pre-referendum polls show strong growth of separatist sentiment
Today at 19:48, Views: 906
In the very near future – already 18 September – The people of Scotland to make a choice: whether their country will remain a part of the United Kingdom or will become an independent state. Several years ago, the separatist sentiment in Scotland caused many a smile. Opinion polls in 2011 showed that the vote for an independent country ready about 30% at 60% against. Studies in recent days show the strong position of the separatists (more than 40% support). If more than 50% of voters agree that the country should withdraw from the United Kingdom, will put an end to three centuries union of Scotland with England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The peace process is now observed “divorce” – the result of 307-year period during which Scotland and England shared a common destiny as a part of the United Kingdom.
In the Middle Ages, the relationship between the two kingdoms were far from neighborly. In Scottish history stands two wars with the British for independence. The first time was able to defend the kingdom of the Scots in 1328 with the signing of Northampton contract – after 32 years of conflict. However, just five years after the conclusion of peace the English King Edward III, who signed the agreement, with the support of some members of the Scottish nobility once again unleashed a bloodbath. In 1357 ended the second war for independence in Scotland, as a result of which the inhabitants of the country were required to pay huge sums to the English king. However, for over two hundred years, the kingdom remained independent, and he rules his monarch.
The situation changed in 1603, after the death of the childless Queen Elizabeth I. See, in the absence of direct heirs, went to her distant relative – son of Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots, who was executed by the British in 1587 (which, by the way, tried to shift the throne of Elizabeth). And yet, even in 1567, Mary Stuart herself under pressure from his opponents renounced the Scottish throne in favor of his son. So we have a situation that one person came to the throne of two kingdoms – it was James I. Randomness turned tradition – the second king of England and Scotland was Karl I, the son of Jacob, and since then the royal title of “spread” in two countries at once. Was no exception and during the English republic – from 1649 to 1660., – When the monarchy was abolished: for example, the protectorate of Cromwell extended to England and Scotland (and to the point – as the Republic of Ireland).
At the beginning of the XVIII century, when the throne occupied Queen Anne, between England and Scotland have any fundamental contradictions. Not having children, Anna forced the British Parliament to adopt the “Act of Succession”, according to which it should change on the throne of James I’s granddaughter, Sofia. At the same time the Scots, who have maintained their own parliament, this was not agreed and adopted the law, according to which they themselves could choose a monarch, if the queen did not leave offspring. In response, the British adopted the “Act on Aliens,” is essentially an ultimatum: either Scotland merged with England, or all Scottish citizens on British soil declared foreigners and against the kingdom are introduced, in modern language, economic sanctions.
The conflict ended in 1707 with the signing of the “Act of Union”, which resulted in the United Kingdom is formed with a common parliament.
Today, neither in London nor in Edinburgh do not like to discuss the question of who will benefit from this association. However, historians argue that the union of Scotland brought significant economic and social benefits. England, before others mastered the art of building large and reliable ships, actively traded with other countries, exciting overseas markets and rapidly grew rich. Scotland the same
remained sparsely populated and backward agrarian country. Alliance with England opened in front of her opportunities for rapid development. And he assured the British peace and security throughout the territory of the UK’s largest island.
The question of Scottish independence arose in 1971 after the discovery of Brent oil field near the northern coast of the country. After five years, there have already started to produce oil that only warmed up separatist sentiment. Played a role and the lack of political independence. Abolished in 1707, the Parliament, which in the current situation could take over the functions of the distribution of oil revenues, at the time and was not restored, although not had the consequences of the vote on this issue. Scots Parliament “returned” only under Tony Blair in 1999, after the adoption of the “Act of Scotland-1998.” In this case, it endowed with extensive powers, which, in turn, allowed to temporarily remove from the agenda the question of independence.
to this problem back in 2007, the leader of the Scottish National Party Alex Salmond. However, due to failures in the parliamentary elections – the representatives of the SNP did not collect the required number of votes to them – to take up the implementation of the initiative, he could only with party members in 2011. After another year Salmond and British Prime Minister Cameron has signed an agreement to appoint a referendum for autumn 2014.
London repeatedly spoken critically for voting: Britain can not break, “as a bar of chocolate,” says Cameron. As we approach the referendum changed the rhetoric and the British government. “In the near future you will see the action plan that provides more power to Scotland,” – said a week ago, the British finance minister George Osborne. It is echoed in his soulful column published in the edition of The Daily Mail, and Cameron himself: “Just because our country great together – does not mean that we can not be even better. That is why a vote “against” (Branch. – “MK”) does not mean that it is a vote for the status quo – “no” does not mean “no change.” This means a significant further autonomy for Scotland – great new powers to tax, spending and welfare services will be handed Scotland ».
Amid promises of London and moving words Cameron -” Our union is precious. Do not break it “- more and more questions are being raised by those who initiated the referendum. Fighters for independence skillfully managed to convince people that the country is ready to go to the free swimming outside the United Kingdom. Alex Salmond and his party built his campaign largely on warming up patriotic emotions among 5.5 million Scots. On their banners – the names of King Robert I and William Wallace, national heroes, who fought successfully in the XIII century with the British for the independence of Scotland, as well as the poet Robert Burns, who is considered the most prominent exponent of the Scots. As for the pressing issues that, according to the initiators of the referendum, their country is quite able to provide themselves with income from the sale of oil and gas. However, a clear program on the device until an independent Scotland have been submitted – published for this purpose in 2013 “White Paper” has not solved the problems. Will Scotland with sterling, will lead or whether its currency will join the euro zone? Nationalists want to stay in the area the British pound, but London has warned that this case Scotland will have to build their financial policies in accordance with the decisions of the Bank of England. How to share huge UK debts? Will the new country of its armed forces, its own diplomatic service? How will decide on border security? To all these questions is no clear answers.
In the same expert community about the future of an independent Scotland – also reasonable doubt. A year before the referendum of the British Institute experts Tax Research estimate that the withdrawal from the United Kingdom in Scotland will cost 6 billion pounds. With nearly half of this amount would be the result of sharp drop in revenue from the sale of oil and gas in the North Sea – is just one area where Salmond expected to succeed. Even more sad picture painted by experts from the National Institute of Economic and Social Research forecast that the Scottish economy waiting decades crisis. The main reason is that the interest rates on its debt, which in Scotland is already a lot to be much higher in an independent country, than those for which it pays, as part of the United Kingdom. In addition, the system will change and budget allocations – before taxes collected in Scotland, went to the British Treasury, which also has paid its expenses in accordance with the budget. Often this led to the fact that Scotland has received from the state budget more than they give. Now this situation is impossible.
According to Cameron, the UN, where the UK has a permanent member of the UN Security Council seat, an independent Scotland can be seen as “marginal country.” And the outgoing head of the European Commission Jose Manuel Barroso said that Scotland, in the case of independence, you may have to “re-” to join the EU in a new capacity. And yet the fact that it will be there. Scots themselves, obviously hoping for “automatic” prolongation of the country’s membership in international associations – just in a new way.
All this, however, if they did not matter – the percentage of those who are willing to speak out in favor of an independent Scotland steadily, albeit slowly, grew throughout the period before the referendum and vote now divided almost equally. According to data released recently by the London Institute Survation, 48,5% of Scots in favor of maintaining the status quo, and to secede from the UK intend to vote 42.2%. Another smaller difference is observed in the results of a survey conducted by the authoritative agency ICM Research: 40% – for independence, 42% – against. Both surveys showed a significant number of people still undecided, why should cast their vote (9.3% in Survation and 18% – in the ICM). Back in January of this year, the difference between supporters and opponents of independence ranged from 14% to 20% in favor of the latter, with the share of doubters in the 16-30%. Then, many thought that a referendum on September 18 is doomed, but it is now clear that the results of his absolutely unpredictable. Recall, if you would vote for the separation of more than 50% of voters, Scotland will be declared independent country on March 24 2016. Date was chosen not by chance – it was on this day in 1603 James I, has already become by the time the Scottish monarch ascended the English throne, marking a new milestone in the life of the two kingdoms.
No comments:
Post a Comment