When the world gets closer.

We help you see farther.

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter.


Small And Selfish: Why Free Scotland Is Bad For Us All

As Europe continues to be divvied up into smaller, ethnically homogenous nations, the burdern falls on larger countries, compromising the leverage and a united West.

Bagpipes and kilts
Bagpipes and kilts
Arnaud Leparmentier


PARIS — For the French, there’s nothing quite so enjoyable as teasing their age-old enemies the English and the Queen. So it should come as no surprise that the Scottish independence movement arouses a lot of sympathy over here. Long live free Scotland!, we could be tempted to say, as some recent polls show the "Yes" to independence camp ahead, just days before the Sept. 18 referendum.

Mary Stuart, who was Queen consort of France and Queen of Scotland before she was beheaded by the English in 1587, would finally be avenged. With the nationalist leader Alex Salmond, we dream of a bucolic Scotland that would live off whisky, wind energy and the Edinburgh International Festival.

Even better, the independence movement is a left-wing movement, in favor of a "social" Scotland, which is perfect for revenge against these horrible liberal-Thatcherite Englishmen. Economically, the disunited Kingdom would fall behind Italy, would lose one-third of its land, and would be forced to send its nuclear submarines to Brittany for refuge.

That would be fun for a moment, but what a disaster! The Queen is urged to speak in favor of the union while Princess Kate announces she's expecting a second child to move the hearts of the coarse Scots, and prevent a breakup.

It might already be too late, and the desperate concessions of Britain's three main parties — the Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal-Democrats — risk accelerating the nationalists' victory, the same way that the rallying of French elites had strengthened the vote against the European Constitution in 2005.

And the divorce procedures would be painful indeed. How would the British debt be shared? Could Scotland keep the British pound? Would wearing a kilt be enough to become a Scottish citizen? Could Scotland immediately enter the European Union? None of these questions have been resolved.

It would have a devastating effect in England. Deprived of Scottish votes, the Labour party is not so certain to regain 10 Downing Street, while the Conservatives risk ending up in a reactionary face-off with Nigel Farage and his Europhobic party UKIP.

But the worst of all is that the Scottish earthquake would cause many aftershocks. Not so much in Belgium, where the amicable split between the Dutch-speaking and the French-speaking parts is all but official, as in Spain. On Thursday, exactly 300 years after Barcelona was taken by the Bourbons, hundreds of thousands of Catalans demonstrated in their capital.

A splintered continent

Europe didn't need all this, as it's divided up more than ever in modern history. Before World War I began in 1914, it was comprised of 19 countries. We now have more than 40, while the European Union, which counts 28 of those, has become an ungovernable monster, similar to the Austro-Hungarian Empire or the Holy Roman Empire.

How did this happen? After the World War I and with the end of the European Empires, Europe applied to the letter U.S. President Woodrow Wilson's unwritten principle of self-determination, while creating multinational states such as Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia to limit the continent's crumbling.

It was smashed to pieces when the Berlin Wall fell in 1989. Small nationalities turned inward. The Czechs and the Slovaks amicably agreed to part ways, Yugoslavia exploded into seven small nations, and the Baltic countries freed themselves from the USSR.

Small is beautiful, the saying goes. And indeed, the current trend now favors small rich countries that believe they will be better off alone in the globalized world. And since they are incapable of having any sort of influence on that globalized world, they want to use the canoe strategy of passing the river rapids with agility, in the footsteps of successful mid-sized states such as Finland, Denmark, Singapore, Chile or New Zealand.

Small and selfish, these states are often ethnically homogeneous. They believe they can better finance their generous welfare system alone, with the protection of the EU, and refuse to pay for the others.

What explains this endless division of the continent? Well, peace and the rule of law. Small countries can act as they will without suffering their powerful neighbors' wrath. This is what Luxembourg and Ireland have done with their fiscal dumping policies, and without risk.

Interior peace might be guaranteed at the moment, but the same can't be said for the exterior, with Vladimir Putin knocking on Europe's door and the hundreds of jihadists coming back from Syria. One day, England and France might decide they've had enough of paying alone for the Old Continent's security.

This whole business is not reasonable. The Scottish referendum risks being extremely destructive. Now, we must protect big countries from small ones. Say no to a free Scotland!

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.


Utter Pessimism, What Israelis And Palestinians Share In Common

Right now, according to a joint survey of Israelis and Palestinians, hopes for a peaceful solution of coexistence simply don't exist. The recent spate of violence is confirmation of the deepest kind of pessimism on both sides for any solution other than domination of the other.

An old Palestinian protester waves Palestinian flag while he confronts the Israeli soldiers during the demonstration against Israeli settlements in the village of Beit Dajan near the West Bank city of Nablus.

A Palestinian protester confronts Israeli soldiers during the demonstration against Israeli settlements in the West Bank village of Beit Dajan on Jan. 6.

Pierre Haski


PARIS — Just before the latest outbreak of violence between Israelis and Palestinians, a survey of public opinion among the two peoples provided a key to understanding the current situation unfolding before our eyes.

It was a joint study, entitled "Palestinian-Israeli Pulse", carried out by two research centers, one Israeli, the other Palestinian, which for years have been regularly asking the same questions to both sides.

The result is disastrous: not only is the support for the two-state solution — Israel and Palestine side by side — at its lowest point in two decades, but there is now a significant share of opinion on both sides that favors a "non-democratic" solution, i.e., a single state controlled by either the Israelis or Palestinians.

This captures the absolute sense of pessimism commonly felt regarding the chances of the two-state option ever being realized, which currently appears to be our grim reality today. But the results are also an expression of the growing acceptance on both sides that it is inconceivable for either state to live without dominating the other — and therefore impossible to live in peace.

Keep reading...Show less

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.

The latest