Lessons from Scotland, Part One

Scotland has decided to stay in the United Kingdom, but the campaign result will change Great Britain. The first aspect was that voting yes to the Scottish independence referendum was as much about rebellion against their neighbors down south as for independence. Their "yes" rhetoric was contradictory since Alex Salmond told his Scottish comrades that with North Oil Sea revenues, they can keep their welfare state without interference from Westminster Hall, but Scots also wanted a closer relation with the European Union. As one pundit observed, the Scots would be moving from London control to more control from Brussels.

While many viewed this as the end of the world, it could easily be argued that for the English, that by jettisoning Scotland, they would be better off economically. The more conservative English would be spending less on their Scottish brethren, and the Tories would be the dominant party in the remainder of Great Britain. As for the Scots, they would be denied the support system of the rest of Britain.

The question of currency, whether it be the Euro or the pound, were questions not really thought through. For the English, it was more about what the meaning of Great Britain is with no economic consideration. Plus the question of the British nuclear deterrent remained unclear as British Nuclear Sub bases are located in Scotland, and Alex Salmond made it clear that the days of the British nuclear base were numbered in Scotland.

In the end, Scot voters could not pull the trigger of Independence and realize they were part of something historical that was bigger than the pull of independence. The key proponent of the Independence was Scot Nationalist leader Alex Salmond, who in his second debate with Unionist representative Pro-Union Alistair Darling, destroyed his opponent with masterful demonstration of demagoguery as he sweet talked his fellow Scots with promises of a land of plenty with freebies granted to the people financed by oil from the North Sea.

From that point, the race became problematic, and the establishment found themselves wondering if the 300 union was about to go asunder. Nor did it help the Unionist cause that the major leaders of the Great Britain Parties were less popular than Salmond. What the Unionists also failed to grasp was the power of nationalism.

The promise of even more self-rule by London was part of the desperate move to secure the "No" vote, but this promise has the potential to change the nature of Great Britain. As one Scottish Liberal Democrat MP noted, if Scots want more control over their destiny, then how can they not grant the same to the English?

David Cameron very quickly has made it clear that nationalism cuts both ways as he promised the English voters more say over Englands affairs with the idea of retaining power in next May’s election. What we are witnessing is Great Britain moving toward the British version of Federalism, and this could strengthen the conservative forces as it bolsters democratic transparency, and the Tories are discovering what the other British conservative Party UKIP noticed: nationalism is strong among the English.

As one Wall Street Journal pundit wrote, “Such accountability will be particularly salutary for Scottish nationalists, whose leaders have long demanded extravagant welfare benefits while leaving Westminster to figure out how to pay for it. But 'devo-everyone' would also encourage policy experimentation and competition across the nation, to the benefit of the economy.”

The United Kingdom is our crucial ally with a dynamic economy; and with the rise of radical Islam, a resurgent Russian aggressiveness in Central Europe, and the rise of China as a Pacific military and economic power, it is crucial for Great Britain to be stable and prosperous.

The Scottish vote will change the way that Great Britain is ruled, and it may just liberate the British people and allow for experimentation, which may also have an impact the other side of the ocean.

Related Contend: Lessons from Scotland, Part Two