On September 18, 2014, the country of Scotland voted to remain a member of the United Kingdom, a decision that had been discussed and analyzed for many weeks leading up to the vote. Most polls released before the vote had a nearly 50/50 split, with half of the country wishing to break off from the United Kingdom, and the other half wishing to remain a part of the sovereign state. British Prime Minister David Cameron urged Scotland not to break off from the United Kingdom, warning them that there would be “no going back” if they did. From an analytical standpoint, I believe that there are two International Relations paradigms that can help explain this vote.
The concept of liberalism is the one that explains much of the reasoning behind Scotland’s independence vote. The dominant topic surrounding the vote has been the economy. Many people in Scotland believe that they would be able to manage their oil industry better than the United Kingdom. According to these people, taking control of the revenue from North Sea oil and gas found in Scottish waters would be a great benefit to the country. The economy is a huge part of the concept of liberalism. A country with a strong economy can have a great deal more influence than a country with a weak economy. A strong economy gives a country greater bargaining power, and more respect around the world. Liberalism promotes a strong economy, and many people in Scotland believe that their economy would be stronger if they broke away from the United Kingdom. However, the concept of realism can also help explain the situations surrounding Scotland’s independence vote.
Realism is mostly focused on military power, but also promotes a few other key ideas. The first is the idea of “timelessness”. Realists believe that International Relations are not affected by time. British Prime Minister David Cameron repeatedly attempted to appeal to Scotland by asking them why they would want to mess with something that has been so beneficial to them. This is a realist approach, where he wished to remain unaffected by time.
One of the criticisms of realism is that it seems a bit paranoid. This paranoia usually revolves around military power, but I believe that it explains a lot of why Scotland didn’t vote to become independent from the United Kingdom. Losing the pound would have been a big deal for Scotland, as they knew that they didn’t want to move on to the euro. This could have been a severe detriment to their economy, which was one of the main reasons why they were considering splitting anyway. They would also be moving into uncharted territory as an independent state, and the jury is still out on whether or not they would have been able to sustain themselves in the long run. The English political philosopher John Locke, a major source of wisdom to the founding fathers of the United States, advocated for slow and deliberate change instead of drastic ones. While Locke is always referred to as a liberalist, I believe that this is a partially realist idea. If Scotland had voted for independence, it would have forced rapid and drastic changes to nearly every aspect of their political and social system. I believe that the realist idea of timelessness explains their hesitation to enter into those changes.
Scotland’s vote to remain a part of the United Kingdom surprised many people around the world, but their mindset was understandable. The concept of liberalism explains much of the vote due to its emphasis on the economy, but some key parts of it can be explained by examining the situation through a realist lens. It was a close outcome, but David Cameron’s warnings to the Scottish people prevailed.
This is a great post about how to analyze the Scottish vote for independence but you're comparing and contrasting the IR viewpoints of liberalism against realism is slightly off. It was a good comparison to say that liberalists would have focused more on the economic side of the independence than the military but they would not have completely ignored it. Another small improvement would have been to leave out the "timelessness" argument. Realists believe in the timelessness of their view of IR, not that the IR world is timeless. International relations are always changing and a realist does not believe that things should always stay the same but rather that their principles are timeless. Other than that, this was an interesting analysis of a what could have been a major IR shift.
ReplyDeleteI like how this post looks at Scotland’s decision to remain a part of the UK through multiple different political theories. I think when it comes to explaining states’ actions whether it be in terms of domestic or international affairs, it’s important that we not limit our explanations to one specific theory but rather look at all aspects of the big picture, because more often than not one political theory doesn’t quite cover it all. Like as mentioned in this post, both parts of realism and liberalism can justify Scotland and the UK’s actions.
ReplyDeleteI also thought the prime minister’s appeal to Scotland was very smart on his part, for rather than threatening Scotland which would have been just as easy, he instead focused on all Scotland has benefited from their marriage to the UK, only making them question their own reasoning of even considering to split in the first place. This use of soft power proves that powers can achieve what they want without getting military involved, which is a refreshing thing to see amidst all the fighting that’s been going on around the world lately.