The Lesson of Scotland: Why Stay? Why Leave?

The Lesson of Scotland: Why Stay? Why Leave?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 22, 2014

Summary: The Scottish independence referendum made people realize that Scotland was part of the United Kingdom. If the two sides of the Taiwan Strait wish to resolve the issue of reunification vs. independence, they must first allow the ROC to perceive itself as part of China, under a "big roof concept of China." This is a matter of hearts and minds, This is fundamental problem that transcends the issue of reunification vs. independence referenda.

Full Text Below; 

The referendum on Scottish independence has presented the world with at least three major political revelations.

One. Britain is an advanced democracy. That is why the referendum process was so peaceful. It dealt skillfully with the sensitive issue of whether the nation should be divided. It represented a major achievement for democracy and human rights. Two. The no and yes camps were evenly matched. No matter which side won, the other side would lose. Would the referendum solve the problems the nation faced? Or would it merely deepen the nation's wounds? England and Scotland are both wounded, and Scotland is wounded within. This illustrates the limitations of reunification vs. independence referenda. Three. The referendum has forced the world to consider why a nation should remain either unified or be divided.

This year, two kinds of referenda have attracted global attention. The first was the Crimean referendum. The second was the Scottish referendum. The Crimean referendum dates back to March 1991, when the Soviet Union imploded. At that time, Ukraine and 15 republics passed referenda calling for independence from the Soviet Union. Now however, Crimea has approved a referendum to secede from Ukraine and join Russia. The Soviet Union imploded as a result of the communist dictatorship's political and economic incompetence. But the Crimean referendum reflects post-Soviet Russian factors, international power struggles, violence, and military intervention.

Britain was once an empire over which the sun never set. The United States won independence only after fighting a war with the mother country. Fifty-three nations of the British Commonwealth have become independent from the British Empire. But Scotland is not like them. King James I and King James VI of Scotland were the very same person. Today Queen Elizabeth II's mother is a Scotswoman. Scotland, England, and Wales are all part of the British Isles. The United Kingdom has a highly positive international image and status. The British Isles have no violent political or ideological disagreements. So why must Scotland demand independence? No wonder the previous Conservative government never expected independence to become an issue, one that would force British Prime Minister David Cameron to say that if Scotland became independent, it would amount to a "divorce." So why must Scotland be independent? Observers think the key is North Sea oil interests. They may well trump Scotland's membership in the United Kingdom.

As the Crimean and Scottish examples show, political unity vs. political independence often involve the collision of political and economic systems and their values. This was the case when the Soviet Union imploded. Independence sometimes involves national identity issues. This was the case for Crimea. It sometimes involves economic interests and greed. This was the case for North Sea oil and Scottish independence. One can achieve independence in many ways. One can rise up like the United States and fight a War of Independence. One can hold a public referendum like Quebec did with Canada, or Scotland did with Great Britain. The Spanish government by contrast, has no intention of recognizing Catalonia's independence referendum. Therefore the Scottish independence referendum has relatively narrow appeal. The belief is that oil interests dominate. But the government and the public displayed respect for democracy and civilized behavior during the process.

The Scottish independence referendum has had a powerful impact on cross-Strait thought. The gist of it is that cross-Strait relations are unlike relations between Scotland and the UK. This is correct, but incomplete. Scottish independence is not motivated by differences over political and economic systems or national identiy. It is motivated by dissatisfaction with social and economic policy. The pro-independence faction has even implied that following independence they would be willing to remain part of the British Commonwealth. Cross-Strait relations by contrast, are marked by vastly different political systems, values, beliefs, and lifestyles. On the economic side, Scotland wants to exclude the United Kingdom from the North Sea oil fields. Taiwan of course has no oil. It is also increasingly dependent on the Mainland economy. Today cross-Strait relations are based on economic benefit, but differences in political systems pose a bottleneck.

The biggest difference is that London is willing to abide by the outcome of a Scottish referendum. Beijing on the other hand, has consistently opposed any independence referendum. Even the United States has said that the United Kingdom and Scotland should remain unified. The United States would not want the two sides reunified on an unequal basis. But it has already stated its opposition to any Taiwan independence referendum. Given the international framework and cross-Strait situation, the two sides find themselves within a "no reunification, no Taiwan independence, no use of force" situation.

For 300 years Scotland has been part of the United Kingdom. Yet today it seeks independence from the United Kingdom. Beijing on the other hand, still does not recognize the Republic of China as part of China. It only recognizes Taiwan and the Mainland as part of one China. That is why it cannot persuade people on Taiwan to accept "one China."

Cross-Strait relations and Scotland-UK relations do have one thing in common. Whether they hold a referendum or not, the fundamental problem lies within peoples' hearts. Can the United Kingdom reassure the Scots that if they remain within the United Kingdom, they can maintain their honor and self-esteem? If it can, the people will arrive at their own decision about reunification vs. independence. By contrast, Beijing has long regarded Taiwan as a renegade province. Over the past 65 years, the Republic of China has created a civilization on Taiwan. Yet Beijing refuses to grant it political recognition. It refuses to recognize the Republic of China as a part of China. Yet it demands that the public on Taiwan recognize "one China." Under the circumstances, how can it expect the public on Taiwan to feel pride and self-esteem as part of "one China?"

The Scottish independence referendum made people realize that Scotland was part of the United Kingdom. If the two sides of the Taiwan Strait wish to resolve the issue of reunification vs. independence, they must first allow the ROC to perceive itself as part of China, under a "big roof concept of China." This is a matter of hearts and minds, This is fundamental problem that transcends the issue of reunification vs. independence referenda.

蘇格蘭啟示：因何而統？為何要獨？
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.09.22 02:18 am

此次蘇格蘭獨立公投對人類政治文明至少有三大啟示：

一、英國不愧為民主先進國家，能以如此和平的過程，處理國家應否分裂的尖銳議題，這是在民主及人權上的重大成就。二、統獨雙方旗鼓相當，無論哪一方的勝利，皆顯示另一方的失敗，則公投之勝敗是否就此解決了問題，或反而深化了國家撕裂的傷口（英國與蘇格蘭的撕裂，及蘇格蘭內部的撕裂），這就涉及到統獨公投在功能上的侷限。三、引發世人思考一個問題：國家因何要統一？又為何要分裂而獨立？

今年，有兩個類型迥異的公投事件引起世人矚目，一是克里米亞公投，一是蘇格蘭公投。三月的克里米亞公投至少可從一九九一年蘇聯解體說起，當時烏克蘭與十五個加盟共和國相繼通過公投脫離蘇聯而獨立，如今克里米亞卻通過了「脫烏入俄」的公投。蘇聯解體是因共產專政在政治及經濟治理上的崩潰，但克里米亞公投卻是蘇聯解體後俄羅斯元素的迴波，也是國際角力的反映，並發生了暴力及軍事介入。

英國則曾是日不落國，美國是以戰勝從母國獨立，而「大英國協」的五十三國更將一部英帝國史寫成了屬地獨立史。但蘇格蘭卻不太一樣，英王詹姆士一世與蘇格蘭王詹姆士六世為同一人，現今英國女王伊麗沙白二世的母親亦為蘇格蘭人，且蘇格蘭又與英格蘭、威爾斯同在不列顛島上，再加上「聯合王國」的國際形象及地位甚佳，不列顛島上又無政治體制及意識形態的劇烈分歧，則蘇格蘭因何要主張獨立？這也難怪保守黨政府原先根本未料到獨立事件幾乎要鬧到弄假成真，而逼得英相卡麥隆稱，蘇格蘭若獨立，那就是「離婚」。蘇格蘭為何要獨立？觀察家們共認的核心理由是：為了在北海油田利益上排擠「聯合王國」。

從克里米亞及蘇格蘭兩例可見，政治上的統獨概念，可從政經體制及價值理念的激烈衝撞（如蘇聯解體），到民族主義的認同抉擇（如克里米亞），到以經濟利益的貪婪心理為主體訴求（如北海石油之於蘇格蘭獨派）。至於尋求獨立的途徑，則可從美國獨立戰爭的「起義手段」，到魁北克對加拿大或蘇格蘭對英國的公投體制，而西班牙政府則不承認加泰隆尼亞的獨立公投。準此以論，此次蘇格蘭獨立公投，在訴求上較狹隘（石油利益論），但在手段過程上的表現，無論是政府或民眾，卻是最民主亦最文明的。

蘇格蘭獨立公投對台海兩岸思維是一強烈衝擊。一般的說法是，兩岸關係與蘇格蘭之例不同；此說有其見地，但並不周延。蘇格蘭鬧獨立不是對整體政經體制及價值信念的認同歧異（只因對社經政策的不滿），獨派甚至暗示若獨立願留在「大英國協」；但兩岸關係的主要分歧卻是在政治體制、價值信念及生活方式的迥然而異。至於在經濟面，蘇格蘭欲在北海油田排除聯合王國，但台灣非但沒有石油，且在經濟上愈來愈依賴大陸。如今的兩岸關係是：以經濟互利為主軸，但政治體制的歧異卻是瓶頸。

兩岸關係的最大差異在於，倫敦允許蘇格蘭公投，但北京一貫反對台獨公投；甚至美國今日表態贊成蘇格蘭與聯合王國維持「統一」，但美國雖不願見兩岸不對等的統一，卻早已明白表態反對「台獨公投」。由於此種國際架構與兩岸情勢，兩岸遂進入如今這種「不統／不獨／不武」的境況。

蘇格蘭三百年來皆被視為「聯合王國」的一分子，今卻欲脫離聯合王國而獨立；但在北京的立場，卻始終不承認中華民國為一部分的中國（只承認台灣與大陸同屬一個中國），因此不能說服台灣接受這樣的「一個中國」。

然而，蘇格蘭之例與兩岸關係仍有一重要共同點，此即，無論是否舉行公投，問題的根本歸趨仍在民心。當聯合王國的文明條件足使蘇格蘭人自認留在聯合王國中能夠保有光榮與自尊時，民心即會在統獨之間作出大抉擇。相對而言，北京若始終將台灣視為「叛離的一省」，而欲對六十五年以來及以後中華民國在台灣所創造的文明成就不給予政治上的承認，亦即不承認中華民國是一部分的中國，卻教台灣人民如何理解、認同「一個中國」，更教台灣人民如何在「一個中國」之中感受到光榮與自尊？

蘇格蘭獨立公投，使人恍然感知，蘇格蘭原來是「聯合王國」的一分子。兩岸關係若要化解統獨難題，首務當在使中華民國感知是「大屋頂中國」下的「一部分的中國」。這是民心問題，也是超越統獨公投形式的根本問題。