BETTER TOGETHER?

With the idea of secession popping up from time to time, a civics teacher might want to address this issue straight on. Not only is it something that is mentioned on the news, as when Governor Rick Perry who back in 2009 stated that his state, Texas, might secede from the union, but it is a topic that reflects the very reasons that smaller governmental entities join together – when they become federated. Of course, we fought a Civil War over this issue when southern states attempted to cut their political ties with Washington back in 1861. But it also brings to the fore the basic set of issues that a relatively small jurisdiction takes into account when the question is: should we join (or stay part of) a larger jurisdiction? When a civics teacher entertains this issue in class, it is the next best thing to having his/her students be able to attend the Constitutional Convention or the ratifying conventions of the late eighteenth century that resulted in our constitution. Further, to aid such a study would be a look at a contemporary example and there just so happens to be one.¹

The people of Scotland have an upcoming election. There is one dominant question on the ballot: should Scotland remain part of Great Britain? Scotland became part of Great Britain as a result of a messy process that took about 100 years and ended in 1707. In that year, the Acts of Union were finalized and Scotland formally joined England, Wales, and Ireland to form what we now call Great Britain – of course, most of Ireland has since broken away leaving only Northern Ireland remaining in the British union. The Scots have had a healthy segment of their population maintaining a desire to regain independence. But a desire for separation is not unanimous among the Scots. The upcoming vote has already proved to be contentious with vigorous debate, name calling, and active campaigns by both sides. The current momentum seems to be heading in the direction toward independence. But there is sufficient time for either side to win.

The side that is working to keep Scotland in the union seems to be stressing economic arguments. An independent Scotland faces many uncertainties. Will it be able to use the pound as its currency? If not, will Scotland adopt the euro – assuming the European Union will allow this? Will it be able to establish and maintain public pensions and public assistance programs? How about its very popular national health care? Will Great Britain maintain common market relations with the new nation or will it set up tariffs and other hindrances to trade between the two nations? If there are hindrances, what will that do to what promises to be – at least for the initial period – a fragile economy?

And what of the new nation's political standing? Domestically, will the smaller polity fall victim to single or limited faction politics about which James Madison warned us? That is, if the jurisdiction is small, it is very likely to contain one or two relatively large factions that will be able to control its politics for the benefits of the limited interests factions. Or, stated another way, the politics of that state will be highly undemocratic.

Internationally, a new nation faces challenges. Yes, I believe Scotland will readily get recognition from all European nations and from the US. And I don't think anyone sees any problems with it being allowed into the United Nations. But how about NATO? How about the European Union – what if the Scots want membership? Apparently, one of the issues driving the Scots toward separation is a desire to escape the more conservative government of the British and get politically closer to more liberal Europe. If so, how will London respond to this potential drift? No, I don't see any danger of armed conflict or anything like that, but a new nation needs active support from its historical neighbors and partners in order to meet the daunting challenges of establishing a new independent state.

But voting citizens might not take all of these concerns into account, because I believe the final decision will be more reflective of emotions than reason. If you are a Scot, the pride in establishing your own independence is a heady proposition. You will be part of the founding generation. So what adds enough emotional impetus for such a move? Do the majority of Scot voters feel sufficiently that they are a different people than the rest of the population making up the British union? Has the discussion over whether to break from London maintained a rational language or has the debate reached the point where an aura has developed and whatever is said both sides will manipulate it to mean what they see as being favorable for their position? For example: “[The] 'no' [pro independence] campaign emphasizes the negative, and the sense that the English are patronizing the Scots as ineffectual and incompetent also feeds the independence campaign, stirring indignation.”² When the debate reflects this type of interpretation, then added discussion just further solidifies and even intensifies whatever leanings a particular person might initially have.

Just to let you know, the vote is scheduled for September 18. There is still time for either side to launch a winning argument. But this debate symbolizes what is at stake when the question of whether a small jurisdiction should join or remain within a larger jurisdiction occurs. Seeing what is happening in Scotland is probably highly similar to what happened in our original states as each had its ratifying convention and debated over whether to join the proposed federal union of the United States. As in Scotland, those concerns were varied and included: by joining, how much of a people's way of life is in danger of being compromised or eliminated? What are the benefits in terms of that smaller entity's economy – more stable economic institutions and a larger unobstructed market? Or is the political union between a larger entity and a smaller one a way for certain vested interests to exploit the business interests or labor groups of the smaller jurisdiction? Why would the smaller entity join such a union if the aim is exploitation? The “marriage” could be pulled off by bought out interests who have inordinate influence and are in the position to secure or maintain the union. That is one of the claims that pro independence advocates say happened in Scotland and London back in 1707.

One way to approach this study is for students to compare and contrast two histories: one, that of the union between Texas – since its governor suggested secession and there was a previous attempt to secede – and the United States government and, two, the union between Scotland and the government of Great Britain. Of course, such a study could take all year, so teachers, so inclined, need to prepare enough material for students to review and also prepare targeted questions that will guide students to the concerns I have outlined above.

In such a study, certain concepts should be highlighted. I would emphasize that any future proposed breakaways need not lead to war or violent confrontation. Apparently, Britain has developed a peaceful means of deciding whether Scotland will remain in the United Kingdom – they're voting on the question. In the US, there also exists a peaceful way. If Texas or any other state wishes to leave us, it would call for a constitutional amendment. This is not an easy process and is one that is most likely to fail – but that is the way it should be. If the process were to be easy and states would begin to peel off, then the concerns of Abraham Lincoln should be considered. For example, if the South were to have been allowed to unilaterally decide and actually secede from the Union back in 1861, then the future of our democratic experiment would come under serious jeopardy. There is strength in numbers to accomplish all sorts of things and that includes democracy and republican based governance.

1The facts reported in this posting regarding the example in question, that of Scotland, were derived from: Erlander, S. and Bennhold, K. (2014). Scots ponder: Should they stay or should they go? The New York Times, April 27, Front Page/International section, p. 6.

2Ibid.