One big fight

No, this column will not be about the rubber match next Wednesday between the Ateneo Blue Eagles and the National University Bulldogs. So far, during their three outings this season, the ferocious dogs have been able to prevent the eagles from taking off. Well its “Kief or die” for the blue birds on Wednesday.

For this week, let us endeavour to describe an epic political battle. Indeed, the electoral fight for Scottish independence was an interesting spectacle to watch. Just like a UAAP basketball game, it went down the wire with the “Better Together” coalition (those who are against ending the union with England) beating the pro-independence “Yes Scotland” group by a 400,000 vote margin or 55%-45%.

The final tally did not reflect the tight race going into the last few days. The pro-independence movement was led by the Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP) which promised that an independent Scotland would become a Scandinavian-like paradise (of course it did not emphasize the large tax bill nor the expensive cost of living). On the other hand, the Unionist effort was largely entrusted to the Scottish Labor Party by their allied party mates from the south. Despite being a Scotsman, British Prime Minister David Cameron essentially stayed in the sidelines except in the final days when he was compelled to promise more concessions for home rule Queen Elizabeth II made a subtle hint on her preference saying “I hope people will think very carefully about the future.”

There were allegations of various scare tactics employed by both sides. The vitriolic attacks of the SNP made commentators dub to it as the “Seriously Nasty Party.” The Unionists were accused of leaking information that Scotland’s leading banks were moving their headquarters to England if Scots decided to leave the United Kingdom. Similarly, leading retailers including supermarket giant Asda and department store John Lewis raised the probability of higher prices for Scottish shoppers.

The referendum was an impressive showcase of true democracy. An all time high of 97% (4.3 million) of the total population 16 years old and above registered for the poll with 85% actually voting. From a “will of the majority” standpoint, it would be difficult to beat these numbers.

* * *

Historical background: The quest for Scottish independence has been a work in progress for over 300 years when England and Scotland entered into the Treaty of Union in 1707.  Before that or in the 14th century, I still remember the story of Scottish patriot Robert the Bruce who, while hiding in a cave, watched a spider try and try until it reached its destination. He followed the spider’s persevering example, was later crowned king in 1306 and was succeeded by his son-in-law who was the first Scottish king of the House of Stuart. 

Since 1707, the Scots have always been agitating for the devolution of political and economic power.

The debate has centered on the amount of autonomy to be given. The Scottish Labor Party wants the country to stay in the Union but seeks greater home rule. The Scottish Nationalists want nothing less than the granting of full independence. The UK Parliament approved the Scotland Act of 1998 which paved the way for the election of a Scottish Parliament with control over most domestic policy.  

One easily notices that the laws passed by the Scottish Parliament in respect of the provision of public services differ with that of the rest of the United Kingdom. For example, the cost of a University education or providing care services to the elderly are free at point of use in Scotland but fees need to be paid elsewhere.

* * *

Pros and cons: Those who advocate Scottish independence cite the following reasons. 1) Self-determination – “the people who live in Scotland are best placed to make the decisions that affect Scotland.” 2) Nuclear disarmament – the £25 billion being spent on the Trident nuclear weapons can be better used for education, health care and housing. 3) Scottish oil: Scots should primarily benefit from the 64% of the European Union’s oil reserves worth up to £4 trillion which are located in Scottish waters. 4) Renewable energy: Scotland’s substantial renewable energy resources – 25% of Europe’s wind and tide energy potential as well as 10% of the continent’s wave energy potential – should be used to “re-industrialize” Scotland.

On the other hand, those in favor of maintaining the Union argue: 1) Scotland is economically stronger as a part of the UK economy. 2) On a stand-alone basis, it would be difficult to maintain Scotland’s public spending without raising taxes. 3) Scotland has more influence on international affairs and diplomacy because it is part of a larger state. 4) The political transition may lead to economic uncertainty and capital flight.

* * *

Lesson learned: The country’s Bangsamoro challenge should learn a lesson or two from the Scottish experience. For example, the process is as, if not more important, than the result. The issues should be simplified (but not trivialized) and a robust, uninhibited and wide-open debate should be encouraged. For in a democracy, I believe that an informed majority is the best judge on what is best for a country.

* * *

Greetings: Today marks the birth anniversary of several family members in the medical profession, my father’s elder sister, Dr. Aurora “Nita” Bautista-De Asis turns 88; first cousin, Dr. Justina De Leon-Pangilinan turns #!; and my doctor brother’s third daughter, Andrea, who hopefully will also be a physician someday.  A few words of special thanks to the family pediatrician, Tita Nita de Asis, for helping our mother take care of six sibling’s medical needs gratis et amore.

Birth anniversary best wishes as well to maternal primo, Ralph Lim Joseph of Ralph’s Wines and Spirits who also is a doctor but in a different profession.

* * *

“In any moment of decision, the best thing you can do is the right thing. The worst thing you can do is nothing.” – Theodore Roosevelt

Email: [email protected]