Editors' Notebook

A Peaceful Secession, Maybe

Greg D Horstmeier
By  Greg D Horstmeier , DTN Editor-in-Chief
Connect with Greg:
(DTN photo by Greg Horstmeier)

It's possible that with the ongoing crisis in the Ukraine and the barbaric actions of the group that calls itself ISIS, some of you may not have heard, or perhaps heard only little, that Scotland decides Thursday whether it will continue to be part of the United Kingdom or whether, with a stroke of the ballot box, it reverses a 300-year-old decision and again becomes a sovereign nation.

I can't help but pay attention to it, given that I've just returned from an international ag journalists' meeting that happened to be in Scotland. Even barring that trip I had a bit of an inherent interest in the outcome: family members on my mother's side (nee Stewart) have reportedly traced our lineage back to Robert the Bruce, who historians say had more to do keeping Scotland free of England in the early 1300s than that more famous fighter -- thanks to an actor named Gibson -- William Wallace.

It's an interesting concept to ponder, independence. For most of the world, it's a discussion steeped in violence, bloodshed, and the long-term economic and social darkness that follows. So it was surreal to hear Scots discuss the issue, either on the evening news programs or over the din of sports or office talk at a pub.

For certain, folks on both sides of the question are passionate. By and large, though, the discussion is an intellectual one. It's a debate over currency and debt, of social programs and the definition of a representative government. Its 180 degrees from the protests and Molotov cocktails, tear gas and bullets seen elsewhere.

As with most national decisions, farmers in Scotland are pretty much along for the ride, no matter which rail the train takes. It will be the urban and suburban voters, considering issues such as jobs, health care, and national security, who will carry the day, not the farm vote.

P[L1] D[0x0] M[300x250] OOP[F] ADUNIT[] T[]

Toward that vote, Nigel Miller, president of the Scottish National Farmer's Union, told members of the International Federation of Agricultural Journalists that farmers are fairly split. Our tours of the area bore that out. While most of the signs seen in barley and vegetable crop fields of eastern and central Scotland sported 'NO" banners, there were the occasional "YES" flags and painted letters posted nearby.

The issue for farmers, Miller told me after a presentation on Scottish agriculture, is that while most of the key commodities and agricultural enterprises in Scotland are net exporters, and as such would do well whether united with or separated from their British neighbors. London and the other large English cities are still their No. 1 market. How that relationship might change under a system of international trade, versus simple interstate movement, is unknown.

There's also the great unknown whether Scottish producers would see reduced subsidies from the European Union's Common Agricultural Policy, or CAP. Again, with a largely urban population, there's no sign that Edinburgh, the political seat of Scotland, would work any harder for Scottish farmers in the halls of Brussels than does London.

Regardless of the side they were on, Scots to a person marvel at what the independence referendum has done to engage its citizens. Alex Salmond, Scotland's first minister and the assumed head of the new country should it become one, said during a dinner speech that one of his strongest memories will be a long queue of citizens lined up outside a voter registration area in the town of Dundee. "These weren't people lining up to cast a vote," Salmond told the journalists in attendance. "These were people lining up to REGISTER to vote. These were people, most of whom had never voted in their life and up to this point could care little about politics."

Mulling over Salmond's comments as an American, I felt a tinge of jealousy. Too often, polarizing issues here in the States tend to drive extreme comments, not constructive debate.

Even the referendum's placards were peaceful. Rather than over-the-top claims or a slew of expletives, the Yes signs are three letters, "Y-e-s;" the negative, simply "No, Thanks."

One evening I watched two Scottish fishermen, friends and business partners but completely divided on the Yes-No question, discuss the pros and cons of independence on a Scottish television news program. It was a scene I couldn't imagine taking place here around, say, national healthcare or any of our other serious social questions, on the nightly hollering sessions we seem to need to broadcast.

In the end, such derisive comments drive apathy, not participation, from the voting body.

Great Grandpa Robert -- if indeed I can call him that -- might be a little disappointed in how I'd likely cast my vote in the referendum. I just couldn't disagree with an oft-heard comment by the No-inclined voters that dealing with the devil you know (London and Prime Minister David Cameron's conservative government) might be better than the devil you don't know.

Regardless, I can only wish them, and especially the farmers there, the best in their future, whatever it may be. As NFU president Miller said matter-of-factly as only a farmer can; "We've got to make a decision, and then whatever we decide we've got to bloody make it work."

(SK)

P[] D[728x170] M[320x75] OOP[F] ADUNIT[] T[]
P[L2] D[728x90] M[320x50] OOP[F] ADUNIT[] T[]

Comments

To comment, please Log In or Join our Community .