The Implications of Scotland's Independence Referendum

On the 18^th of September 2014, the world watched as Scotland made a historic attempt to vote for its independence from the United Kingdom, a union that has lasted over 300 years. Even though the “NO independence” camp won the vote with 55% margin, keeping Scotland in the union, it is an event that would change the political order in Scotland and the UK and also have an impact far beyond the borders of the UK.

The immediate implication of the referendum is that Scotland remains with the UK and does not breakaway, maintaining the status quo and avoiding the economic, political and financial challenges that would have been the realities of the Scottish people. Also ducking the adjustment the remaining member countries of the UK would have had to make and the chain reaction it would have had in the international system.

The Scottish citizens on the other hand have succeeded in achieving some changes even though they lost the vote for independence with 45%, they would be given more devolution legislation by January 2015 according to Prime Minister David Cameron (CNN), increasing Scotland power to govern itself. 45% is still a significant margin, enough to worry Westminster and make sure London is held responsible to keep its promises to Scotland.

However one thing is clear, the Scotland independence referendum was a civil, peaceful and a democratic process, one that demonstrates to the rest of the world an alternative and acceptable way to seek out the independence of a region in the 21^st century. This suggests that the Scottish independence referendum will open a Pandora’s Box in the international realm. It is true that in March earlier this year, a similar process took place in Ukraine when Crimea voted for its independence from Ukraine but had little or no effect in the political order beyond the boundaries of Ukraine, Russia and Crimea. This is so perhaps because Ukraine referred to the referendum as illegal and the west did not regard Crimea independence vote as legitimate, the media painted Crimea’s action in a negative and unappealing to the rest of the world.

Unlike the Crimea’s referendum, the Scottish poll has been accepted by the UK, the Western states and is shown in a positive light; the rest of the world would use this model to demand for independence, as we have seen in the current case of Catalonia in Spain, according to the website Catalonia votes, more than 80% of Catalans in opinion poll demands independence. Nations like Nigeria and the Biafra discussion among the citizens of the south-eastern Nigeria, those who seek that Biafra should still demand for its independence from the federal republic of Nigeria, could use this model that has been tested and approved by the western powers.

Finally, the question remains what happens when the authority refuses to give its people the permission to request said referendum of independence as seen in Spain, or refuses its people to have their independence even when it is obvious that they want it as seen in Crimea. Is a referendum of independence only acceptable or possible when the higher authority wins? We will continue to monitor how this plays out and as of Spain there is no evidence so far that the Spanish government intends to honour the request for this referendum. Whatever our take is on the Scotland independence referendum, it is now a model for orders to emulate and it has started an order that would challenge the present international order for years to come.