Polls Reveal a Renewed Desire for Scottish independence
By Tom Hundley
(Chicago Tribune)
EDINBURGH, Scotland - After 299 years of marriage, Scotland is thinking about a divorce.
Perhaps it's just a passing midlife crisis, but two new polls found that for the first time a majority of Scots say they would prefer independence to remaining part of Britain.
In an ICM poll published this month by The Scotsman newspaper, 51 percent of Scots said they favored independence and 39 percent said they preferred keeping things as they are. Ten percent were undecided.
Another poll, conducted for The Sunday Times newspaper by YouGov, found that 44 percent of Scots favored independence and 42 percent were against. The number favoring independence has nearly doubled since 2000, when YouGov asked the same question.
"This is hugely significant," said Angus Nicholson, a member of the Scottish National Party, which is dedicated to Scottish independence.
Nicholson, a local councilor from a rural district in the Outer Hebrides, attributed the surge in separatist sentiment to a combination of disenchantment with Prime Minister Tony Blair's Labor government and a real yearning for independence.
"We'd like to see a Scotland that stands on its own two feet, not blaming anybody else when things go wrong," he said.
What is officially known today as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland first came into being in 1707, with the Act of Union between England and Scotland. Since 1999, however, Scotland has enjoyed a kind of quasi-independent status after it was granted a parliament of its own and control over most of its internal affairs under a process called devolution.
Many politicians and analysts thought devolution would put an end to calls for full independence. Instead, a taste of self-governance seems to have left the Scots hungry for more.
Although they number only 5 million, Scots have long had a powerful sense of national identity, something the English, who represent 83 percent of Britain's 60 million citizens, have generally lacked.
The Scottish identity is unusual in that it is not based primarily on a shared ethnicity, language, culture or religion.
"It's territorial," said David McCrone, a political scientist at the University of Edinburgh. "A lot of it is defined by the map of Scotland. The Scots are people who live in Scotland. It is more of a civic identity."
When researchers recently asked Scots how they identify themselves, 2 out of 3 said "Scottish, not British," or "more Scottish than British." Similar surveys in England produce much more ambiguous responses.
"Britishness has to do with war, the threat of invasion, religion - mainly anti-Catholicism - and empire. When none of these factors is present, Britishness begins to lose its pull," said Neal Ascherson, a Scottish writer who was born in Edinburgh and lives in London.
"The ruling class, those who went to the same (elite) public schools, spoke with the same cut-glass accents and belonged to the same clubs - they were Homo Britannicus. And it was in the 1960s, when Britain emerged from its postwar torpor, that Homo Britannicus began to disappear," he said.
In his place, the English middle and working classes began to develop a sense of "English" identity. That first became apparent in 1997 with the death of Princess Diana when most mourners carried the English flag - the red and white cross of St. George - rather than the more familiar Union Jack.
Since then, English soccer fans have adopted the St. George's flag as their banner, and in the words of Ascherson, the Union Jack is now seen as "slightly naff," slang for tacky. Along with this burgeoning English nationalism has come a faint whiff of Scotophobia, fueled by gripes about excessive Scottish demands on the "English" treasury.
All of this is bad news for Gordon Brown, the chancellor of the exchequer and the man universally expected to become prime minister when Blair steps down sometime next year. Brown's thick Fifeshire accent immediately identifies him as a Scot.
In recent days, Brown has gone out of his way to emphasize his "Britishness." He even went so far as to declare his fealty to the English soccer team although most fans suspect he'd be hard-pressed to name the starting lineup.
The real problem is that under devolution, Brown and other Scottish members of Parliament can vote on legislation that applies to England and Wales but does not affect Scotland.
The Conservatives, whose electoral strength is in southern England, see that as a potential wedge issue.
"I'm beginning to think it is almost impossible now to have a Scottish prime minister because it would be at odds with the basic construct of the British constitution," Alan Duncan, a senior figure in the Conservative Party, recently told the British Broadcasting Corp.
Never mind the Scottish-sounding name, Duncan represents Rutland and Melton, a rural constituency well south of the border.
Until now, it has been easy to fudge this constitutional problem because the Labor Party controls both the Westminster Parliament and the Edinburgh Parliament. But in the not-so-unlikely event that Conservatives regain power in Westminster and the Scottish National Party takes control of the Scottish Parliament, the stage could be set for the big divorce.
"I would be very happy and proud to see an independent Scotland. I would happily apply for my Scottish passport," Ascherson said.
"But how would it come about? I don't think it's a matter of huge crowds gathering on (Edinburgh's) Princess Street, demanding freedom. More likely, it will result from an obscure squabble between the Scottish Parliament and the English treasury . . . and they will tell us, `Just go away,'" he said.
"I think it might all be rather inglorious," he said.
Divorce usually is.
© 2006, Chicago Tribune.
