1st post: Scottish Referendum through the lenses of Realism and Liberalism

           On September 18^th, 2014 a vote that had been planned for two years, one that was longed for by a generation of Scottish political leaders, and destined since the unification of the island of Britannia nearly four hundred years ago; the citizens of Scotland voted for autonomy. Early in the campaign process it looked as if the “no” vote for independence had a clear and decisive majority; however, polls tightened, and in early September the “yes” in support of independence vote was projected to win by a slim margin.  But on the morning of September 19^th, with the vote from the previous day being counted and announced, the Scottish people voted to stay in the United Kingdom, confidently with a 55% to 45% margin.

            The decision made by the Citizens of Scotland is supported by the international relations theories of Realism and Liberalism. In terms of domestic issues certainly, but also in the scope of security and standing in the world these two different perspectives explore vital factors the Scottish people had in making their decision.

             A contentious issue during the campaign for independence was in the event of a “yes” vote win, what would happen with the nuclear warheads, warships, and submarines located in Scotland. Probably these vital defense and strategic weapons would have been systematically removed from Scotland, leaving the now independent Scotland defenseless, with a very powerful southern neighbor.  Although an altercation between the two nations seems unthinkable, a realist like Morgenthau would be very concerned with an insecure Scotland.  With a disparity of power so great, the UK would become a hegemony in the British Isles relative to Scotland and Ireland. For a Realist, the security dilemma created is the only thing that matters and the economic, cultural, and political assets the Scottish may have as an independent nation are insignificant.

Liberalism provides a more objective and realistic reasoning for why the Scottish voted “no.” The first and most obvious use of liberalism, in the debate stems from the emphasis liberalism puts on rationality. Individuals are rational, and therefore states should be rational.  Although rationality is difficult to access Scotland opted for security, over the chance of self-reliance. Moreover, the fact that there was a vote for separation is a triumph, which is exemplified in the democratic peace process. Two democracies will not engage in warfare, and in this situation the countries in the United Kingdom instead of engaging in warfare to separate themselves from one another, a simple vote was called. Economic interdependence is a vital theory of liberalism, using the microcosm of Scotland and the rest of the UK partner countries. It is clear the separation of one or all of them would have devastated the collective British economy. War becomes more costly with economies linked. With governments separated currency, regulations, and taxes would all be altered. Even the threat of such changes causes insecurity, which can severally effect financial markets that in turn could cause an economic downturn in the entirety of the UK and have a rippling effect across the globe.  This modern globalized world, explained in Opello and Rosow’s The Nation State and Global Order, developed through the unification of territory, the creation of the contemporary state ergo the UK, and the surge of capitalism, which shaped liberalism, separating it from Realism.

            Though imperfect for analyzing the cause and possible effects of the Scottish independence vote, Realism and Liberalism are important lenses in which to view the situation. In the 21^st century, these 19^th and 20^th century international relations theories will need to be modified as globalization and threats to it spread from Scotland to countries and regions across the globe.