Scotland’s independence referendum ended in a resounding victory for the side advocating Scotland remaining within the UK as the “No” side received 55 percent of the vote against the “Yes” side’s 45. The result notwithstanding, the referendum itself has been lauded as a great victory for democracy and something that Scotland and the UK should be proud of.
In the past, governments treated independence movements as secessionists betraying their nation and they often ended in bloody suppression.
However, the UK showed tolerance and followed democratic ideals in giving Scots the freedom to decide their own future, with the queen encouraging Scots to “think very carefully about the future,” while British Prime Minister David Cameron said that Scottish independence would “break [his] heart.”
Although the “Yes” side lost, Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond, who led the pro-independence effort, accepted the loss and said he would resign from his post in November. Although he lost this battle, he gained a place in history and has probably also managed to improve Scotland’s situation within the UK. After the result was announced, Scotland remained mostly calm and both sides have displayed the demeanor one would expect in a long-standing democracy.
The need to trust in the public was one important lesson to be learned from this referendum. Government leaders did not try to block it by saying that there was no need for a referendum at this time, and instead let Scots decide their own future. The government did not treat the referendum as a bloodthirsty monster or play around with referendum legislation and set irrational restrictions to create a “birdcage” referendum law which would make passing a referendum, although nominally possible, very difficult or even impossible in practice.
Instead, all that was required to win the referendum was a simple majority: half of all votes plus one. UK and Scottish politicians did not have the idiotic idea that the future of Scotland should be decided by all UK citizens, in the way that some people feel that Taiwan’s future should be decided by all Chinese.
Although the UK government was fully opposed to Scottish independence, it did not treat the prospect of it as a rebellion or imprison pro-independence leaders. Nor did it hold military exercises or fire missiles or say that “no one who promotes independence will meet with a happy ending,” as former Chinese premier Zhu Rongji (朱鎔基) once said.
The Scottish independence movement issued a detailed white paper detailing what the nation would look like following independence to give the public a clear blueprint when considering their future. In the end, the Scots considered their own future based on their national identity, and in addition to national defense and foreign affairs, they considered taxes, healthcare, how the North Sea oil resources should be distributed and which solution would be more beneficial to themselves, Scotland and the UK as a whole.
Although the whole world was waiting to find out how Scottish independence would affect the UK, the EU and the rest of the world, the result was a soft landing, as the Scots decided to remain within the UK and observers breathed a sigh of relief. Someone has said that referendums are populist, but the people of Scotland displayed their intelligence and wisdom throughout the entire process.
A referendum is of course a major gamble for all parties. Prior to voting day, the situation is fluid and everyone is concerned, and if this concern and anxiety are not handled correctly, they can lead to disorder. However, a referendum lets everyone express their opinion and make their own decision. For the foreseeable future, Scotland and the UK will enjoy political stability.
Trust in the public is indeed the way to long-term political stability.
With its passing of Hong Kong’s new National Security Law, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) continues to tighten its noose on Hong Kong. Gone is the broken 1997 promise that Hong Kong would have free, democratic elections by 2017. Gone also is any semblance that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) plays the long game. All the CCP had to do was hold the fort until 2047, when the “one country, two systems” framework would end and Hong Kong would rejoin the “motherland.” It would be a “demonstration-free” event. Instead, with the seemingly benevolent velvet glove off, the CCP has revealed its true iron
At the end of last month, Paraguayan Ambassador to Taiwan Marcial Bobadilla Guillen told a group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators that his president had decided to maintain diplomatic ties with Taiwan, despite pressure from the Chinese government and local businesses who would like to see a switch to Beijing. This followed the Paraguayan Senate earlier this year voting against a proposal to establish ties with China in exchange for medical supplies. This constituted a double rebuke of the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) diplomatic agenda in a six-month span from Taiwan’s only diplomatic ally in South America. Last year, Tuvalu rejected an
US President Donald Trump’s administration on Friday last week announced it would impose sanctions on the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps, a vast paramilitary organization that is directly controlled by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and has been linked to human rights violations against Uighurs and other ethnic minorities in Xinjiang. The sanctions follow US travel bans against other Xinjiang officials and the passage of the US Hong Kong Autonomy Act, which authorizes targeted sanctions against mainland Chinese and Hong Kong officials, in response to Beijing’s imposition of national security legislation on the territory. The sanctions against the corps would be implemented
US President Donald Trump on Thursday issued executive orders barring Americans from conducting business with WeChat owner Tencent Holdings and ByteDance, the Beijing-based owner of popular video-sharing app TikTok. The orders are to take effect 45 days after they were signed, which is Sept. 20. The orders accuse WeChat of helping the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) review and remove content that it considers to be politically sensitive, and of using fabricated news to benefit itself. The White House has accused TikTok of collecting users’ information, location data and browsing histories, which could be used by the Chinese government, and pose