As chances of UK split grow, costs to the world become clearer

September 4, 2014

A man puts money in his sporran at the Birnam Highland Games in Scotland

Until this week almost nobody outside Scotland took very seriously the possibility that Europe’s most stable and durable nation, the only big country on earth not to have suffered invasion, revolution or civil war at any time in the past 268 years, might soon be wiped off the map. It now seems quite conceivable, however, that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will cease to exist after the referendum on Scottish independence to be held on September 18.

The prospects for Scotland and Britain changed abruptly on Tuesday when YouGov, one of Britain’s most authoritative polling organizations, published a survey showing the unionist lead narrowing to just 53-47, compared with the margins of 10 to 20 percentage points that were typical of previous polls. So sudden and large was the shift in the numbers that Peter Kellner, the President of YouGov, could hardly believe his own numbers. As he said on his weekly blog:

“Alex Salmond [the Scottish Nationalist leader] seemed to be heading for a heavy defeat…But now a close finish looks likely, and a ‘yes’ victory is a real possibility. When I first saw our data, I wanted to make sure the movement was real. All polls, however carefully conducted, are subject to sampling error. Can we be sure this rise in support for independence is real? I am now certain it is.”

By tracking how individual voters had changed their minds on the referendum, Kellner concluded that the independence campaign were gaining four voters for every one they were losing, while the unionists were losing two supporters for every one gained. Analyzing the data by party affiliations yielded the same conclusion: the shift in opinion was for real.

Beyond the statistical cross-checking, there are several reasons to believe that a breakup of the United Kingdom has become a genuine possibility. For a start, the shift in public opinion had a clear catalyst: a televised debate last week that was clearly won by Salmond. More fundamentally, the assumption that the Scots would be mainly swayed by economic issues, which favor risk-averse voting for the status quo, has turned proved wrong. It now appears that many voters are focusing mostly on the political implications of independence. Many Scots see the referendum as an opportunity to turn their country into a Scandinavian-style social democracy, expressing a collectivist national spirit that has been suppressed by English conservatism, especially since Margaret Thatcher’s election in 1979. The fact that Scotland elected only a single Conservative Member of Parliament in the last UK election provides clear evidence of this ideological divergence.

Whatever the reasons for the independence upsurge, financial markets have suddenly taken notice. Tuesday’s YouGov poll triggered an immediate sell-off in sterling, the biggest jump in the expected currency volatility implied by option premiums since the 2011 euro crisis, and big falls in the shares of Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS). The panicky reaction made sense.

Even if the chances of Scottish independence remain quite low – the odds are only 20 per cent according to political betting markets – the consequences of this low probability event would be immense. The Scottish referendum could trigger all kinds of other risks that financial markets and international business leaders have not yet fully understood.

Most of financial and business analysis has understandably focused on economic issues such as currency arrangements, government guarantees for financial institutions and revenues from North Sea oil. Troubling as these are, the political consequences of independence would be even more disruptive.

The problems would begin immediately after the referendum, since a vote for independence victory would probably trigger a rebellion against David Cameron by right-wing members of his own party, whose historic name is the “Conservative and Unionist Party.” Another reason to expect mutiny is ironically that Conservatives would to win elections in England easily in the future, after Scotland’s Labour members of Parliament are permanently gone from Westminster. This confidence would, in turn, allow party activists to opt for a leader more in line with their own euro-skeptical and right-wing views than the moderate Cameron.

Whether or not Cameron could survive defeat in the referendum, a huge constitutional challenge would loom in May 2015, when a general election must be held in the UK as a whole. Scottish independence would shatter the democratic legitimacy of whatever government emerged from this election. If Labour won a majority, its victory would depend on Scottish MPs due to be expelled from Westminster at the end of the independence negotiations in 2016 or 2017. A Labour-led government elected next year would therefore have no democratic mandate.

If, on the other hand, the Tories manage to win next year’s election, even after a Scottish independence vote this month, they will become extremely confident of securing an even larger majority after Scotland is gone. If Cameron is then replaced with a much more Euro-skeptical prime minister who would campaign for Britain to leave the EU, a British electorate without pro-European Scottish voters would almost certainly endorse this decision in a referendum.

Finally, we need to consider the impact of Scotland voting to stay in the union, but only by a narrow margin. If the vote turns out to be as close as suggested by the latest polls, then the nationalists are unlikely to accept the outcome as final. Cameron’s authority as prime minister and Conservative leader would still be seriously diminished and the outcome of next year’s general election, already “too close to call”, would swing in favor of Labour. Even if the Tories did stay in power, the outcome of the EU referendum in 2017 would become increasingly uncertain.

In sum, political instability looks like becoming a permanent fact of life in Britain unless the unionists can win the Scottish referendum by a decisive margin. Since such a clean-cut outcome now looks unlikely, the volatility this week in sterling and other British assets is probably a portent of things to come.

PHOTO: A man puts money in his sporran at the Birnam Highland Games in Scotland, August 30, 2014. REUTERS/Russell Cheyne

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated the number of Conservative members of Parliament from Scotland. David Mundell is a Conservative representing Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale & Tweeddale.

9 comments

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/

Isn’t this supposed to be about the Scots? The heck with the rest!

Posted by MonitorLizard | Report as abusive

Great imagery of Scotland Anatole.

A bloke wearing a jumper and kilt fishing a few 20s (of currency that doesn’t belong to Scotland apparently) out of his sporran.

On his way to work in an office of course.

Is this really how the US view Scotland? considering I was asked if I live in castle on my last visit to Baltimore then I guess so.

Scotland is more than just somewhere for the USA to park some very expensive WMD’s.

Posted by TheTruth01 | Report as abusive

Historically, when the time gets nearer the poll, the voter tends to shed emotion and places the ‘X’ over a more conservative opinion. I do NOT think that Scotland will vote for independence; the uncertainties weighing over their citizens’ livelihood are too serious to take such a blind step.

Posted by expat75 | Report as abusive

No invasion, revolution, etc. Really? How about the 1715 and 1745 rebellions? The revolution in Ireland? French troops being landed at Fishguard in 1797? If you can’t even get basic facts right, why should anyone take the rest of this polemic seriously?

Posted by Burnham | Report as abusive

Oh, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has only existed since 1922. The immediate predecessor country had only existed since 1801.

Posted by Burnham | Report as abusive

“The fact that Scotland did not elect a single Conservative Member of Parliament in the last UK election provides clear evidence of this ideological divergence”.

David Mundell is the MP for Dumfries.

Posted by AlexDunners | Report as abusive

For goodness’ sake. When a journalist can’t even be bothered to get his facts straight you can safely ignore any supposed insights he might be trying to offer on the subject in hand.

For example “The fact that Scotland did not elect a single Conservative Member of Parliament in the last UK election provides clear evidence of this ideological divergence.”

Plain wrong. David Mundell, the Tory MP for Dumfries-shire, would be very surprised to hear that he doesn’t exist.

Similarly, “a British electorate without pro-European Scottish voters would almost certainly endorse this decision in a referendum”.

That too just ignorantly recycles a common myth among people who know nothing about Scotland. In fact, serious polling on this very question has repeatedly shown that Scottish attitudes towards the EU are very similar to those in England: the difference on issues like the Euro and further European integration are only of the order of about one more Europhile voter in 20. That isn’t nearly enough, given that we’re talking about less than one person in 20 in a population that itself comprises less than 10% of the UK total, so a small fraction of 1 per cent overall, to make a serious impact on any UK-wide referendum on the EU.

If Kaletsky can’t even get the basic right then why does he expect people to tsake his analysis seriously?

Posted by JohnnyJames14 | Report as abusive

If there is a yes vote than Scottish MPs would retain the right to vote in a Parliament that their public does not believe in until Scottish independence. Meanwhile they will be colouring the overall vote no doubt to favour Scottish interests against the rUK’s

Posted by writeangle | Report as abusive

[…] nadal uważamy, że Szkoci nie wybiorą niepodległości, to jednak szanse na to według sondaży nieco się zwiększyły (bukmacherzy oceniają je na 20 procent). Przewaga unionistów nad […]

Posted by FED może wkrótce ruszyć ze stopami w górę | Report as abusive

Anatole Kaletsky is a remarkably bad thinker. His call on Scotland was way off.

Posted by RoderickB | Report as abusive