Scotland’s independence referendum ended in a resounding victory for the side advocating Scotland remaining within the UK as the “No” side received 55 percent of the vote against the “Yes” side’s 45. The result notwithstanding, the referendum itself has been lauded as a great victory for democracy and something that Scotland and the UK should be proud of.
In the past, governments treated independence movements as secessionists betraying their nation and they often ended in bloody suppression.
However, the UK showed tolerance and followed democratic ideals in giving Scots the freedom to decide their own future, with the queen encouraging Scots to “think very carefully about the future,” while British Prime Minister David Cameron said that Scottish independence would “break [his] heart.”
Although the “Yes” side lost, Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond, who led the pro-independence effort, accepted the loss and said he would resign from his post in November. Although he lost this battle, he gained a place in history and has probably also managed to improve Scotland’s situation within the UK. After the result was announced, Scotland remained mostly calm and both sides have displayed the demeanor one would expect in a long-standing democracy.
The need to trust in the public was one important lesson to be learned from this referendum. Government leaders did not try to block it by saying that there was no need for a referendum at this time, and instead let Scots decide their own future. The government did not treat the referendum as a bloodthirsty monster or play around with referendum legislation and set irrational restrictions to create a “birdcage” referendum law which would make passing a referendum, although nominally possible, very difficult or even impossible in practice.
Instead, all that was required to win the referendum was a simple majority: half of all votes plus one. UK and Scottish politicians did not have the idiotic idea that the future of Scotland should be decided by all UK citizens, in the way that some people feel that Taiwan’s future should be decided by all Chinese.
Although the UK government was fully opposed to Scottish independence, it did not treat the prospect of it as a rebellion or imprison pro-independence leaders. Nor did it hold military exercises or fire missiles or say that “no one who promotes independence will meet with a happy ending,” as former Chinese premier Zhu Rongji (朱鎔基) once said.
The Scottish independence movement issued a detailed white paper detailing what the nation would look like following independence to give the public a clear blueprint when considering their future. In the end, the Scots considered their own future based on their national identity, and in addition to national defense and foreign affairs, they considered taxes, healthcare, how the North Sea oil resources should be distributed and which solution would be more beneficial to themselves, Scotland and the UK as a whole.
Although the whole world was waiting to find out how Scottish independence would affect the UK, the EU and the rest of the world, the result was a soft landing, as the Scots decided to remain within the UK and observers breathed a sigh of relief. Someone has said that referendums are populist, but the people of Scotland displayed their intelligence and wisdom throughout the entire process.
A referendum is of course a major gamble for all parties. Prior to voting day, the situation is fluid and everyone is concerned, and if this concern and anxiety are not handled correctly, they can lead to disorder. However, a referendum lets everyone express their opinion and make their own decision. For the foreseeable future, Scotland and the UK will enjoy political stability.
Trust in the public is indeed the way to long-term political stability.
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
RSS