the Sons of Glyn dwr in Wales. Although I think Wilson was generally correct, I would love to see studies that empirically verify this. I know for a fact that something like 80% of Britons identify with their national origin (English, Scot, Welsh, Irish) rather than “British,” but that may be changing as the UK becomes more of a melting pot like the USA. At any rate, I think the national identity issue will continue to be a political football and I am not sure Premier Brown’s focus (and overt pleas for) on getting everyone to be focused on their common “British” identity will go over well up north.
Posted by: K W Jefferson | August 22nd, 2007 at 3:54 pm | Report this commentKW, other Brits reading this blog can verify or deny this, but my impression is that ever fewer Brits regard themselves as British, and ever more as Scotiish, English, Welsh, etc. My theory is that devolution in Wales and Scotland has pushed the English in particular to question their previously easy relationship with Britishness. I feel that more and more English are resenting the constitutional arrengements that they perceive to favour the Scots and Welsh. My impression is that English national identity has become much more fashionable in the last decade.
Posted by: Chris Sherwood | August 24th, 2007 at 8:28 am | Report this comment