Uncovering the parallels of the Scottish vote with our own, somewhat besmirched history of secession
Last week, Scottish leaders followed in Quebec’s footsteps and held that nation’s first popular vote on secession from the United Kingdom. Sovereignty referenda are all too familiar to Canadians. Twice, in 1980 and again in 1995, the Parti Quebécois sought secession from Canada; the latter vote coming alarmingly close to a dreaded ‘Yes’ victory. In their defeat, the PQ focused on other matters, including leader Pauline Marois’ Charter of Values. Even while in power, the party carefully kept its raison d’être on the backburner.
Last April, the Quebec Liberals seized a majority government, and the sovereignty question seemed to be buried for a long while. But for resilient Péquistes, hope was emerging from abroad as some flew to Edinburgh to revel in the excitement that was building among independence-minded Scots. It seemed as if Scotland and Quebec had a similar, if not common, foe: an Anglo-Saxon majority that was seen as historically oppressive, governing them from afar.
In Scotland, the increased powers devolved to Holyrood from Westminster did little to quell the nationalist fervor as kilt-wearing, bagpipe-playing Scots jammed city streets at pro-independence rallies. The similarities to 1995 are striking: a complacent federalist, or Unionist, campaign caught off guard as impassioned nationalist leaders catalyzed a surge of popularity for secession.
Many were perplexed in the ’95 campaign, given that Canada’s top job had been frequently occupied by Quebecers: Pierre Trudeau, Brian Mulroney, and Jean Chrétien. Trudeau is often vilified as orchestrating egregious policies that ostracized his own province, opting for a strong, centralized and bilingual country. A few years later, Mulroney twice failed to pass subsequent constitutional reforms at Meech Lake and Charlottetown. Despite having their own in the highest corridors of power, Quebecers were in full revolt against Ottawa.
To some, the Scottish referendum was even more puzzling. There seemed to be little impetus for the vote; indeed, Scotsman Gordon Brown had been Prime Minister for three years, and remains popular. Even present Tory PM David Cameron has Scottish ancestry. Scottish qualms centered around a collective nationalism, epitomized by the Mel Gibson blockbuster “Braveheart.” While William Wallace lived in the 13th century, some nationalists seemed to have forgotten, or ignored, their more recent history with England. In 1603 Queen Elizabeth I died and the two kingdoms unified under a Scottish monarch—James VI—whose Stuart dynasty ruled all of Britain for a century. While the union suffered setbacks, it endured in relative comfort until 1982. It is historical coincidence that this year marked the height of peaceful coexistence in Britain after its victory in the Falklands war, while Canada was mired in constitutional treachery. The Constitution Act, 1982 was never signed by Quebec City.
As in Quebec, Scottish popular sentiment toward the union declined rapidly thereafter. Mrs. Thatcher, the Tory reformer whose military triumph gave her a second, resounding majority in Westminster, began her crusade to cripple the country’s powerful trade unions, and privatize state-owned industry; much of which was inefficient, overburdened, and bankrupt. The free-market reforms proved deeply unpopular in industrial Scotland, which suffered as its coal, steel, and shipbuilding industries were devastated. Layoffs at British Steel, British Telecom, and other state-owned enterprises not only bit hard, but the privatizations in themselves set the stage for increasing nationalism. These newly unemployed Scots were no longer dependent on British state industry for their paychecks, and their bond with England was never reforged, even when unemployment improved.
Then there was Mrs. Thatcher herself. Ironically, many of her policies were embraced north of the border; more Scots lived in state-owned council homes than Englishmen, and many seized the opportunity to become homeowners. The ensuing “Scottish miracle” in banking and oil production brought unprecedented wealth. However, Mrs. Thatcher was incessantly vilified, and never accorded credit for any good brought about by her reforms. One of her colleagues noted that “Maggie” was not only a woman, but an Englishwoman, and a bossy Englishwoman; as such, she was simply unpalatable to many Scots. With every election, the Conservatives lost more seats in Scotland, uncovering a schism between Scottish and English voters. It is said that many Scots shuddered at the sound of her voice, and would turn off the radio in disgust. It is also said that Thatcher never understood her unpopularity there, as she revered the Scottish innovative spirit and many of its ideologues. “David Hume and Adam Smith were dead,” quipped a Thatcher colleague. “They didn’t get a vote.” Her domineering approach to politics and her radical capitalist mentality prevented her from ever swaying the Scottish electorate.
Last week’s 55% ‘No’ result will be seen as a pyrrhic victory for the Unionists. Glasgow, Scotland’s largest city, voted for secession; an unthinkable result thirty years back. As the polls were tightening, the panic-struck Cameron government promised further devolution to Holyrood, as well as to regional assemblies in Northern Ireland, Wales, and, perhaps too, powers for England. It was Cameron who agreed to the Scottish referendum, and has reaffirmed his intent to further devolve power to the regions; an act that would have been high treason under Thatcher’s regime. Like Trudeau, Thatcher championed the United Kingdom as a single entity, and sought to mute regional differences. As political realities have changed, Westminster now seems willing to make a significant move towards decentralization, and perhaps ultimately a British version of federalism.
Thus far, the Scottish story has lacked certain elements that characterized our own struggle in Quebec. While tensions were high on both sides, there was no meandering ballot question, no constitutional backstabbing, no international posturing, no Clarity Act, and apparently no nefarious deception on the part of politicians; Chretien bluffed that a ‘Yes’ majority would affect separation, while he had no intention of recognizing such a result.
Interestingly, and uncharacteristically, this tale of two referenda seems to paint the Canadian version as much more, in a word, dirty. As Jacques Parizeau blighted the sovereigntist cause for years by blaming his defeat on “money and the ethnic vote,” the British seem to have undertaken a candid and respectful debate.
With its history of Royal infighting, intrigue, and treachery, and its jaded history of oppressive imperialist rule, could it be that Britons have surpassed us in terms of civility? At least in terms of secession referenda, the mythology of the polite, deferential, laid-back Canadian seems to evaporate as quickly as maple syrup in a frying pan.
Perhaps we could take a page from the recipe book of our paternal neighbors across the pond. So long as Haggis is left off the menu.