Connor
Handzo
GVPT
200
Professor
Shirk
Blog Post 1
Recently Scotland took a vote to
decide whether or not to do away with the Act of Union and end a 307 year union
with England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Voter turnout was a record high with
just shy of 85 percent of the population coming out to vote. After the votes
were cast and tallied up, it turns out that about 55.3 percent were against
independence and 44.7 percent were in favor of it. It is my opinion that the
majority of realists and liberalists would have voted against independence, and
the majority of constructivists would have voted for independence.
Based on the ideas of realism, an
independent Scotland would be worse off than it is within the United Kingdom.
One huge idea of realism that goes against Scotland’s want for independence is
the relative power and the zero sum idea. Based on these, Scotland would lose
an enormous amount of power and security if it were independent from the UK,
and according to the zero sum idea, the power would go to someone else as there
is a limited amount of power available. This would cause an upset in the
Balance of Power, which is another big aspect of realism, which would not favor
the newly independent Scotland. Since Scotland would be relatively weak on the
national level as a newly independent, and small nation, it would have to rely
on other nations to help it get started. This goes against the realist idea of self-help;
having to rely on other nations diminishes your power and gives the nations
helping you power, and realists would not like this. So from a realist
perspective, an independent Scotland would not be ideal, and therefore I feel
that many realists voted no in the actual vote.
The ideas of liberalism also favor a
Scotland that is part of the UK and that is not an independent nation. For
example, liberalists believe in absolute power. Breaking away from the UK would
cause a newly independent Scotland to not have much absolute power. It would be
a small nation and would not have much influence on the world stage. This is
because much of the power that it has now is because it is part of the UK, and
if it were to break away then it would lose an enormous amount of power; even
on an absolute level and not a relative level, it would not be very powerful as
a newly independent, small nation. Also, liberalists believe in economic
interdependence, and as a new nation, this would be hard to achieve. This is
because they would rely on other nations heavily to help it get started and this
would cause them to be economically dependent on these other nations. I feel
that liberalists would not favor independence because of the various aspects of
liberalism.
Constructivists on the other hand,
in my opinion, would strongly favor an independent Scotland. The ideas of
identity, norms, culture, and the “other” resonate strongly with
constructionists and these ideas favor an independent Scotland. Identity
strongly favors independence because instead of just being another part of the
large UK, the Scottish people would have their own nation and own identity. Also,
they would be able to create their own norms and culture, one without the
influence of the UK. They would be Scottish and the UK would be the “other.” I believe
these ideas strongly enticed the constructivists in Scotland to vote for
independence from the UK, as they would be able to do their own thing, free
from the UK’s strong, direct influence.
So based on the aspects and ideas
from these theories, it is my belief that most realists and liberalists would
have voted no in the vote for independence. However, I also believe the
constructivists would have enthusiastically voted for independence from the
United Kingdom.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/09/19/scotland-independence-referendum-837898067/
Connor -
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me like liberalism would explain the push for an independent Scotland more than constructivism. I'm pretty sure the biggest motivator for independence was an argument with the UK over how their oil revenue should be used. An independent Scotland would have all of that oil money for themselves, which fits in with liberalism.
You also argue that cunsructivists would support an independent Scotland because they think of themselves as the "other." However, constructivism might be what kept them in the UK. After 300 years of unity, I think Scottish people probably think of the rest of the UK as a part of the self, rather than an other. Thus, they might have stayed in the UK due to their similar cultural identities.
Connor,
ReplyDeleteOverall, I would agree with your argument on the roles of the different theories. It would be interesting to see a breakdown of the actual vote as a way to prove or disprove your theory here. Not knowing too much on the situation myself, I think your argument for constructivism pushing people for independence makes sense. However, if what Eliot says is true, that oil was a big motivator, then I think that is cause for a reconsideration. In that case both constructivism and liberalism would help explain voting patterns. While Eliot is right in saying that there is a lot of identity found in the rest of the UK, there is still a more specific type of identity for the people of Scotland. I don't believe that there would have even been cause for a referendum if Scotland felt that their culture aligned perfectly with that of the UK as a whole and therefore a deeper look into constructivism seems plausible.
Hey Connor,
ReplyDeleteI really like your argument. I would agree that constructivists would be more likely to support Scotland severing from the UK than would liberalists and realists. However, I wonder to what extent realists would have an opinion. Realists focus on major states, and if Scotland were to sever from the UK, then it would no longer be a major state. Thus, it might be true that a realist would caution Scotland not to sever from the UK, but after the decision is made to what extent would a realist care? Another perspective would be that a realist would not discuss the consequences Scotland’s actions would have for Scotland. Instead, their discussion would revolve around the consequences Scotland’s action would have for the UK –since the UK is a major state and Scotland is not.
Olivia, you bring up a great point when talking about the realist approach. I also wrote about this topic and focused on how from the UK's perspective, a realist would most definitely disagree with Scotland's separation as it weakens them. Now you question why a realist would care from Scotland's perspective? A realist could see potential conflict with the UK as it is no longer a part of it. It may be far-fetched, but if national security and military is a realist's concern, then there is no doubting that being a member of the UK best satisfies that need, at least in the present.
Delete