Tag Archives: United Kingdom

The United Kingdom Still Lives…

19 Fri Sep 2014

Posted by in Europe, United Kingdom

≈ Comments Off on The United Kingdom Still Lives…

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

To the bitter disappointment of Scottish nationalists and England haters everywhere, the referendum on Scotland’s independence held yesterday appears poised to return a negative vote. Call it a national Stockholm syndrome or call it common sense, the Scots have decided that they are indeed better off together with England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. With 26 of 32 voting districts reporting at the time of writing, there were 1,397,077 votes (54.2%) against independence, and 1,176,952 (45.7%) in favour. With a clear but not thumping victory, the question of how to go forward with nearly half the territory wishing to leave must be on everyone’s minds.

There will be debate in the coming days, weeks, and months as to why the Yes Scotland campaign lost its momentum. As Thucydides is supposed to have said, in a democracy, the vanquished can always console themselves with the thought that there was something not quite fair about it. No doubt, the BBC has accusations of bias in store for it, not to mention the discrepancy in the resources available to the two sides. Despite the passionate appeals by either side, the voters seem to have been plagued by uncertainty. The No campaign’s strategy of fear-mongering was not effectively countered by the other side, most claims being dismissed out of hand or flippantly brushed aside. Though some of the dire predictions about the the price of Scotland’s independence were preposterous, many voters were not sufficiently reassured to vote Yes on September 18.

For the moment, England can rest easy that its nuclear arsenal still has a home in Scotland’s naval bases and NATO need not worry about losing square footage. Financial markets can also calm down and get back to business after their overreaction over the past couple of weeks. Europe was spared having to frame the terms and conditions for Scottish membership of its union, at once a nightmare and an ideal case. Lastly, Scotland’s continued observance of the 1707 Act of Union has saved the diplomatic corps of several northern European countries months of negotiations on maritime boundaries and economic rights with a new country.

However, David Cameron may have secured the Union under his watch but he has also promised the Scots a pound of flesh – a substantial devolution of powers to the Scottish parliament. It is a safe bet that Alex Salmond and the Scottish National Party will come collecting. Scotland will have a greater say in its taxation, healthcare, education, legal affairs, housing, sports, tourism, and the environment; it may even get some say in reserved matters (Westminster) such as nuclear power and benefits and social security. The British prime minister’s promises, however, have provoked calls from Members of Parliament south of Hadrian’s Wall demanding an English parliament with similar powers; one can be certain that Wales and Northern Ireland will not be far behind.

Alex Salmond has promised that this will be his last referendum for Scottish independence, but anyone who thinks that 2014 has seen the end of Scottish nationalism is going to be very disappointed. The hold of the Conservatives over England has always been of concern to the more Left-oriented Scots; this referendum strengthens the Labour party. The United Kingdom’s last involvement in a war in the Middle East did not receive much favour in Scotland and the current geopolitics of the region makes it likely that the issue will cause friction yet again between Westminster and Holyrood.

For tonight, all is well in the United Kingdom. Tomorrow, they will have to wake up and begin nation-building again. Perhaps what Karl Marx said about permanent revolutions also applies to nations – be it Scotland, Catalunya, Kurdistan, Quebec, or even the European Union, nation-building seems to be a more permanent activity than political theorists and leaders thought at the turn of the 20th century.

This post first appeared on Swarajya on September 19, 2014.

Fàilte gu Alba!

15 Mon Sep 2014

Posted by in Europe, United Kingdom

≈ Comments Off on Fàilte gu Alba!

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

For those who believe that the European project is over and a success, the Scottish independence referendum and the 1.8 million man march for Catalonian freedom in Barcelona last week should serve as a rude wake-up call. Even as the intellectual descendants of Jean Monnet seek to make their Union more perfect, fissiparous tendencies persist in pockets. Europe has dozens of separatist groups and though few of them are of concern, many have a long history.

United Kingdom

The strength of the Scottish independence movement has caught many by surprise. If polls are to be believed, the referendum, to be held on September 18, may just result in the reemergence of the Scottish nation after 307 years of English rule. Those old enough, however, will remember that this is no bolt from the blue – while preparations for this referendum have been going on since 2011, the minority government of the Scottish National Party put forward a similar bill in the Scottish parliament in 2007 but withdrew it on account of little support from the Opposition. The bill suggested four avenues along which to proceed: 1. maintain the status quo, 2. devolution of power from London to Edinburgh as per the Calman Commission, giving Scots greater but not complete fiscal autonomy, 3. greater devolution, leaving only foreign and defence policies in the hands of Westminster, and 4. full independence.

Even before 2007, the Kilbrandon Report of 1973 had put forward the idea of a devolution of powers over education, health, the environment, social, and legal services to Scotland; a referendum held in 1979 had supported the devolution of powers to Scotland but was overturned on a technicality. It was the 1997 referendum that allowed the Scottish parliament to finally reconvene after 290 years and gave it some powers over taxation, transportation, and unreserved matters.

Perhaps most famous are the exploits of Scottish Covenant Association, who stole the Stone of Destiny, a block of seat associated with the coronation of Scottish – and later British – monarchs, from Westminster Abbey on Christmas, 1950. The Stone was left beside the altar of Arbroath Abbey, a significant venue known for the famous declaration of Scottish independence, the Declaration of Arbroath, in 1320. The SCA supported total independence for Scotland when even devolution was talked about in hushed tones. Although a fringe group in its day, the SCA made great efforts to spread awareness about Scottish home rule in a postwar era when nationalism was held to be particularly abhorrent.

The slight swing towards the ‘Yes’ campaign – the referendum has one question and is worded, “Should Scotland be an independent nation?” – has already chased $27 billion out of British investments and raised threats from the Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds Bank that they would move their headquarters to London if Scotland secedes from the Union. Furthermore, senior officers at BP (Bob Dudley) and the Deutsche Bank (David Folkerts-Landau) have cautioned against an independent Scotland, citing uncertainties in their currency and their role in the European Union.

Responding to the threat by UK Chancellor George Osbourne that England would not entertain a currency union with an independent Scotland, Alex Salmond, Scotland’s first minister and head of the SNP, has dismissed the economic fears and capital flight as bullying. Interestingly, it was the discovery of oil in the North Sea that first gave legs to the Scottish home rule movement. While any new government or nation generates uncertainties in the short-term, it is difficult to argue that Scotland will be an economically unviable state.

However, the referendum is not about economics, something most opponents of Scottish independence fail to acknowledge. Scotland’s disagreements with England over nuclear power or reduction in welfare payouts hardly seems serious enough to warrant a secession and can be easily resolved at the local level. Economics, social policies, security, nuclear power, and the geopolitics of NATO, the EU, and beyond are convenient justifications for what is at the core a nationalist yearning.

It is ironic that Englishmen who wish to see Scotland remain in the Union are asking the Scots not to be nationalistic when they themselves are considering a referendum with a nationalistic flavour on joining the EU in 2017. To add to the irony, the SNP, though nationalistic, is best described as a centre-left party than the expected, typical right-wing party. One of the wedges the ‘Yes’ campaign has used is the fear of a long Conservative reign in Britain with irregular support from the UK Independence Party. Scotland’s Future, the 670-page document released by the SNP explaining its agenda for an independent country, is closer to the social democratic ideals of continental Europe than Tory England.

For those whom it matters, the history between Scotland and England has not been all pleasant. As much as many would deny it, there is a sectarian component to this difference; it is telling that the largest rally organised in favour of staying in the Union was by Protestants from all over the United Kingdom. Pride in Scottish identity is not dead, however muted it might be. Scotland has its own sporting identity, one of the more popular sports t-shirts reading, “I support two teams – Scotland and anyone who plays England.” They also have a fine sense of humorous self-deprecation if their official song for the 1998 World Cup – Don’t Come Home Too Soon – was anything to go by. Anyone who believes in the universalising power of the English language will be flabbergasted by a trip north (though outside London will probably suffice). Admittedly, their cuisine is an acquired taste, but their whiskey has conquered hearts and minds worldwide.

Should Scotland be an independent country? There will surely be a few smirks in former colonies like India, Ireland, and Palestine that went through partition themselves (which were a lot more violent than the Scottish referendum), but ultimately, this is a question for the Scots. There are as many good reasons for Scotland to leave the Union as there are for it to stay. Economics can be mended, security negotiated, and relations renewed but identity, however nebulous, is persistent. Are Scotsmen comfortable with being a distinct region within the United Kingdom – at once Scottish, British, and (maybe) European – or is it Alba gu bràth?

This post appeared on Daily News & Analysis on September 16, 2014.

Visa Woes

24 Mon Jun 2013

Posted by in Europe, India, South Asia

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , ,

The United Kingdom recently announced that some visitors from certain high-risk countries will have to pay a £3,000 (₹270,000) security bond when obtaining their visas which are liable to forfeit if the visitor does not leave the United Kingdom within the stipulated time on the visa. The countries deemed to be of significance are Bangladesh, Ghana, India, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka. The scheme is to be rolled out on an experimental basis in November and expanded over time.

The Indian government’s reaction to the news has been restrained, though the press has been agitated to say the least, with most newspapers and bloggers demanding that India retaliate against this blatant discrimination. The Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) has expressed disappointment over the Home Office’s methods of curbing illegal immigration as have some Opposition members (though it had been floated several times when Labour was in power).

There are several issues at play here, and not just British “unfriendliness” as Indians have tried to portray it. First, one doubts that there is any disagreement over the reasoning behind Fong Yue Ting v United States (1893) which declared that it was the inalienable sovereign right of a state to admit or remove people from within its jurisdiction. The United Kingdom is within its rights to create whatever procedures it deems fit to manage the ingress and egress of visitors to its shores.

Second, it is unlikely that the British government has not calculated the cost of such a policy on its revenues. Last year alone, some 300,000 Indian tourists visited the UK and spent approximately £200 million. Strict immigration policies have already caused a sharp downturn in tourists and students who seek a British education. Additional visa burdens will certainly lower the number of Indians visiting the UK but it should not affect businessmen or students if David Cameron’s plan of same-day visas for the former and no quota for the latter is put in place too. These two categories already have institutional checks in place and visa holders in those categories would be less liable to “go off the grid.”

Third, it might be worth asking how much illegal immigration occurs from these high-risk countries. According to a 2012 Home Office report, India is among the top ten sources of illegal immigrants into the UK. In 2010 alone, almost 6,000 Indians were deported from the country, and interestingly, another 7,000 illegal Indians left of their own accord. India, along with Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Brazil, China, Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Vietnam, and Zimbabwe, is responsible for 61% of all illegals uncovered in the UK, and most of those come from India and Nigeria.

It is also true that visa restrictions on Indians became more and more stringent as irregular migration patterns continued: up until the 1980s, Indians could obtain a visa on arrival, but by the end of the decade, they had to be acquired before departure. Visa regulations have become stricter over the years in response to more illegal entry into the country. Some groups try to portray British actions as racist, but that does not answer why, for example, Japanese citizens or Namibians do not require a visa for a short visit to the UK.

Fourth, it has been said that India should retaliate against the UK’s new visa regime, that international consular relations usually function on reciprocity. However, it is not clear how India should respond. Slapping a similar bond on British citizens visiting India will hurt Indian tourism more than it can afford – while Indians represent a small fraction of the UK’s 29+ million tourists each year, 800,000 British citizens, each spending an average of ₹200,000, represent some 12.6% of India’s paltry 6.3 million foreign visitors.

The CII has argued that the new British visa requirement will hurt business between the two countries. That is not immediately apparent either, for the bond presently applies to tourist visas only. Furthermore, if Cameron’s promised business and student visa proposals are implemented, neither group will have much to worry from the High Commission. It is also highly unlikely that private Indian companies will abandon profit and scale down their operations or pull out of the UK for a slight to their national honour.

It is ironic to see Indians express outrage over British tightening of immigration rules when many Indians have been arguing for the same thing vis-a-vis India’s neighbours. No doubt, Indians see Pakistan and Bangladesh as in a different security bracket from themselves, but the UK’s problems need not be the same as India’s. The British government might also find it relevant to question Indian visa issuance practices to its citizens – while it is expected to take less than 10 days for a British national to procure an Indian visa, a British national of Pakistani ethnicity would need at least seven to eight weeks. The ethnic basis of Indian visa procedures runs contrary to international human rights law and is at least as problematic as the UK’s new rules if not more.

Having said all that, Britain’s method to curb immigration leaves much to be desired. The new visa law will have an unsettling effect on the national communities in question already in the UK, and more importantly, it is not impossible for someone who intends to stay in the UK illegally to find another route into the country or lie on a visa application form. The law will probably be more symbolic than effective, but in return, will generate bad will for Britain. In immediate relation to India, it will put into question the genuineness of Cameron’s desire for a strategic partnership with Britain’s former colony.

Or perhaps the Home Office is gambling on India forgetting the whole issue in a few months; it will not be the first time, and after all, how big is the UK-visiting constituency?

This post appeared on Tehelka Blogs on June 26, 2013.