DU students were recently assaulted with information and updates from all aspects of the media regarding Scotland’s vote for independence. In May, when two Ukrainian regions were holding a similar referendum, the DU community was abuzz as well but with much more criticism and disapproval. What caused the difference?
The one question vote “Should Scotland be independent?” was recognized differently: three reasons explain this contrast.
First, while the referendum in Ukraine was a fruit of violence, Scotland’s campaign to independence was born in the political process. Second, historically, it is not strange for a country to secede from England, dozens have done so following the fall of the British Empire — while Ukraine itself seceded from the Soviet Union. Third, Scotland was seceding from a Western power, without the influence of an Eastern power, while the secession in Ukraine was highly controversial exactly because of the influence from an Eastern power.
First: The referendum in Scotland has been in the works for decades. Scottish bitterness toward underrepresentation in the British Parliament, as well as national laws passed that did not benefit Scotland (for example, the controversy in the 1970s with Scotland’s campaign to receive benefit from the mining of its oil), have fueled the fire. It was only two years ago that the Scottish National Party gained a majority in the Scottish Parliament and made an agreement with the UK government to hold a referendum. The results of this decision were reaped on Sep. 18, 2014, when the Scots voted, and, in an overwhelming majority, decided to stay part of the United Kingdom.
In contrast, the Donetsk and Luhansk citizens announced and held the referendum almost simultaneously, barely allowing time for the Ukrainian government to denounce the results. Many voters reported being pressured to vote one way or the other, either through societal pressure, or from the armed guards present at every polling site. The results — 89 percent voting for and 10 percent voting against — showed an extreme that is very rarely duplicated in legitimate votes.
Scotland’s planning and diplomatic means brought about a successful and internationally-recognized referendum, while the violent method used in Ukraine increased the controversy regarding the conflict there.
Second: England’s Parliament accepted the referendum request at the cost of their own reputation. The spread of globalization made many modern states see themselves as either unions or as voluntary federations. Democratic structures that share power through multiple levels of government prevent the totalitarian structure feared by many.
In comparison, Ukraine’s desire for independence was formalized through a referendum on December 1, 1991. Since then, corruption charges have been brought against many political figures, and more than 12 percent of the country has threatened to secede. Recently, Crimea held a referendum and now considers itself independent of Kiev. Staying as a single, united state is extremely important to the budding government and economy, and is necessary for state legitimacy.
England and Ukraine were faced with a very similar problem. England allowed people the ability to make a decision regarding their independence in order to keep face in the international community. In order for Ukraine to do the same, secession of any particular region is unimaginable.
Third: Scotland’s secession was supported by the world. Countries were ready to accept any result of the referendum. The vote was considered legitimate due to the lack of outside influence. The entirety of the political process was initiated, controlled and finished by the Scots. Every facet was transparent and observed by the world.
The difference with Ukraine is the fact that the referendum directly called for a union with Russia, not for sovereign independence from Kiev. Another determinant only 24 percent of people eligible to vote took part in the Luhansk Region, and only slightly over 32 percent took part in the Donetsk Region. This extremely low turnout rate is not nearly enough to warrant validity of the vote, as the desires of the majority are not known.
Choices regarding independence should be autonomous. Scotland’s decision was self-reliant. The vote held in Ukraine was reliant on Russian acceptance, and was controversial in regard to the Russian influence.
Many factors distinguish the two referendums. Scotland’s vote was accepted as legitimate due to the peaceful nature, the support of England and the backing of the international community. In Ukraine, the referendum was held among violence, was criticized by Kiev and didn’t ask for independence.
Next time a group of Colorado counties wants to secede from a union, the citizens should keep in mind the model presented by Scotland — a more diplomatic method that gives more freedom of choice to all involved.
