Analyze the reasons for separatism with and/or across national boundaries and discuss its consequences free essay sample

Analyze the reasons for separatism with and/or across national boundaries and discuss its consequences [40 marks] Separatism is the advocacy of a state of cultural, ethnic, tribal, religious, racial, governmental or gender partition from the larger group. While it often refers to full political secession, separatist groups may seek nothing more than greater autonomy. There are four main types of separatist groups – religious, ethnic, racial and gender. Separatism â€Å"with national boundaries† refers to an event concerning only one country. Separatism â€Å"across national boundaries† refers to an event concerning more than one country. The general motivations for separatism are: emotional resentment of rival communities; protection from ethnic cleansing and genocide; justified resistance by victims of oppression, including denigration of their language, culture or religion; propaganda by those who hope to gain politically from intergroup conflict and hatred; the economic and political dominance of one group that does not share power and privilege in an egalitarian fashion; economic motivations seeking to end economic exploitation by more powerful group or, conversely, to escape economic redistribution from a richer to a poorer group; preservation of threatened religious, language or other cultural tradition; destabilization from one separatist movement giving rise to others; geopolitical power vacuum from breakup of larger states or empires; continuing fragmentation as more and more states break up; feeling that the perceived nation was added to the larger state by illegitimate means; the perception that the state can no longer support ones own group or has betrayed their interests; opposition to political decisions; wish to have a more practical political structure and not rely on people who are located far away to govern them or otherwise impractical solutions. The consequences of separatist pressure may be peaceful or non-peaceful. Those desiring more autonomy have used a wide range of activities to create or press for it. In increasing order of extremism, general consequences include: the establishment and maintenance of societies and norms with clear separate cultural identities within a country; the protection of a language through the media and education; the growth of separate political parties and devolved power; civil disobedience; terrorist violence; civil war. In the case of â€Å"with national boundaries†, in 2007 the Scottish National Party pledged to get independence for the UK. They first set a target of being independent by 2010 but this now been pushed back to Thursday September 18, 2014, when (only) residents of Scotland will vote to see if they should be a country in their own right. Scottish independence is a political aim of some political parties, advocacy groups, and individuals in Scotland (which is a country of the United Kingdom), for the country to become an independent sovereign state. Scotland was an independent country from its foundation in the Early Middle Ages (843) until 1707, with the Treaty of Union. The Parliament of the United Kingdom approved the Scotland Act in 1998 which created an elected Scottish Parliament with control over most domestic policies. For example, a major difference for Scottish and English residents lies in the provision of public services by the government. The costs of a university education and health care services for the elderly are free at point of use in Scotland, while fees are paid in the rest of the UK. There are numerous other differences and subsequently reasons as for why Scotland wants to break off from the UK. Reasons for Scottish independence include, firstly, the principle of self-determination people who live in Scotland, who are the most invested in the future of Scotland, will be making decisions for Scotland themselves. This also involves choosing ministers for the EU meetings, currently Scotland is represented by English ministers, and Scottish people believe that problems concerning Highlands stand last on the UK current agenda and therefore are never spoken about. They believe that with the gain of independence and new ministers, Scotland’s concerns can be resolved, thus improving standards of living. Secondly, the Additional Member System employed for elections to the Scottish Parliament is arguably more democratic than the electoral system used for the House of Commons, so the Scottish electorate would be empowered. Thirdly, control over defence and foreign policy means Scotland can choose, for example, to no longer have nuclear weapons in its seas or no longer be part of NATO. This is important factor for Scots, because Scotland has been against UK’s involvement in the Iran-Iraq war. Furthermore, access to North Sea oil and vast offshore renewable energy revenue means greater funding for the Scottish Government. In addition, Scotland wants to deter a cultural dawn for its country (this has been emphasized by creative pro-independence groups like National Collective). Examples of Scottish heritage which Scots stand very protective about includes Robert Burns, castles and tartan skirts. Besides, if Scotland became an independent nation it will mean that it will be able to cut the amount of taxes that business pay. Similar change has taken place in Ireland, which lead to an increase in the amount of local independent business. Scottish economist propose that independence will be a massive benefit do to the downturn which we seem to be in at the moment and something that we want to come out of. Lastly, Scotland looks up to countries such as Northern Ireland and Norway, which are around the same size as it and have the same type of resources. They believe that if these countries became independent and were able to survive as single countries, so can Scotland. However there will be negative consequences of Scottish independence. Firstly, Scotland will no longer receive tax support which they currently get from the UK (in 2009-10 Scottish government received ? 16. 5bn from Westminster in taxes to be spend on anything they want). Therefore if they broke off from the UK they would not get this money and they would have to make up for it themselves, which is bound to be hard, because they main financial resource is oil. Oil is a non-renewable resource which is predicted to run out in the next 50 years, furthermore it has been accounted that earning from oil industry in Scotland will only be able to replace the amount central UK government gives to Scotland at the moment. What’s more Scotland’s individual GDP of ? 150 billion would be smaller than that of Greece – even including North Sea oil. Secondly, Scotland has a higher unemployment rate than in England, therefore with gaining independence this factor will be felt more on the population. Government will have to spend big amounts on unemployment benefits, thus running into a budget deficit and consequently slowing economic growth down. This could lead to the worsening of road conditions, healthcare and education, simply as a result of opportunity cost to the government of having to paying unemployment benefits. Thirdly, Scottish students will stand at a disadvantage to English students, because they will no longer be able to undoubtedly access England’s many good quality higher education institutions, because they will be regarded as foreigners, so the fees might be greater and perhaps therefore unaffordable. Lastly, there will be a negative effect on England as well. The main water supply for the North East of England is situated in Scotland. Therefore if Scotland gained independence and decided to cut off the supply and use that water instead for bottling and selling it abroad to make a bigger profit, England will have to purchase this water at a price which will increase costs for the economy, or at least find another source for water supply, which may take time. Scottish separatism has resulted in a clear division amongst the UK residents and the UK government. Scottish National Party, Scottish Green Party, the Scottish Socialist Party and Solidarity all support Scottish independence. On the other hand, Scottish Labor Party, Scottish Conservative Party and Scottish Liberal Democrats all oppose Scottish independence. This divide gave birth to non-violent discussions in the Scottish parliament, which take a form of negotiation. In public, opposing campaigns such as â€Å"Yes Scotland† and â€Å"No Scotland†, from time to time, both hold peaceful demonstrations to express their point of view and most recently they held a mock-up referendum in the University of Glasgow in 2013. In the case of â€Å"across national boundaries†, The Kurds are the largest ethnic group (40 million) without a country of their own. They live across the borders of Iraq, Iran, Syria, Turkey, Armenia, and Azerbaijan. Kurds have a separate language, culture, and history, but currently live, sometimes without recognition, in these countries. Their culture and identity have been oppressed by the regimes of the nations within which they live. Reasons for Kurdish independence include, firstly, possession of a unique Kurdish language, which Kurds want to speak without suppression. Secondly, Kurdish area is full of rich resources such as oil and natural gas. Therefore Kurds believe that by trading these resources they can drive their country’s economy. Thirdly, they are the only ethnic group in the world with indigenous representatives in three geopolitical blocs -The Arab World, NATO, The South Asian-Central Asian group and until recently the Soviet bloc, which put Kurds into a great position in politics, because they already have many contacts. Also, being a region on the borders of six countries results in it becoming the epicentre of many conflicts. For example, recently Turkey has come across the Iraqi border and bombed small villages in Kurdistan Region which made 35 million people homeless. Therefore Kurds want their own territory, so that they do not become caught up in conflicts which do not primarily involve them. Lastly, getting independent will allow Kurds to express their own culture, which at the moment is uncertain because Kurdish population if split apart, seeking refuge in countries like USA, UK, Australia and Norway. Additionally, many Kurdish groups actually want equal rights and autonomy, but not necessarily sovereignty. The consequences were as follows. Firstly, in the course of the 16th to 18th centuries, vast portions of Kurdistan were systematically devastated by the Safavids and Ottomans. Large numbers of Kurds were deported to far corners of their empires. The scale of this death and destruction was the basis for a unification of feeling against foreign vandals. There was a call for a united Kurdish state; and the fostering of culture and language. These feelings were expressed in the literature of the time. Secondly, in summer 2004 Kurdish guerrilla rebels called the end of a five-year truce and intended to attack Istanbul, preparing in advance large amounts of explosives. Thirdly, there is an on-going Turkish-Kurdish armed conflict since 1984 between the Republic of Turkey and various Kurdish insurgent groups, which demand separation from Turkey to create an independent Kurdistan, or at least to have autonomy and greater political and cultural rights for Kurds inside the Republic of Turkey. Lastly, there was the Iraqi–Kurdish conflict which consisted of a series of wars and rebellions by the Kurds against the central authority of Iraq, which began shortly after the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I and lasting until the U. S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. After looking at the examples of Scotland and Kurdistan, I come to the conclusion that all possible reasons and consequences of separatism do not usually occur within one case. In fact, this comparison of a MEDC Scotland and LEDC Kurdistan implies that generally the consequences in the first case are more peaceful and do not involve armed conflicts, however consequences in the second case are more violent and almost always resolve in an armed conflict. In my opinion this is due to the government being more established and having a greater power in MEDCs, therefore it has more control over any conflict activity. Conversely, in LEDCs people feel less ruled by the government and therefore they pursue the freedom of expressing their views in the way that will be noticed by everyone and thus has a higher chance of being successful.