The Scottish vote changes everything

Although the imperial priests Paul McCartney, Mick Jagger and Bob Geldof (KBE, “Knights of the British Empire”) rushed to mother’s side before the Scot vote, small will rise today against global dominance in the wake of the Scottish vote. Quebec was one thing; a thorn in the side of the rest of Canada and internally today a pariah state as Scotland will grow to be to England. But the truth is, the Quebec separatist movement, all but defunct today, may in hindsight have been the internal annoyance which drove the rest of Canada not only to survive but to strive and prevail. The small irritant there may have created the pearl.

Scotland surely raises the stakes for devolution. Is London not the center of the world these past 200 years since Nelson dominated the French at Trafalgar? And has not every dissident movement in modern history — from Karl Marx, who wrote his treatise in the British Museum, to the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), which today disturbs the lines which Winston Churchill drew in the sand in 1921 — aimed at England? Still she remains with 53 other countries, one with a population of 1.25 billion, who live together and apart in free association.

{mosads}And after all these years, they never seem to go away. With the Scottish vote — even though it failed — England is almost free now of responsibility to its ancient, tribal relatives; free from these tedious in-laws to go forth in new marriages and relationships with new friends, better friends. And now Australia’s Prime Minister Tony Abbott appears to conspire with Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper, egging on India to oppose President Obama’s America on environmental matters; a fledgling new counterforce to the American situation.

But in America, a singular question arrises. Did Quebec almost secede from the rest of Canada just by voting? Did Scotland hope to secede from the British matrix just by voting? They can do that? Inevitably the realization will rise here that we cannot. And this has been the anchor of the American “faith” since 1865. But since 2003, if not before, nullification and devolution — specifically state challenges to federal dominance in foreign and domestic policy — have become an important stream of dissent and have without question advanced the Scottish vote to relevance. The Scottish vote may have brought this new direction to the clear light of dawn, not only here, but everywhere.

“If we can view with diffidence the drive by Scotland to secede from England, Catalonia to secede from Spain, Venice to secede from Italy, and Flanders to secede from Belgium, why would the secession of the Donbass from Ukraine be a problem for us, if done democratically,” Pat Buchanan has written recently. “Nationalism is the natural enemy of empires, and it seems on the rise almost everywhere.”

And devolution is not just for rustic New Hampshire citizen-journalists writing to a hundred or so others in libertarian blogs anymore. Dartmouth lecturer Jason Sorens writes this week in The Washington Post: “But 30 or 60 years from now, a U.S. government that had lost military predominance to China and India while keeping up increasingly centralized and sclerotic institutions could well face a serious secessionist challenge from a state such as New Hampshire. To prevent secession, the U.S. government will not use force; it will have to devolve power.”

We must be states united now not by force and military action, but by friendship and free association. And that changes everything.

Quigley is a prize-winning writer who has worked more than 35 years as a book and magazine editor, political commentator and reviewer. For 20 years he has been an amateur farmer, raising Tunis sheep and organic vegetables. He lives in New Hampshire with his wife and four children. Contact him at quigley1985@gmail.com.