Twilight of the nation-state

Some of you might know that the referendum was on a series of propositions: whether or not there should be a Scottish Parliament and whether or not it should have tax-levying powers. A similar mandate was sought on March 1, 1979, but although 1,230,937 voted in favour — a majority in excess of 77,000 — the percentage required to validate the referendum was well below 4 per cent of the electorate. The mood was different this time. Nearly two-thirds of the population voted for a separate Scottish Parliament that would have law-making powers over a wide range of matters, including health, education, economic development, transport, the legal system, the courts, prison and police, housing, planning, the environment, agriculture, fisheries, forestry, sports, the arts and local government.

Elections to the Scottish Parliament will be held in the first half of 1999, and the Parliament will become fully operational in the year 2000. No drastic changes may take place till then, but the next millennium may find Scotland in the United Nations as an independent nation. Already, moves are afoot to plot Scotland’s economic trajectory in cooperation with Brussels rather than England. In fact, the European Union has responded well to the recent initiatives to bolster trade and investments in the region.

Today, Scotland is starved of funds to keep its economy going and reduce the high rates of unemployment. During the 1970s and early 1980s, tens of thousands of jobs were created by onshore oil-related enterprises. In the late 1980s, however, as a result of continuing depression in world oil prices, petroleum production declined and many of these jobs were lost. The steel and shipbuilding industry, once mainstays of Scotland’s economy, are in decline. But people are still hopeful. After all, Scotland’s marine fishing accounts for more than two-thirds of all of the United Kingdom’s fish and shellfish catch. Agricultural development is moving towards greater efficiency through mechanisation. Forestry is an important industry. The textile industry, along with printing and brewing, remains vital in certain towns. Air transport has grown steadily from the major airports at Glasgow, Aberdeen and Edinburgh.

Moreover, there is growing optimism in many circles that closer economic ties with Europe would see the revival of some additional industries that would, in turn, enable the people of Scotland to prosper and surge ahead in unison with their European partners. It is widely believed that, as a first major step, devolution would offer opportunities to improve the business environment, bring government closer to the people, decentralise decision-making, encourage local initiative and give the Parliament the advantage of adopting economic policies to meet Scottish needs.

Walking past the elegant streets of Edinburgh and Glasgow, now emerging as a major cultural centre of Europe, one notices new office blocks and shopping centres being built all around. There is construction and vigorous building activity everywhere. People boast that the cash comes from the European Union, not Westminster. When told that public spending in Scotland was far higher than in England (The most recent available official statistics, for 1994-95, show that it was 3,505 per head in Scotland compared to 3,614 in England), my hostess shrugged her shoulders and pointed to me the India Street in Glasgow.

"Is the independence of Scotland on your agenda?", I asked a Scottish Nationalist Party activist. "Of course, but didn’t you know?" Frankly, I did not. After all, the Scots were an integral part of the British imperial edifice, many of whom served and made their fortune in the East India Company. So did they part company with the English people after the collapse of the Empire? Or did the discovery of North Sea oil in the 1960s act as a catalyst to the growing assertion of Scottish identity? Did the ill-advised economic policies of Margaret Thatcher and her neglect of Scotland, an area which has traditionally supported the Labour Party, encourage the assertion of a regional identity?

There are mixed responses to these questions. What has certainly lent weight to the clamour for devolution (which may well lead to more strident demands for eventual independence) is the rise of the European Union and the prospect of receiving massive economic aid which has reduced Scotland’s dependence on Whitehall.

One had heard the rumblings in Scotland over the years, but talking to scholars made me much more acutely aware of Scottish identity and its unmistakable manifestation in politics, art and culture. More and more people take pride in their history and culture. More and more people define their agenda in relation to Europe. More and more people are trying to gain proficiency in European languages in order to develop a Eurocentric view. I was emphatically told: "Our future lies with Europe. We don’t have much in common with England. Our intellectual and cultural ties are with the Scandinavian countries".

Such statements made in Kashmir or the North-East would evoke angry reactions in India. In England, on the other hand, many would be happy to get Scotland off their back. "Scotland is an economic liability", Professor Tom Tomlinson, economic historian of India, told me in Glasgow. "We would be better off without it," added a sociologist. "So what if they are independent? We can still drink Scotch whisky."

Developments in Scotland illustrate the gradual fragmentation of the nation-state in Europe, some of which emerged out of the debris of the First World War. Territorial boundaries are slowly disappearing, while regional and ethnic identities, which were once frowned upon, are acquiring legitimacy in countries like the United Kingdom, Spain and Italy. Whosoever masterminded the idea of a European Community has ensured that this continent remains strong, prosperous and united.