Scottish lawmakers announced last week that the government will introduce a “soft opt-out” system for organ donation. The system, which has raised medical ethics questions in other countries, presumes consent unless an individual has opted-out of donations before their death.

“We have made a transforming decision in Scottish politics,” said Anne McTaggart, a lawmaker in the previous Parliament who initially presented the “opt-out” bill.

This system is an attempt to increase the number of life-saving organ donations. The nation has recently invested heavily in donation campaigns, consultations, and petitions. Last year alone, a record-breaking number of people who were waiting for a transplant received an organ they needed, according to NHS Blood and Transplant.

The new law is trying to build on this growth. Previously, adults willing to donate had to “opt-in” and then hold on to a donor card. Now, all adults will be placed on the donor list unless they have officially stated their wish to not donate. However, family members will get the last say. If they don’t want to go ahead with their loved one’s donation, their wishes will be respected.

Public Health Minister Aileen Campbell said “we should not forget that organ donation is a gift, which can only occur as a result of tragic circumstances.”

Though many countries, such as Germany or the United States, still prefer an explicit consent system, Scotland isn’t alone in passing a presumed consent law. In fact, “opt-out” policies are gaining ground in Europe and South America as the need for transplants increases.

France implemented the system in January. Spain has had a comparable policy in place for 25 years and has become the world leader for organ donations with about 43.4 organ donors per million inhabitants. This compares to the United States’ 28.2 donors per million inhabitants in 2015.

In the United Kingdom, Wales also debuted a soft “opt-out” policy in 2013, which inspired Ireland and some U.S. states to consider making the jump.

Last Friday, Theresa May announced that the government will also closely monitor how transplant numbers evolve in Wales and Scotland to assess whether the rest of the Kingdom should adopt this law.

“Organ donation hit a record high last year here and we obviously want that to continue and continue to rise,” a Downing Street spokesperson said.

Mixed reactions to the law

Although the bill was passed after 82 percent of a public consultation agreed to the “opt-out” system, some are resistant or see flaws in the policy.

“The State does not have a right to anyone’s organs. Even a so called soft opt-out system ruins the nature of organ donation as an altruistic gift,” said Dr Gordon Macdonald from CARE Scotland, a Christian action group.

Dr Calum MacKellar, of the Scottish Council on Human Bioethics (SCHB) believes the system creates a “very significant risk for serious mistakes,” with no guarantee that a deceased’s wishes are followed and a risk for public confidence to be undermined, thereby impacting overall donation levels.

Yet, many Scots are optimistic that this system will bring about much needed help to some of the roughly 500 people waiting for an organ.

“We believe that genuine choice over organ donation can be facilitated through a soft opt-out system,” said Peter Bennie, chair of British Medical Association for Scotland. “If properly implemented, with adequate resources and staff, and backed up by a high-profile campaign, an opt-out system could save or transform people’s lives.”

Celia Heudebourg

Celia Heudebourg is an editorial intern for Law Street Media. She is from Paris, France and is entering her senior year at Macalester College in Minnesota where she studies international relations and political science. When she’s not reading or watching the news, she can be found planning a trip abroad or binge-watching a good Netflix show. Contact Celia at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Scotland to Presume Consent for Organ Donation with “Soft Opt-Out” Law appeared first on Law Street.

Protesters took to the streets of Glasgow last week to push back against the “rape clause” in the UK welfare system. After reforms of the welfare system took effect in April, the tax credits a family can receive for having children are now capped at two children–except in the case of mothers who have a third child as a result of rape. However, those mothers have to provide evidence that the child was in fact conceived from rape–a provision decried as inhumane.

Rape survivors have to fill out an eight-page form detailing the attack and a third party (such as a healthcare provider or a social worker) must provide additional testimony. The woman can only receive tax benefits if she is not living with the perpetrator and if she has not received financial compensation following a conviction of the perpetrator. But psychologists across the UK have expressed concern that this rape clause will harm survivors. In a letter to The Guardian, a set of psychologists write that forced reliving of the attack may cause “flashbacks, renewed shame and emotional turmoil, and consequently affect how mothers bond with their children.”

The clause was an amendment to an existing law, so it was not debated or voted on in parliament. First Minister of Scotland Nicola Sturgeon’s SNP has decried the clause and has fought against it. SNP MP Alison Thewliss led the Scrap the Rape Clause campaign, presenting a petition with 10,000 signatures asking for the clause to be struck from the tax reforms. Members of the Scottish Parliament have filed a motion to debate the clause, which could push the UK Parliament to also debate it. The SNP is not alone in its discontent: the rape clause may particularly harm women in Northern Ireland, where reporting serious crimes, including rape, is mandatory. If women apply for a tax credit for a third child conceived through rape, they may be drawn into a criminal investigation against their will.

Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson has argued that the Scottish government could set up new benefits to aid families with more than two children, outside of the UK government’s reforms. Davidson accused Sturgeon of simply writing the rape clause off as part of her list of complaints against the UK government instead of actively considering how Scotland could adapt the tax credit system.

Whether or not the rape clause is upheld, families across the UK will find themselves in a new financial bracket thanks to the tax reforms. Historically there has not been a limit to how many children a parent can claim–so large families that have previously benefited from tax credits may now find themselves slipping out of financial stability. The tax reforms disproportionately affect low-income families and will push them deeper into poverty. The rape clause was established in an odd effort to be “compassionate” but the misguided attempt to soften the blow of the tax reforms has only exacerbated ideological divides both within Scotland and the UK as a whole.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Scotland’s Battle Against the UK Welfare “Rape Clause” appeared first on Law Street.

It’s official: the process for Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union, known as Brexit, has begun. Prime Minister Theresa May triggered Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty Wednesday afternoon, starting a two-year window of negotiations between the United Kingdom and the EU. If two years pass without a deal, an unlikely but plausible scenario, Britain would not be allowed back in to the bloc, which now consists of 27 member states.

Britain’s ambassador to the EU, Tim Barrow, hand delivered a letter, May’s official invocation of Article 50, to European Council President Donald Tusk in Brussels. The letter outlines the UK’s goals moving forward:

It is in the best interests of both the United Kingdom and the European Union that we should use the forthcoming process to deliver these objectives in a fair and orderly manner, and with as little disruption as possible on each side. We want to make sure that Europe remains strong and prosperous and is capable of projecting its values, leading in the world, and defending itself from security threats.

After receiving the six-page letter, Tusk said the goal moving forward for the EU is “to minimize the cost for EU citizens, businesses and member states.” Faced with the unenviable task of negotiating what is sure to be an uncomfortable divorce, Tusk added: “There is no need to pretend that this is a happy day, neither in Brussels or in London. After all most Europeans, including almost half the British voters, wish that we would stay together not drift apart.”

Within 48 hours, Tusk said, the European Council will draft guidelines for Britain’s withdrawal, effectively setting the parameters in which the negotiations will take place. In April or May, leaders from the remaining 27 EU states will meet to finalize the guidelines, after which negotiations will officially begin. Negotiations will feature a range of thorny issues, including immigration, the UK’s access to the EU trade market, and the status of EU citizens living in the UK.

A final agreement must pass two EU bodies before the separation can be chiseled in stone. First, the European Parliament, the bloc’s lawmaking arm, will vote. A simple majority is needed to advance the resolution to the Council of the European Union, where 20 of the 27 members must approve the agreement for it to pass.

According to a recent poll, the British public–at least in England, which decidedly voted “leave” in the June referendum–still supports the break with Europe. Sixty-nine percent of respondents said the Brexit should move forward, and 48 percent said that May has done a good job since the referendum. But not everyone is happy. Scotland, a semi-autonomous region of the UK for over 300 years, might seek a second referendum on its independence from the UK, chiefly because it would like to remain part of the EU. In fact, a majority of Scots–62 percent–voted to “remain” with the bloc.

Scottish leader Nicola Sturgeon announced her intention to pursue a second independence referendum–in 2014, voters elected to remain a part of the UK–in a speech earlier this month. On Tuesday, the Scottish Parliament voted in favor of holding another referendum, but a vote cannot commence until the British Parliament supports it as well. May recently said that will not happen until the uncertain Brexit process is complete. May, in remarks after she triggered Article 50, articulated what all parties involved in the Brexit process likely are feeling: “This is a historic moment from which there can be no turning back,” she said.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Theresa May Triggers Article 50, Kicking Off Brexit Negotiations: What’s Next? appeared first on Law Street.

In the wake of Britain’s vote to leave the European Union, Scotland could be headed for a second independence referendum on its continued membership in the United Kingdom as early as next year, according to Scottish leader Nicola Sturgeon. During an impassioned speech Monday at Bute House, Sturgeon’s residence in Edinburgh, the First Minister announced plans for Scotland to chart its own path forward.

“At times like these, it is more important than ever to have a clear plan for the way ahead–to try, as far as is possible, to be in control of events and not just at the mercy of them,” she said.

Last June, while the majority of Britain voted to leave the EU, Scotland did not–62 percent of voters backed remaining in the 28-nation bloc. During its first independence referendum in September 2014, Scotland decisively voted (54.2 percent to 45.7 percent) to remain a part of the United Kingdom, a union that has been in place since 1707.

Sturgeon believes the time is ripe for a second referendum, as Britain’s future is uncertain and Scotland cannot simply tag along for the ride.

“As a result of the Brexit vote we face a future, not just outside the EU, but also outside the world’s biggest single market,” Sturgeon said, adding that her attempts to negotiate a special trading relationship for Scotland and the EU with British Prime Minister Theresa May have also failed.

“Our efforts at compromise have instead been met with a brick wall of intransigence,” she said.

Shortly after Sturgeon delivered her speech, May responded in an interview with the BBC, in which she said that a referendum would set Scotland “on a course for more uncertainty and division.”

“Instead of playing politics with the future of our country,” May said, “the Scottish government should focus on delivering good government and public services for the people of Scotland. Politics is not a game.”

The British Parliament would have to grant Scotland permission to hold an independence referendum–known as a Section 30 order. Sturgeon said she would seek the order next week. If the British Parliament agrees to the request, the Scottish Parliament would need to do the same before a vote date is set.

With the prospect of a “hard Brexit“–a clean break from the EU that would have Britain completely abandon the single-market of the EU–looming, Sturgeon believes Scotland cannot just hope for the best. It must act.

“By taking the steps I have set out today, I am ensuring that Scotland’s future will be decided not just by me, the Scottish Government or the SNP,” Sturgeon said using the initials for her Scottish National Party. “It will be decided by the people of Scotland.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is Scotland Headed for a Second Independence Referendum? appeared first on Law Street.

Governor Rick “Oops” Perry Will Be Energy Secretary

This morning the Trump transition team announced that Rex Tillerson will be the new Secretary of State. But that’s not all! Trump has also picked former Texas Governor Rick Perry to lead the Energy Department. This is a little ironic, because when Perry ran for president in 2012, he mentioned three departments he wanted to get rid of during a debate; but could only name two. This gaffe became known as his “oops moment” that essentially sunk his campaign.

Perry’s mystery third department was the Department of Energy, which he is now set to lead. Just like Scott Pruitt at the EPA, Perry is a critic of the department he will head, which makes us think there are some big changes ahead.

Perry’s qualification for Dept. Energy is that he once forgot he wanted to abolish it. #nothingmatters https://t.co/IciWbpPGvd via @YouTube

— Elliott Lusztig (@ezlusztig) December 13, 2016

Perry ran against Trump during the Republican presidential primary and criticized him on the campaign trail, but later turned around and said “Donald Trump should be our guy.” Let’s see what happens next.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: December 13, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Trump will never be between two ferns

Funny or Die is a website and digital production company that specializes in, well, being funny, and producing programs such as Drunk History. One of its recent hits is “Between Two Ferns with Zach Galifianakis”–which feels like a parody of the famous “Inside the Actors Studio.”

Background aside, Galifianakis has had many celebrities and even politicians on his mostly-scripted show, including President Barack Obama and more recently Hillary Clinton. Although the show is clearly meant as a satire, this has been lost on some Trump supporters.

Scott Auckerman, the show’s director, has been quoted saying Trump does have have “…thick enough skin,” to participate in the show. But Galifianakis made it clear that there was no chance Trump would be joining him between any ferns in a quote to the L.A. Times.

Zach Galifianakis on why he won’t feature Donald Trump on “Between Two Ferns.” pic.twitter.com/gqeSmV1td0

— BuzzFeed News (@BuzzFeedNews) September 26, 2016

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: September 27, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

On June 23, the United Kingdom held its long-awaited vote on whether or not to stay in the European Union. In a somewhat surprising development, 30 million people across the U.K. voted to leave the European Union. In the end, Leave voters won with 52 percent of the vote while Remain had 48 percent, in an election with the nation’s highest voter turnout since 1992.

While the debate over whether to leave the Union generated acrimony between the two sides involved, it also held the potential to leave a much larger impact on the world at large. Read on to find out more about the United Kingdom’s exit from the European Union, nicknamed Brexit, the immediate impact on the nation and the possible regional and global ramifications that may still play out.

The United Kingdom and the European Union

The European Union has its origins in the European Coal and Steel Community, an agreement made between six countries, notably including France and Germany, following World War II in an effort to prevent future wars. The agreement quickly evolved into the European Economic Community in 1957, furthering ideas such as free trade and free movement, which serve as the basis of the EU today.

Britain at first was hesitant to join, seeing itself as above the Union and on par with the great post-war powers such as the United States and the Soviet Union. However, following sluggish economic growth in the 1960s, Britain eventually reached out about joining. Britain finally joined in 1973 but in 1975, almost immediately after joining, the country actually had its first referendum on whether or not to stay in the union. In that case, the Remain vote was overwhelming.

Despite the positive referendum results, Britain’s two major political parties, Conservative and Labour, took turns decrying the EU and suggesting an exit during the 1970s and 1980s. Ultimately, though, the nation remained with some caveats, such as not buying into the union’s single currency. Support for the union increased and remained steady within British ruling politics throughout the 1990s and early 2000s. Things began to turn on their irrevocable course beginning in 2005 when David Cameron assumed leadership of the Conservative Party.

Cameron had incorporated Euro-skeptics into his winning coalition and thus had to agree to policies that began distancing Britain from the EU. That move was combined with the rise of anti-immigration sentiment, anti-EU parties, and the EU’s own economic decline following the Great Recession. As part of his most recent election victory in 2015, Cameron promised a referendum on Britain’s EU membership, which ultimately led to Brexit.

Brexit

Clearly, the Brexit vote was a long time in the making as Britain seemingly always had one foot out the door. The argument took two sides. Those who opposed exiting the EU believed that Britain, as a small island, needed to be part of a larger unit to continue to enjoy economic success and to remain secure. Conversely, those campaigning against the EU decried the perceived growing overreach from Brussels (where EU institutions are located), which they contend threatens Britain’s very sovereignty.

The Remain camp was led by then Prime Minister David Cameron, who essentially staked his reputation and political career on voters deciding to remain in the European Union. Within the U.K., Cameron was supported by most of his own Conservative Party, the opposing Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats, and the Scottish National Party. Globally his coalition was strengthened by notable world leaders including German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Chinese President Xi Jinping, and President Barack Obama. Most major businesses and prominent economists also supported staying in the union.

The opposition was headed by the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) then led by Nigel Farage. Supporting him were other members of Cameron’s own party including, Boris Johnson and Michael Gove. Those in favor of exiting the European Union were also endorsed by far-right parties across Europe including in France, Germany, and the Netherlands. To learn more about the recent rise of right-wing, nationalist groups in Europe check out this Law Street explainer.

To formally leave the European Union, the U.K. must invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, which was signed in 2007. According to Article 50, the U.K. will have up to two years to negotiate with other EU members the conditions of its exit covering everything from trade to immigration. Experts, however, contend the negotiations could take much longer. No one is entirely certain of how the process will work out–the U.K. is the first country to leave the EU-and until the negotiations are complete, conditions will remain the same as they are currently. The video below looks at the consequences of Brexit:

The Fallout

Although no one knew for sure what exactly the impact would be if the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union, many predicted it would be unfavorable. The speculation seemed to become a reality both economically and politically for the island nation.

While consumer spending has remained relatively flat, there are a number of other indicators that suggest not all is well. This starts with the British Pound, which quickly lost one-tenth of its value against the dollar and the FTSE 250, a domestic British index, which has also lost significant value. Additionally, hiring has gone down, while unemployment may be increasing. This quagmire is further complicated by business investment, which has also been shrinking. Even hope that a reduced Pound would lead to more travel seems quelled as inflation is rising faster than the increase in tourism.

Britain is not only struggling economically but politically as well. Following the Brexit vote, then Prime Minister David Cameron, who had wagered his career on remaining in the European Union, resigned. This move was followed by a wave of uncertainty as the main opposing party to Cameron, the Labour Party, dealt with a leadership challenge of its own and two of the major candidates for the Prime Minister position dropped out of contention.

While Theresa May ultimately assumed control of the Conservative Party, her new cabinet is a hodge-podge of those in favor of remaining in the EU and those for Brexit, including Boris Johnson who was one of the people who recently dropped out of contention for the role of Prime Minister. Although the Conservative party remains in flux, the Labour party has turned into a disaster with the leader refusing to step down despite a no-confidence vote, leading to an internal struggle.

Regional Impact

Aside from what occurred in England, is what happened and what might happen within the United Kingdom at large. Although England and Wales both voted to leave the European Union, Scotland and Northern Ireland voted with greater majorities to stay. While this may be less of a problem if these were different states within a country, they are actually all independent countries.

After all, it was only last year that the nation of Scotland voted narrowly to stay in the United Kingdom. It is unsurprising then that Scotland’s prime minister has now floated the idea of holding a second referendum for Scottish Independence following Brexit as a way to keep the country within the EU. Scotland is also likely to suffer more economically than Britain as it relies on oil sales for a large portion of its economic output, which were already hampered by low prices.

Along with a potential second Scottish referendum, some even want Ireland to hold a vote to unify following Brexit, however, that idea was quickly shot down by the leader of Northern Ireland and seems much less likely. Even the tiny British territory of Gibraltar will be affected. Situated on the southern tip of Spain, Gibraltar faces the threat of greater Spanish incursion with Britain leaving the EU. The following video looks at the impact of Brexit on Northern Ireland and Scotland:

Impact on the United States

In the United States, the impact has been relatively subdued. While it remains to be determined how Brexit will affect the close relationship between the United States and Britain as well as the European Union at large, the economy was the first to feel the brunt of the decision. Following Brexit, U.S. stocks plunged for two straight days before rebounding and actually reaching record highs a few weeks later. Since then, the effects of Brexit in the United States have been portrayed as negligible with the Federal Reserve still planning on going ahead with at least one interest rate increase this year–something unlikely if the economy was believed to be in real financial danger. The accompanying video looks at some of the potential ramifications of Brexit for the US:

Conclusion

The United Kingdom never seemed to be fully committed to the European Union, and when the EU’s downsides started to outweigh its advantages in the eyes of British citizens, it was deemed time to leave. The impact of this decision has been swift with economic consequences spanning the world. But the true extent of the damage and even what leaving the EU will mean for the U.K. will still take years to sort out.

While much of the blame for this decision rests on British politicians, they are not solely at fault. The Brexit vote was the culmination of a much larger pattern across Europe and may even have parallels to the United States. In the U.K. politicians turned to advocating for nationalism and a refocusing of government policy inwards versus abroad. This was only further exacerbated by the mass migration crisis gripping the continent. This decision, however, was also the result of a union that is stuck in a proverbial purgatory, too united in some regards and not enough in others.

Lastly, the European Union may still face some challenges to the way in which it creates rules for member states–has the process become too top-down, with little bottom-up influence? Certainly in the case of the Brexit vote, citizens at the lowest level voted to topple the existing order and cast the futures of many parts of the world into question. While Britain’s exit may now be unavoidable, this is a good opportunity for pause both for the EU and the U.K., to consider how decisions are made and how to avoid future independence movements or bouts of fragmentation.

Resources

BBC News: The U.K.’s EU Referendum: All you need to know

European Futures: How Did We Get Here? A Brief History of Britain’s Membership of the EU

The Telegraph: Theresa May Pledges to Save the Union as Nicole Sturgeon Promises Scottish Referendum Vote to EU Nationals

The New York Times: ‘Brexit’: Explaining Britain’s Vote on European Union Membership

Law Street Media: Right-Wing Groups in Europe: A Rising Force?

The Economist: Straws in the Wind

NBC News: Brexit Fallout: Gibraltar Worries About Spain’s Next Move

The Financial Times: A tempest Tears Through British politics

The Week: What is Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty?

Bloomberg: Two More Fed Officials Play Down Brexit Impact on U.S. Growth

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Breaking Down Brexit: What the U.K.’s Decision Means for Itself and the World appeared first on Law Street.

Britain voted on Thursday to end its 43-year membership in the European Union. The withdrawal process will be long–it will most likely be two years until Britain is entirely sovereign–and fraught with difficult decisions for the nation’s future, but the vote has sent tremors within the now-former EU member-state and beyond. Here is a briefing on Brexit and what it might mean for the future:

From EU Member to “See EU Later”

This is not the first time Britain has held a vote on whether it should remain in the EU or not. In 1975, a similar referendum was held, but obviously, the country voted to remain in the bloc. British ill will toward the EU has permeated the country for decades, but the stage was set for Thursday’s vote in 2013 when Prime Minister David Cameron promised a Brexit referendum. With the promise, Cameron hoped to prove to an anti-European faction within his Conservative Party that most Britons disagreed with that sentiment.

This morning’s front page: See EU later! pic.twitter.com/ntv8ofV3Kv

— Sun Politics (@SunPolitics) June 24, 2016

In February of this year, at a summit with other European leaders in Brussels, Cameron announced the date when the referendum would be held. “Leave” supporters gained steam in the weeks that followed, and in April formed an official campaign, with the UK Independence Party as its informal leader. The spring was filled with division and discord, as many young people supported EU membership while older Britons grew disillusioned with its stifling bureaucracy.

A Fractured United Kingdom

The UK might be leaving the EU, but not all of the Kingdom’s countries support that move. Voter turnout was about 72 percent turnout throughout the entire UK, with 17.4 million people (or 52 percent of the total vote) on the Leave side and 16.1 million (48 percent) in the Remain camp. England saw the widest gap between those who favored Leave over Remain–53 percent to 47 percent respectively. Wales had similar figures, though its population is three million compared to England’s 53 million.

In fact, those were the only two regions of the UK that favored leaving the bloc. Scotland voted heavily in favor of the Remain side, with 62 percent of Scots wishing for the UK to stay an EU member-state. Northern Ireland and London saw similar percentages in favor of remaining. The fissures within the UK are significant, because there may be more Leave referendums to come, and most likely Scotland will vote for a second time whether or not to secede from Britain and become its own sovereign nation.

Britain’s Political Future

Soon after Thursday’s results were announced, David Cameron announced his resignation after six years in office. Many who are disappointed with the referendum’s result pin the blame on Cameron, who offered to bring the EU question to a referendum in the first place.

Speaking at 10 Downing Street, Cameron applauded the Leave campaign for a “spirited and passionate” effort and reiterated his view that the country would be better off as a part of the now 27-member bloc. He also said:

But the British people have made a very clear decision to take a different path, and as such I think the country requires fresh leadership to take it in this direction. I will do everything I can as prime minister to steady the ship over the coming weeks and months, but I do not think it would be right for me to try to be the captain that steers our country to its next destination.

So who will lead in his place? The next general election is scheduled for 2020, though that could be moved up due to Thursday’s shocking result. A leading candidate to succeed Cameron is Boris Johnson, the former mayor of London and a prominent voice in the Leave campaign. Home Secretary Theresa May and Chancellor George Osborne are other leading candidates.

Financial Instability

Irrespective of the potential long-term effects on the British economy, Brexit hit U.S. and global financial markets hard in the early morning hours on Friday. The British pound took a steep dive as well. As of 10:30 am Friday morning, the Dow Jones fell by 402 points, a 2.2 percent drop, and the Nasdaq dropped by 2.8 percent. In total, $450 billion of U.S. market value was erased on Friday morning. Tremors from Brexit were also felt in East Asian markets, as Japan’s Nikkei 225 index fell by more than seven percent and Hong Kong’s Hang Seng Index declined by 4.7 percent.

The British pound fell 10 percent, dropping its U.S. dollar exchange rate from $1.50 to $1.36. That is a 31-year low. The euro dropped by 3.8 percent as well. And the long-term consequences are just as bleak, according to most economists. Uncertainty might plague financial markets in at least the short-term future. Trade with Europe and the rest of the world could be hit hard, and travel will likely be restricted. John Van Reenen, director of the Center for Economic Performance at the London School of Economics, told the New York Times in May:

The pro-Brexit argument that Britain will be free of lots of regulations, that there will be a bonfire of red tape that will cause us to grow rapidly and we’ll strike lots of new trade deals as this buccaneering new England–there’s just no credible scenario to any of that.

America’s Response to Brexit

Predictably, American leaders weighed in during the hours that followed the Brexit results. Barack Obama said that America’s relationship with the UK will not change, nor will its commitment to the EU, which “has done so much to promote stability, stimulate economic growth, and foster the spread of democratic values and ideals across the continent and beyond,” he said. Vice President Joe Biden, who was in Ireland when the results came in, said the United States “fully respects” the decision, but “preferred a different outcome,” adding, “And our relationship with Ireland and the European Union will remain the cornerstone of our global engagement.”

Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, took to Twitter to voice his support for the UK and its “brave & brilliant vote:”

Just arrived in Scotland. Place is going wild over the vote. They took their country back, just like we will take America back. No games!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 24, 2016

Trump, whose movement in the United States has been compared to the Brexit Leave campaign, was in Turnery, Scotland to promote his new golf course. Hillary Clinton, the presumptive nominee on the Democrats’ side, used the result as an opportunity to reiterate the importance of a solid leader come November. “This time of uncertainty only underscores the need for calm, steady, experienced leadership in the White House to protect Americans’ pocketbooks and livelihoods, to support our friends and allies, to stand up to our adversaries, and to defend our interests,” she said in a statement.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Brexit: What You Need to Know in the Aftermath of Britain’s Historic Vote appeared first on Law Street.

At the end of September, the autonomous community of Catalonia, Spain held local elections for the regional legislature. The election was called for in January by Regional President Artur Mas to serve as a public referendum for Catalan independence. If pro-independence candidates received enough support, that would constitute a mandate to pursue formal independence from Spain–and they did. The two parties supporting independence received a majority of seats in the local election, validating Catalan voters’ desire for independence. But that election was municipal, and it remains unlikely that parties supporting independence will get a majority when the national elections come in November. Also, any attempt to make Catalonia an independent state is still prohibited under the Spanish Constitution. So, what does the recent vote mean for the potential for an independent Catalonia and why do they want to break away in the first place? Read on to learn about the background behind the movement and its prospects in the future.

A Brief History of Catalonia (1714-1975)

On September 11, 1714, the Catalan capital of Barcelona fell to King Philip V of Spain. In the aftermath, Spain imposed its own laws on the conquered territory, replacing the historical laws and government of Catalonia. Many believe this was an early attempt to replace the Catalan language with Spanish. Future Spanish governments would eventually ban the use of Catalan in schools, newspapers, film, and eventually (under Franco) everywhere. People caught speaking Catalan faced stiff penalties including imprisonment, fines, and beating. In the 1960s, a policy of encouraged migration from the rest of Spain was enacted by the Franco regime.

Reading books in Catalan and speaking the language in public eventually became a form of civil disobedience. September 11 became a day on which Catalans gathered to recognize their own historical heritage and further their desire for autonomy. With their own language, a history dating back over 1,000 years, and more than 7.5 million residents current residents, Catalan have a legitimate claim to independence.

The Rise of Separatist Rhetoric in Catalonia

In 1978, three years after the death of Francisco Franco–the country’s dictator from 1939 to 1975–Spain adopted a new constitution that granted some autonomy to various communities across the country, including Catalonia. However, the constitution also solidified the indivisibility of Spain, making any attempt at breaking away from the Spanish nation illegal. In fact, the constitution explicitly entrusts the military with the responsibility to keep the country whole. The post-Franco period was characterized by a swift and seamless transition to democracy, as well as Spain’s quick entry into NATO and the European Union. The transition also led to the devolution of power, giving more power to individual regions within Spain, yet Catalans remained dissatisfied with their lack of formal control.

The Spanish constitution divided the nation into 17 autonomous communities, several of which had historical and cultural legitimacy–like Basque Country and Catalonia–while others were artificially created, like Madrid. These communities form a somewhat loose confederation centered around Madrid. The Catalan people have a longstanding dissatisfaction with the current autonomous community model largely based upon the financial and historical realities of the Catalonia region.

Separatist parties in Catalonia have won a lot of support in local elections, culminating thus far in the September 2015 election, which witnessed major gains by the Junts pel Si (Together for Yes) coalition. At present, groups in favor of secession from Spain have an outright majority in the Catalan Regional Assembly. Catalan President Artur Mas has spent the last several years organizing town-by-town, non-binding referendums on Catalonia’s independence. On September 29, Mas was summoned by the Catalan high court regarding a 2014 referendum, accusing him of abuse of power, embezzlement, and disobedience. The Catalan regional government denounced the charges, claiming that they are politically motivated.

Although the 2014 referendum was non-binding, officials reported that 80 percent of voters were in favor of Catalan independence from Spain. However, the turnout for the referendum was only about 40 percent, and the  Spanish government considered the vote illegal according to the constitution.

Arguments for Catalan Independence

Catalonia’s apparent desire for independence encapsulates much more than a cultural and linguistic heritage. Historically, Catalonia has been a prosperous region for Spain, launching its own industrial revolution in the 19th century while the rest of Spain attempted to maintain an agrarian economy based off of large landholders. Catalonia demanded public money for infrastructure that would allow for its modern, industrial economy. In response, the Spanish landholding elite viewed the Catalans as leeches on their economy. Today, the consequences of social and economic disagreement have led to many anti-Catalan stereotypes. Many conservative Spaniards still view Catalonia as a region that receives and demands too much public money.

Statistically speaking, Catalonia contributes approximately 20 percent of Spain’s GDP, making it the most productive region in Spain. Catalans argue that the Spanish government takes more in taxes than it gives back in public funds. This sentiment is generally pretty inaccurate. When compared to other prosperous regions across Europe (such as Bavaria, Germany and Paris, France), Catalonia’s fiscal deficit is significantly higher than those similar regions. Catalonia remains one of the highest taxed regions in all of Europe.

When the global recession hit in 2008, these financial deficits were brought into the forum of public discourse, with Catalans believing they were paying too much to cover the rest of Spain. While the regional budget in Catalonia is €22.5 billion for 2015, a Reuters article from 2012 found that Catalonia contributed at least €12 billion to the rest of Spain in taxes. Over the last 12 years, Catalonia’s share of the national budget has fallen from 16 percent in 2003 to 9.5 in 2015. Building on an existing desire for political and cultural autonomy, recent economic trends have bolstered the movement for independence.

The Political Climate in Spain

Catalan independence is a particularly controversial subject among Spaniards. Soccer matches between FC Barcelona and Real Madrid have become open forums for either anti-Spain or anti-Catalonia sentiment, depending on who’s hosting.

Historically, two major parties have controlled the political sphere in Spain. The Socialist party and Popular Party (PP) have traditionally traded control of the government back and forth since 1978. Spain has had very little experience with compromise, as Franco maintained unilateral control before his death. Coalitions are rarely formed and winning parties often feel a mandate to govern–even without an absolute majority. Given the May 2015 elections, which led to the rise of the Podemos and Ciudadanos parties at the local level, many Spaniards believe a new era of compromise politics is coming. However, that remains to be seen as national elections won’t be held until November.

In the meantime, the inflammatory rhetoric of Spain’s historically diametric political system will continue to put a strain on both Madrid and Catalonia as tension over independence mounts.

Influences of the 2014 Scotland Referendum

The referendum for Scottish independence, which was held at the end of 2014, did not go unnoticed in Catalonia. While 55 percent of Scots rejected independence from Great Britain, Catalans came away inspired. Many people in Catalonia want Spain to offer them the option to vote, as the UK did for Scotland. The Catalans say they simply want the right to the same self-determination that the Scots received.

.@Zerohedge explains the difference, until now, between #Scotland & #Catalonia http://t.co/BZV4CiuUua #democracy pic.twitter.com/fAEkVRiLuw

— This is Catalonia (@ThIsCatalonia) September 22, 2014

Leading up to the 2014 referendum, there was a growing percentage of Scots in favor of secession. However, in polls conducted shortly before the election that number was only around 40 percent. In Catalonia, recent polls suggest that an estimated 60 percent would vote in favor of secession.

The Scottish campaign was never as strong as the Catalan campaign is now. Leading up to the referendum, most Scots were divided over whether separation from the UK would be beneficial or harmful. Additionally despite a strong sense of national identity in Scotland, even the population that defined itself as purely Scottish was not overwhelmingly in its support of independence.

Most Catalans believe their state would be better off as an independent nation than it currently is. Those who identify as purely Catalan are overwhelmingly in favor of secession.

What Comes Next?

Although national elections are slated for November, it remains to be seen whether the new parties will able to experience success on a national level. However, it seems unlikely that any third-party group will be able to win an outright majority. Spain appears headed for its first confrontation that requires meaningful compromise in domestic politics. In the meantime, independence advocates in Catalonia will likely continue pushing for independence and changes to the Spanish constitution in order to allow for legal referendums.

It’s unclear what an independent Catalonia would do for Spain or the European Union financially. What does seem clear is that if Catalonia achieves independence, it could lead to similar movements in other regions of Spain such as Galicia and Basque, and possibly the dissolution of Spain as we know it.

Conclusion

Catalan separatists have scored a major victory by winning an outright majority in their regional assembly. Non-binding referendums have been held and there appears to be a significant interest in the Catalan people to form their own country within the EU. However, the separatist movements face staunch resistance from the rest of Spain and the Spanish Constitution. The inflammatory nature of rhetoric on both sides and Spain’s own lack of experience with internal compromise will likely pose a problem for the country. Spain will face mounting tensions up until the national elections in November. The results of those elections could determine not only the fate of Spain in the coming years but also the very union upon which the nation is built.

Resources

Endboard Productions: Spanish Secret Conflict

BBC: Spanish Elections: Podemos and Ciudadanos make gains

BBC: Catalan Election: Looming Independence or Little Change in Spain?

BBC: Catalonia’s Push of independence from Spain

BBC: Catalan Independence: Mas Called to Court over 2014 Referendum

The Guardian: Scotland Independence Referendum: The View from Catalonia

EurActiv: Local Elections Send Shockwaves through Spain’s Political Establishment

New York Times: Vote Fails to Settle Dispute on Secession by Catalonia

Montserrat Guibernau: National Identity, Devolution, and Secession in Canada, Britain, and Spain

Angela K. Bourne: Europeanization and Secession: The Cases of Catalonia and Scotland

Seth Jolly: Voting for Nation or State: Determinants of Independence Support in Scotland and Catalonia

Kieran McConaghy: Scotland and Separatism: Reverberations of the Scottish Independence Referendum on Separatist Politics

Samuel Whitesell

Samuel Whitesell is a graduate of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill having studied History and Peace, War, and Defense. His interests cover international policy, diplomacy, and politics, along with some entertainment/sports. He also writes fiction on the side. Contact Samuel at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Secession in Spain: The Fight for an Independent Catalonia appeared first on Law Street.

A soda, a pack of gum, and some psychoactive drugs might all be available for checkout at typical gas stations across the globe. Head shops, gas stations, and online sites are legally selling drugs that the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime call new psychoactive substances (NPS). Also known as “designer drugs,” “herbal highs,” or “legal high” drugs, NPS have come under increased international scrutiny as variations of these drugs continue to develop and as alarming research on the dangerous health effects of these substances emerges. In light of this, some places, such as Scotland, are beginning to shut down the sale of these substances.

Harminasion, a shop that sells legal high drugs in Aberdeen, Scotland, was forced to close its doors last Wednesday and will remain out of business for the next three months after Aberdeen police and city council members secured a closure order under the Antisocial Behaviour Act of 2004. The shop’s closing is believed to be a Scottish first in an effort to thwart the destructive consequences of NPS.

NPS are defined as “substances of abuse, either in a pure form or a preparation, that are not controlled by the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs or the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances, but which may pose a public health threat.” “New” does not necessarily mean that the drug is a new invention, but rather that the substances have recently become available. These drugs are synthetic, “legal” alternatives to internationally controlled drugs, intended to mimic the effects of illicit drugs. NPS emerge rapidly, making controls for these drugs extremely difficult. The increased use and emerging trade of NPS have created concerns that transnational organized criminal groups could exploit the market for these substances.

One class of new psychoactive substances is synthetic cannabinoids, such as “spice,” which was introduced to the United States around 2009, marketed as potpourri, and labeled “not for human consumption” to avoid FDA regulations. Spice or “K2” is an herbal material infused with dangerous chemicals that imitate the effects of THC, although it is much more potent and can be extremely harmful. Due to the ever-changing concentrations of chemicals used to make synthetic cannabinoids, data on human toxicity related to the use of these drugs remains limited. However, known health-related problems associated with their use include cardiovascular complications, psychological disorders, physiological dependence, hallucinations, paranoid behavior, agitation, anxiety, nausea, vomiting, and seizures. Data has also shown that an increasing number of suicides are also associated with use of synthetic cannabinoid products such as spice.

The Scottish decision to close the Aberdeen shop comes just weeks after the launch of an interactive online video that warns teens of the dangers and risks associated with legal high drugs. The video will be available to every secondary school throughout Scotland. Detective Inspector Michael Miller said of NPS use:

It’s become clear that officers are spending an increasing amount of time dealing with the diverse issues brought on by new psychoactive substances as the trend to take them escalates… It horrifies me that young people willingly take a substance without knowing what it contains or the effects it will have.

Scotland is not the only country in Europe feeling the daunting impact of NPS. The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction reported an unprecedented increase in the number, type, and availability of new psychoactive substances in Europe over the past five years. The report claims that 101 new psychoactive substances were reported for the first time in 2014. What is truly shocking is the alarming number of seizures–46,730–of new psychoactive substances in 2013 alone. To combat the rapid increase of the drugs, several countries have amended their legislation to control the manufacture, trafficking, possession, sale and use of NPS. However, including a drug on a prohibited or scheduled list is often a lengthy process that requires health risk assessments based on scientific data, (data that is scarce for NPS) and can take several months to approve. For this reason, many governments have resorted to “emergency scheduling” to introduce temporary bans on NPS until the legislative process can be completed. Australia, China, Croatia, Bahrain, Ghana, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, the United Kingdom and the United States reported in a UNODC questionnaire on NPS to having used emergency scheduling to temporarily ban NPS. New psychoactive drug information has also begun to appear on national drug surveys due to the growing need to monitor and combat their use.

In the United States, NPS use is on the rise, mimicking the international trend. In 2011, the annual “Monitoring the Future” national survey asked 12^th graders about their drug use; the survey found that synthetic cannabinoids ranked second in annual prevalence only to natural cannabis. Notably, the states with the highest number of calls to U.S. Poison Centers involving synthetic cannabinoids in 2015 are states with harsher cannabis laws. Washington, Oregon, Colorado, and Alaska are the only four U.S. states with legalized recreational cannabis, although they are in different stages of implementation. Those four states combined have had a total of 41 calls to poison centers this year, while Mississippi, a medical marijuana state with decriminalization laws, alone has had over 1,000 calls. In April, New York officials issued a health alert after more than 160 patients over a span of just nine days were admitted to hospitals across the state for adverse reactions to spice. In Mississippi, 97 cases of synthetic marijuana abuse were reported to the Mississippi Poison Control Center over an eight-day span in April. Although the Synthetic Drug Abuse Prevention Act of 2012 banned the synthetic compounds found in NPS, there is obviously still an NPS abuse problem in the states, and we will probably see crackdowns similar to Europe on the rise.

In one German study on NPS, more than three out of five respondents indicated the legal availability of NPS as a major motivation for use. This result speaks to the importance of monitoring and scheduling new variations of NPS, shutting down head shops, gas stations, and websites that sell the drugs, and educating young people that the legality of the drugs does not imply their safety. Closing stores that sell these drugs will attack the infrastructure of NPS propagation and will deter novice NPS users from experimenting with these unsafe substances. Openly condemning the NPS market will also combat the current normalization of NPS use, which the open, “legal” sale of these drugs promotes. While policy reform is important, education is the most powerful tool for change. The U.S., and other locations, should take after Scotland in its efforts to inform young people about the detrimental impacts of new psychoactive substances.

Emily Dalgo

Emily Dalgo is a member of the American University Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Contact Emily at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Legal Doesn’t Mean Safe: The Rise of Synthetic Drugs appeared first on Law Street.

The people of Scotland voted to maintain their 307-year-old union with the United Kingdom yesterday, as the Scottish independence referendum was defeated by a margin of 55.3 to 45.7 percent. The referendum had numerous implications for both Scotland and the UK, and while Scottish residents decided against independence, a shift in UK politics may now be looming.

The referendum marks one of the most significant events in UK politics, and campaigning went down to the wire as preliminary polls anticipated a narrow result. On September 15, just three days before the vote took place, the three major Parties in parliament vowed to provide more power to the Scottish government. David Cameron, Nick Clegg, and Ed Miliband, leaders of the Conservative, Liberal Democrat, and Labour Parties respectively, all came out in support of giving Scotland more control over its budget and public policy if the independence movement were to fail. Such a promise may have influenced the results of the referendum, and may also explain why its defeat was greater than previously expected.

The Future of Devolution

The debate over Scottish autonomy has sparked a lot of discussion of the media is calling “Devo-Max.” This term, also known as Devolution Max or “independence lite,” is the concept of giving Scotland a significant amount of autonomy in taxation, spending, and internal policy matters. At its fullest extent, Devo-Max would give Scotland control over nearly all of its policy with the exception of national matters like defense and foreign policy, which would remain in the hands of the national government.

Fiscal autonomy is one area that specifically appeals to the people of Scotland. A What Scotland Thinks poll found that nearly three quarters of Scottish residents favor giving the Scottish parliament primary authority over taxation and welfare if it did not become independent. Currently, Scotland receives a block grant from parliament each year to fund policy initiatives under its authority. If devolution went as far as fiscal autonomy, nearly all of its revenue would go directly to the Scottish Parliament, rather than to the UK for parliament to allocate.

The West Lovian Question

Conventional wisdom suggests that further devolution may be favorable to both Scotland and the United Kingdom, as Scotland would have more autonomy and the UK would retain the economic benefits of the union. However, such a solution could also exacerbate the current “West Lothian Question,” in parliament. The West Lothian dilemma was created during an earlier period of devolution. This problem got its name after Tam Dalyell, a member of parliament (MP) for the Scottish constituency of West Lothian, who cautioned against further devolution of power.

The UK parliament in Westminster devolved some of its authority to create the Scottish parliament in the late 1990s, and as a result, it no longer deals with every issue related to Scotland. Scotland still has MPs in Westminster to provide Scotland with a say in issues of national importance. As a result, issues that exclusively affect England are still voted on by the national parliament – meaning members from Scotland have a say in issues that exclusively affect England. The practical consequences of this could be a vote outcome that does not reflect the views of MPs representing English districts, even if the bill only affects England. As more and more power is devolved to Scotland and other parts of the UK, this problem will continue to worsen.

Suggested solutions to the West Lovian dilemma include the creation of England’s own local government, or restricting the vote on England-only issues to MPs from English districts. However, many oppose the creation of an additional level of government, and changing who can vote on specific legislation could create two different majorities depending on the issue at hand.

Going forward

Although the extent to which Parliament will devolve power to Scotland remains unknown, it is clear that the recent referendum has shaken up politics in the UK. Momentum from the independence campaign has forced a response from parliament; however, further devolution creates its own problems. Although the 307-year-old union remains, the UK’s national politics are likely going to change.

Alex Salmond, Scotland’s First Minister and strong proponent of independence, announced his resignation after the results of the referendum came out. Although the referendum failed to secure independence for Scotland, it did provoke a significant response from parliament. In his resignation statement, Salmond noted the significance of the movement saying, “We now have the opportunity to hold Westminister’s feet to the fire on the ‘vow’ that they have made to devolve further meaningful power to Scotland. This places Scotland in a very strong position.”

—

Kevin Rizzo (@kevinrizzo10)

Featured image courtesy of [stuart anthony via Flickr]

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Where Does Scotland Go From Here? appeared first on Law Street.

On September 18, 2014 Scotland will vote on a referendum as to whether the country will become independent of the United Kingdom. This will not be the first time Scotland has sought sovereignty from the United Kingdom in recent history. In 1979, a referendum for a Scottish devolution was put to a vote, but no change occurred because it failed to receive a majority ‘Yes’ of over 40 percent from the electorate. So, the question left is what is the difference now? Here is everything you need to know about the Scottish Referendum, players involved, and the impacts of the vote.

Who are the organizations involved?

‘Yes Scotland’ is the organization representing the individuals and parties in support of an independent Scotland. Led by Chief Executive Blair Jenkins, the organization is backed by the Scottish National Party, the Scottish Socialist Party, and the Scottish Green Party. As of June 2014, ‘Yes Scotland’ has raised £4.5 million in donations. EuroMillions winners Chris and Colin Weir are their biggest donors, having given £3.5 million since the campaign was launched in May 2012.

They are met in opposition by the ‘Better Together’ campaign, headed by British Labour Party politician Alistair Darling. The Conservative Party, Liberal Democrats, and the Labour Party are supporting the campaign. In addition to writing a 1,600-word essay explaining her anti-independence views, author of the beloved “Harry Potter” series J.K. Rowling donated over £1 million to the Better Together campaign. To date, Rowling has contributed the biggest sum to ‘Better Together’ from a single donor, followed by business man Ian Taylor.

Who is able to vote?

According to the draft of the referendum, the following people would be allowed to vote in the referendum:

• British citizens who are residents in Scotland.
• Citizens of the 53 other Commonwealth countries who are resident in Scotland.
• Citizens of the 27 other European Union countries who are resident in Scotland.
• Members of the House of Lords who are resident in Scotland.
• Service/Crown personnel serving in the UK, overseas in the British Armed Forces, or with Her Majesty’s Government who are registered to vote in Scotland.
• Citizens that are 16 years old and older.

The Scottish National Party has extended voting rights to registered 16 and 17 year olds for the referendum in an effort to gather more support for independence.

Could an Independent Scotland join the European Union?

If Scotland is to become sovereign, then the Scottish Government will have to negotiate with European Union members to ensure membership. Negotiations would occur while Scotland is still part of the United Kingdom and, therefore, part of the European Union. Scotland will have to be approved by all other member states of the European Union. Article 48 of the Treaty of the European Union allows for a treaty amendment in this kind of situation.

What would a ‘Yes’ vote mean for the rest of the United Kingdom?

An independent Scotland intends to retain the close ties currently with the United Kingdom. The Queen will remain the head of state, and the currency would still be the pound. However, MPs will no longer be sent to Westminster since independence would end the parliamentary union currently in place.

Although recent polls have support for Welsh independence hovering around 10 percent, leader of Plaid Cymru (equivalent to the Scottish National Party), Leanne Wood, believes the Scottish referendum may be a turning point. It is not unimaginable that if independence is achieved and proves to be successful, then the people of Wales may follow suit.

Before the referendum occurs, the United Kingdom is receiving funding from Scotland to pay for the armed forces and embassies. If a ‘yes’ vote is reached Scotland would no longer pay into those services as they would use that money for a Scottish equivalent. Money will be saved in defense since Scotland would no longer be supplying funds for the United Kingdom’s nuclear weapons.

Sport Minister Shona Robison states that if Scotland is to be its own nation by the 2016 Olympic games, it will be able to compete in Brazil.

Arguments for a ‘Yes’ Vote

An issue on the forefront of both campaign agendas is agriculture. Scottish territory is covered in 80 percent agricultural land, but the mountainous terrain, harsh climate, and poor soils limit land use. The Common Agricultural Policy pays all countries that are members of the European Union to help subsidize farmers. Agreed upon at recent negotiations, nations with productivity less than 90 percent of the European Union average collect additional money for their funding. The United Kingdom divided the money between England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Irelands, which the Scottish government did not find fair. They believe that Scotland is the reason the United Kingdom received the funding and therefore, deserves a bigger portion of the cut.

Supporters of independence argue that Scotland would qualify for higher subsidies if it were separate from the rest of the United Kingdom. They cite Ireland as an example of a country receiving more of the funds while having a smaller agricultural sector. Also, if Scotland were an independent member of the European Union they would have a more influential voice at negotiations.

Scotland also looks towards Ireland in reference to defense spending. The Royal United Service Institute predicts that Scotland would be able to create a defense force similar in strength and size to those in Ireland, Norway, and Denmark. The estimated cost is £1.8 billion per year, compared to the £3.3 billion Scottish taxpayers paid to the United Kingdom during the 2010 – 2011 fiscal year.

Advocates for independence declare that Scotland’s economy is not thriving as much as it could because it has followed the same policies as the rest of the United Kingdom. The Scottish government states that, “If Scotland had matched the levels of growth of other independent nations […] GDP per head in Scotland would now be 3.8 percent higher, equivalent to an addition to £900 per head.”

In 2013, there were only 59 Scottish Members of Parliament (MPs) in the House of Commons with a total of 650 MPs and 785 Lords. Voters in Scotland only elected four percent of the United Kingdom Parliament; the politicians who are in control over defense, welfare, and economic decisions.

Members of the House of Lords are nominated by a committee instead of being elected by the people. The Scottish National Party believes that MPs should be elected and not appointed; therefore, they do not nominate members. Parliament member Angus MacNeil said, “A ‘yes’ vote for independence means that people in Scotland can get rid of the expensive and unrepresentative Westminster tier – which means better and cheaper government.”

The core of the Yes Campaign and those who support it is that the people who live and work in Scotland should have the right to make the choices for their own country.

Arguments for a ‘No’ Vote

Members of the opposition are concerned what independence would do to research and development sector. Currently, “Scotland receives a total of £130 million from UK based charities, £100 million from UK central government and £47 million of funding allocated to UK universities by UK industry, commerce and public corporations.” Through the UK Research Councils, Scotland also received £234 million to go towards funding research in pioneering new technologies. It is speculated that a split from the United Kingdom would end funding that universities in Scotland are currently receiving. This would greatly damage its universities and the advances in technologies found at them.

The impact on education is a tremendous area of concern. Currently, Scottish and European Union students do not pay tuition fees at universities in Scotland, while United Kingdom students have to pay fees. United Kingdom students would become reclassified as European Union students if independence occurs, meaning they would not have to pay fees anymore. Although beneficial for the remaining United Kingdom, free tuition would be a huge attraction and possibly limit space for Scottish domiciled students.

Conclusion

It is clear that both those in support and opposition of the referendum are acting in what they believe to be in the best interest of Scotland, and in some instances the United Kingdom. On September 18, if a majority vote of ‘yes’ is reached, it would propel Scotland into a uncharted territory and new era.

Resources

Primary

Yes Scotland: Scotland’s Future: Draft Referendum (Scotland) Bill Consultation Paper

Additional

New Statesman: Can Plaid Cymru Learn From the SNP and Put Welsh Independence on the Agenda?

Yes Scotland: Scotland’s Future: Draft Referendum (Scotland) Bill Consultation Paper

BBC: Scottish Independence: Students Could be ‘Squeezed Out’ of Home Universities

BBC: Scottish Independence: Who Are The Big and Small Money Referendum Donors?

Alex Hill

Alex Hill studied at Virginia Tech majoring in English and Political Science. A native of the Washington, D.C. area, she blames her incessant need to debate and write about politics on her proximity to the nation’s capital.

The post Scottish Sovereignty: All the Facts on the Referendum appeared first on Law Street.