Vishal Hemnani

Over the past couple of weeks, news of Scotland attempting to gain independence from the United Kingdom has been a rather large topic in the news. The referendum is now over and Scotland is still with the UK, but there was a rather even split as to what the final decision should have been as only 55.3 percent of voters were against independence compared to 44.7 percent for independence. Using political theories for reasoning I believe this was the best possible outcome for both nations, especially for the United Kingdom.

A realist would undoubtedly see this as a win for the United Kingdom. Realists believe in self-interest and state security. A main cause for concern is military power. Reports say that Scotland would have wanted Britain’s nuclear submarines out of Scotland as soon as independence occurred. While the Scottish National Party did soften demands and ultimately said Britain and NATO navy vessels could still use Scotland’s ports, it is evident that Scotland as an independent nation would lead to a weakening of the UK. As per the zero-sum theory the UK would be losing power the moment Scotland gains independence. A realist would most definitely disapprove of this action. This would also be a disadvantage to Scotland as they would be relatively non-existent as an individual nation. They do not have the resources to maintain a proper defense system so, from a realist perspective, the UK does not lose power and Scotland does not have power to lose.

Liberalism focuses on rational thinking and looking at gains for all states involved.  Losing Scotland would be a major hit to the UK, especially economically. Scotland does not have their own form of currency and currently relies on the British pound. If Scotland did succeed in independence, the UK claimed that they would not share the British pound.

Scotland would need to set up their own financial infrastructure, and while their independence will give the pound a hit, they still need a form of currency themselves. I believe Scotland is able to develop a successful infrastructure in due time but being a part of the UK maintains economic security. Scotland has North Sea Oil that benefits the UK, but if Scotland were to be independent they would have to raise their oil prices in order to make up for economic production. There would be a period of economic downturn makes independence unreasonable.  A liberal would see the result of this vote as a win for the UK as they maintain their economic power and a win for Scotland as they continue to have stability; both states gain.

Lastly, constructivist theory believes that the behavior of a state is result of elite beliefs, collective norms and social identity. If Scotland were to win the referendum, constructivists would praise independence. Scotland would be its own nation, one that can be run on independent ideas and the cultural norms of Scotland. Scottish nationals claim the basis for their independence to be “ethnic solidarity” and “cultural self-determination”. I think it is important to note that this vote is being embraced in the UK and if the vote had been “yes”, Scotland would be independent and the UK would have honored it. This respect is the exact reason why Scotland should remain a member. The Scottish aren’t repressed like Tibet, and while that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t strive for independence, the many uncertainties prove it is more beneficial for Scotland to remain a member of the UK. I think even a constructivist would have to consider a realist or liberal perspective in this vote.

I believe Scotland and UK ultimately both succeeded. This referendum proved to the UK that Scotland is looking for change, and this will most likely result in some constitutional changes without the struggles of becoming an independent sovereign. For the United Kingdom, the main focus is power. The UK did not lose Scotland and, for now, their power is still in place.