Berkley Center

My time in Edinburgh, Scotland has coincided with the most tumultuous period in the United Kingdom since the end of World War II. While, as a foreigner, I welcome the pound’s tumbling post-Brexit worth, I cannot help but notice the uncertain tinge coloring the domestic political climate and its impact on everyday life. Whether I perceive it from conversations overheard in the pub, or from heated classroom debate, the hangover of a volatile 2016 has permeated local worldviews and personal identities alike. In particular, the call for Scottish independence has come to the forefront once more as a mainstream issue, polarizing and confounding many.

Scottish independence remains a contentious issue, although it has the same pretext and intention in its current iteration as it has in all of its past forms. Given that all 32 Scottish council areas voted to remain within the European Union in 2016’s referendum, the prospect of losing an estimated two billion pounds annually in EU funding has reenergized support for the Scottish National Party’s (SNP) platform. Moreover, the British Supreme Court’s decision to preclude Members of Scottish Parliament (MSPs) from the impending Article 50 vote has further soured Scottish perception of the value of their 310-year old union with England. With anti-English sentiment mounting, Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has threatened to call for another Scottish independence referendum (the 2014 vote failed by a 55/45 margin) if London fails to consider Scottish priorities during Brexit negotiations. Given that both access to the EU single market and immigration remain on the chopping block, most commentators anticipate March’s initiation of Brexit to lead to Scottish disappointment.

The so-called IndyRef2 poses a conundrum in that it departs from the populist hallmarks that have defined the European referenda of recent memory. Whether it was Greece’s rejection of the Bretton Woods framework, Italy’s failed constitutional reform, or the United Kingdom’s shift toward isolationism, the impetus for these popular votes has stemmed from dissatisfaction with Europe’s cosmopolitan status quo. The SNP has instead bucked this trend by associating Scottish nationalism with staples of progressive policy, such as open borders, free trade, and renewable energy. Moreover, the SNP diverges from the xenophobic rhetoric of its continental contemporaries, actively welcoming Muslim members of Scottish parliament and acknowledging the positive impact immigration has had on the Scottish labor force. At least on paper, the case for Scottish independence provides proponents of a globalized Europe with reason for cautious optimism.

The reality of the matter, however, puts the SNP’s prospects for independence at a disadvantage. An independent Scotland would have to sacrifice over eight billion of U.K. public funding, a deficit that would likely balloon given the 48 billion pounds of export value tied to Scotland’s access to the U.K. single market. Within the context of the collapsed value of Scottish oil reserves, an independent Scotland barred from regional trade by a petulant Conservative administration in London would face unprecedented economic fallout. Even with an expected strengthening of ties with the European Union, the relationship, valued at some 15 billion pounds between trade and investment, would do little to offset economic alienation in Scotland’s own neck of the woods. A Scottish pivot toward the EU would also invite more uncertainty than the alternative, since the continental body itself is currently struggling to fend off Brexit-admirers in perennial stalwarts, like France and the Netherlands, while losing influence to Russia among its eastern members. Despite significant political differences and cultural resentment, Scotland finds itself bound at the hip with England out of economic necessity.

What, then, does the future hold for the Scottish National Party? Despite the Supreme Court ruling, Sturgeon has announced that Scottish Parliament will indeed hold a vote on the execution of Article 50 on February 7, 2017. Against the backdrop of Scotland’s public health crisis, the Trump administration’s redrafting of transatlantic trade, and a politically volatile EU, such shows of dissent will remain largely symbolic going forward. Much like sentiments over California’s secession from the United States remain farcical, the progressive platform of Scottish nationalism lacks the economic clout with which to negotiate with its central government. Likewise, Scotland must content itself with playing the role of advocate for tolerance, innovation, and globalization, anticipating that such policies will eventually swing back into favor. Given the fact that Prime Minister Theresa May’s popularity, and support for Brexit, remains low, the political pendulum should provide positive inertia by the time the next parliamentary general election occurs in 2020.