Last Friday morning, after the referendum results came in, I was meeting a professor in his office.
“It’s just so goddamn depressing,” he grumbled, gesturing to the USA Today headline announcing the result.
His words crystallized a feeling I’d had since I heard but hadn’t been able to put into words. The “Yes” campaign represented an optimistic, forward-looking political energy to me, and to see it snuffed out in such a close race was, well, goddamn depressing.
My mother was born in Scotland and moved here when she was six. Most of her side of the family still lives there, and my aunt and grandfather still carry accents.
So at the early rumblings of Scottish independence, my reaction was one of rote nationalism, learned in songs, toasts and Robert Burns poems from my childhood — not to mention constant and repeated viewings of “Braveheart.”
Of course, after I calmed down a little, I realized it was entirely possible Scotland splitting from the other home countries was a terrible idea. After I made fun of all the states threatening to secede from the Union when President Obama was re-elected, it would be a little disingenuous to turn secessionist at the drop of a kilt.
So, looking into the issues No-campaigning doomsayers harped on about, I found worries about nuclear deterrence, NATO membership and currency exchanges. “They’ll have to create their own currency! We’ll have to move the earth-destroying missiles! There’s going to be change, and we’re all going to wet ourselves!”
But the loudest shouts came from those who were afraid an independent Scotland would spark some kind of chain reaction throughout Europe. Basque and Catalonian regions in Spain and the Flemish in Belgium would all demand that they, like the Scottish, have their own independent state based on cultural and ethnic differences.
It’d be chaos, they said. “Balkanization,” like the splitting of the former Yugoslavia into the many distinct ethnic states that make up the region now.
So what?
Yes, the Balkans were a mess for a long time. Hatred between ethnic groups caused civil wars, genocide and general turmoil to wrack the region for most of the 1990s, but they are now generally peaceful, democratic and modernizing.
More importantly, the splitting of Yugoslavia brought self-determination to ethnic groups who would never be happy in constant compromise with each other. Why couldn’t it work in Scotland?
Of the reigning parties in the United Kingdom — the Conservatives, Labour and the Social Democrats — none represent the general leftist tendencies of the majority of young Scots. This is clear from the promises the Scottish National Party made, especially when you contrast them with the goals of the U.K. Independence Party — a hard-right group on the rise in England.
The SNP promised easier access to the country for immigrants and a strong social safety net in the vein of Scandinavian democracies, while UKIP calls for “English jobs for Englishmen” and a crackdown on what they see as the U.K.’s welfare state.
Clearly, the beliefs of the Scottish and the English are trending in opposite directions. There’s no reason Scotland should keep its future tied to a country from which it feels politically, culturally and historically separate, especially when it has a chance at making itself into a viable modern nation.
I saw some of the most energetic, inspiring activism I have seen in my lifetime from the “Yes” campaigners. You could see the excitement in their eyes and in their parades. They had a legitimate chance at what every politician promises but never delivers — a better tomorrow.
But now that seems to have fizzled out. Parliament will appease Scotland with a little more autonomy, UKIP will continue to gain ground in with British racists and things will continue pretty much as usual.
Goddamn depressing.
Gordon Brillon is a 21-year-old mass communication senior from Lincoln, Rhode Island. You can reach him on Twitter @TDR_GBrillon.