The Scottish Parliament is currently going through the process of drafting legislation regarding a new referendum on Scottish independence. If the referendum proceeds, it will be the second Scottish referendum within the past decade, following one that took place in September 2014 during which 55.3% of Scottish voters opted to stay in the UK.

How does a referendum work?

Nearly seven years ago, Scotland was led by the pro-independence Scottish National Party, which had a majority in the Scottish Parliament. The SNP believed that independence would grant Scotland more peace, prosperity and freedom — especially over its economy and military. 

In order to initiate an independence referendum, the Scottish Parliament needed to gain permission from the British government, and then solidify the referendum into law. This is because the Scotland Act of 1998 disallows the Scottish Parliament from unilaterally passing a bill when its provisions include matters reserved to the British government such as “the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England.”

In October 2012, the Scottish Parliament signed the Edinburgh Agreement with the UK to lay the foundations of the referendum. Then Scotland passed the referendum legislation in the Parliament to settle the details, including the date of the referendum and the wording of the question. 

In 2014, when the referendum occurred, all Scottish residents who were over age 16 were eligible to vote “yes” or “no” to the question: “Should Scotland be an independent country?” However, the result of the referendum eventually prevented Scotland from claiming its independence, with 44.7% of Scots voting to leave the UK and 55.3% voting to stay. This result was thought to have ended the dispute over Scottish sovereignty, with the British prime minister at the time, David Cameron, claiming that the “debate has been settled for a generation.”

Yet, it didn’t take long for calls for Scottish independence to resurface. 

Following the UK’s exit from the European Union in 2020, Scotland once again expressed a strong intention to leave the UK. The distancing between the UK and the EU is a driving force behind the new Scottish referendum. Unlike England, which left the EU to pursue unilateralism, Scotland has always been a proponent of the EU and wants to keep its role in the political union. The results from the 2016 Brexit referendum support this, with 62 percent of Scottish voters electing to remain in the EU. This figure is the highest compared to all other regions in England, Welsh, and Northern Ireland, and drastically contrasts from all other English regions with the exception of London. 

Why is Scotland Calling for a second referendum?

The Scottish government believes that “Scotland will be worse off outside the EU” in aspects including trade, economy, security, and immigration. 

For instance, after Brexit, Scottish businesses will lose full access to the EU’s Single Market, which is also known as an internal market without trade barriers. This allows the EU members to move people, goods, services, and money around freely. If a product is able to be sold in an EU country, it can also be sold among other EU members. Brexit also prevents Scotland from participating in the EU’s Customs Union, which, according to the European Commission, enables “countries to apply a uniform system for handling the import, export and transit of goods and implement a common set of rules.” Without involvement in these, British goods that enter the EU will face extra customs and border paperwork, causing delays and resulting in an extra trading costs estimated at around £7 billion annually. 

Additionally, Scotland will lose EU program funding for agriculture, fishing, and rural development. Since 2014, the EU has provided £5.6 billion to related programs in Scotland. 

Moreover, Scottish people will face more restrictions when working, studying, or travelling to EU countries. Domestically, the number of EU migrants to Scotland may drop by 50%, which will also have a significant impact on sectors that rely on immigrant labor. The Scottish government projects that leaving the EU will lower Scotland’s gross domestic product by approximately 6.1% by 2030. 

The current leading party in the Scottish Parliament is also pushing for Scottish independence. Although its effort to create an independent Scotland failed in 2014, the SNP continues to advocate for the independence of Scotland. Nicola Sturgeon, the SNP party leader and the First Minister of Scotland (leader of the Scottish devolved government), declared that a different and better future for Scotland “is only open to us with independence.” The SNP currently has 61 out of the 129 seats in the Scottish Parliament, and it may hold a new independent referendum if it were to win a greater majority seats during the election this May. Statistics from February 25 show that 52% of survey respondents planned to vote for the SNP and another 52% said they would vote ‘Yes’ for a Scottish independence referendum. 

However, the SNP is facing an internal challenge, as there is an ongoing political dispute between Sturgeon and Deputy Party Leader Alex Salmond, which would eventually affect the party leadership and the outcome of the election. 

What’s the impact of independence?

A 2019 publication from the Scottish Parliament explains that independence ensures “Scotland’s choices will determine Scotland’s future.” Analysis from Foreign Policy and Center for Strategic and International Studies indicates that if Scotland is able to have its independence, it may gain the ability to make independent decisions on its economy, defence, natural resources, national infrastructure and raise its global status. Scotland may elect to strengthen its military by taking part in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). It also might seek to recover from its economic losses by rejoining the EU. 

However, a report from the London School of Economics found that EU membership does not necessarily guarantee a boost to the Scottish economy. The report indicates that Scotland’s trade figure with the UK is four times greater than its trade with the EU, and rejoining the EU will carry the cost of creating a trade border between Scotland and the rest of the UK. Since 61% of Scottish exports go to England, Wales, and Northern Ireland, Scotland’s break from the UK will likely create financial losses.

London is seemingly feeling the pressure. British Prime Minister Boris Johnson recently took a trip to Scotland in order to persuade the Scots to remain in the UK. His willingness to endure press scrutiny for the trip underscores the degree to which an impending referendum is unsettling for Downing Street and bids for UK unity.

How is the UK responding?

The current government of the UK is against a second Scottish referendum, and has started to appeal to the Scottish people using the government’s financial power. 

The government has bypassed the Scottish Parliament to provide direct funding to local communities, infrastructure and projects. Because the previous first minister of Scotland has made a promise that the independence referendum is something that happens “once in a generation,” Johnson said that the SNP should not break this promise and should stop a second referendum from taking place. 

In a letter he wrote to Sturgeon in January 2020, Johnson wrote that, “the UK government will continue to uphold the democratic decision of the Scottish people and the promise that you made them. For that reason, I cannot agree to any request for a transfer of power that would lead to further independence referendums.”

Overall, it’s difficult to determine which of the two sides has the greater chance of deciding the fate of the UK and the people living within it. The issue itself reflects years of conflicts and clashes between Scotland and England — many historical and many present and political.

Culturally and politically, the people of Thailand are generally taught that their King is an untouchable god whose power is not to be questioned. The Thai Constitution states at the top that “The King shall be enthroned in a position of revered worship” and that “No person shall expose the King to any sort of accusation or action.” There is also the lese-majeste law, which subjects anyone criticizing the royal family to secret trials and long prison sentences. 

Thailand’s King Vajiralongkorn began his reign in 2016 and was crowned in 2019 following the death of his father. However, Thailand’s King was subject to much scrutiny long before he was crowned. There have been persistent rumors of womanizing and illegal business surrounding the King. He has been married four times ‒ with his first marriage in 1977 to his cousin, Princess Soamsawali, whom he left for an actress, Yuvadhida ‒ and has had a total of seven children. In 1996, Vajiralongkorn publicly denounced Yuvadhida and disowned his four sons from that marriage. He married his third wife, Srirasmi, in 2001 and had another son with her. In 2014, Srirasmi was stripped of her royal title and many of her relatives were arrested for lese-majeste charges. 

Others who were close to the Crown Prince have been arrested for the same charge, including his personal bodyguard, who was stripped of his rank for “disobeying royal commands” and “threatening the monarchy by pursuing his own interests.” He disappeared after these allegations and is believed to have died. The King has also promoted his pet poodle, Fu-Fu, to the rank of Air Chief Marshal. In May 2019, days before his coronation, Vajiralongkorn married a former flight attendant, making her Queen. The severity of the lese-majeste law has prevented any open discussion of the new king’s suitability inside Thailand. 

Shortly after taking the throne, King Vajiralongkornhe demanded that the Thai Constitution be rewritten to allow him to spend time outside Thailand without appointing a regent in his absence, thereby allowing him to rule from abroad. Since then, the King has spent the majority of his time in Germany. He has been largely absent from his kingdom since the coronavirus pandemic hit, leaving his nation to suffer on its own. The King and his entourage of 100 fled to Germany and have been staying at Hotel Sonnenbichl since March. Now, with the protests on-going, German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas has stated that “We have made it clear that politics concerning Thailand should not be conducted from German soil. If there are guests in our country that conduct their state business from our soil we would always want to act to counteract that.”   

The other man at the center of this protest is Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-o-cha. He began his military career in the prestigious 21st Infantry, rising through the ranks and attaining the rank of major general following the 2006 coup. In 2014, he became acting premier of Thailand and drafted a constitution that absolved him of any responsibility for the coup and allowed him to remain a military official while serving as head of the nation. A new legislature was installed, composed of military and police officers, and the sole candidate, Prayuth, was nominated as prime minister. Since becoming prime minister, he has cracked down on any and all perceived forms of dissent. Political forums were banned, freedom of speech was abandoned, martial law was imposed, and politicians, journalists, and critics were detained. 

Protests have ignited in response to Prayuth’s authoritarian action and the King’s overall inaction. The protestors are mostly students, including many high school students. Their dissatisfaction with their education has grown into a broader challenge to the government, the military, and the monarchy. The students are calling on Prime Minister Prayuth to resign, for the Constitution to be revised, for the King to come under the Constitution’s authority, and for the dissolution of the Parliament. Their most revolutionary demand is to limit the power of the monarchy, which has not been challenged for 88 years.  

The protests date back to February when the Future Forward party was dissolved, leaving many young Thais alienated and prompting them to seek change outside the parliamentary system. Things were put on hold due to the coronavirus pandemic that hit Thailand and the rest of the world. Then in August, Arnon Nampa, a human rights lawyer, publicly called for reforms of the monarchy at the Democracy Monument in Bangkok.  

In September, thousands of protestors gathered in Bangkok to call for changes to Thailand’s military-dominated government, the army-drafted constitution, and the exalted status of the monarchy. “We have to conquer our fear because if we don’t come out to fight then our future will not improve,” said Rewat Chusub, a 41-year-old tailor. In response to these protests, Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-o-cha tamped down dissent by detaining activists. However, this did not stop the protestors as they laid out a plaque on Sanam Luang, the royal field. The embossed seal said: “At this place, the people have expressed their will that this country belongs to the people and is not the property of the monarchy, as they have deceived us.”

On October 14, thousands of anti-government protestors gathered near Government House and called for the resignation of Chan-o-cha. The next day, a state of emergency was declared and mass gatherings over five people were prohibited. Protests did not stop, prompting the Thai police to use water cannons against peaceful pro-democracy protests in Bangkok on October 16. The police used water cannons laced with blue dye and an apparent teargas chemical in Bangkok’s Pathumwan shopping district and charged in with batons and shields to disperse the protesters. This still did not deter protesters. 

On October 22, Prime Minister Chan-o-cha canceled the state of emergency he had declared the week prior. This was seen as a gesture to help cool the protests. However, protesters continued to march near his office, Government House, demanding that he step down. They also requested the release of their colleagues who were arrested in previous protests. They gave the Prime Minister three days to meet their requests or they would return. 

Prime Minister Chan-o-cha refused to step down and the protesters’ deadline has since passed. But, protesters have stayed true to their word, keeping up the pressure on the government with more and more protests. On November 17, Parliament began a two-day session to review potential changes to the constitution but ended up rejecting five of the seven amendments proposed by the people. Since then, protestors have remained unimpressed with the government’s efforts to appease them, and thousands have continued to take to the streets to voice their grievances. 

The pro-democracy activists have even called for the international community to take action. On October 26, protesters marched to the German embassy in Bangkok, demanding that the German government investigate the King’s activities in Germany. And, more recently, on December 10, pro-democracy activists held a rally at the United Nations’ office in Bangkok, calling for the UN to pressure the Thai government into repealing the lese-majeste law.

As of now, it seems unlikely that these protests will slow down. If anything, these grassroots protestors are becoming more organized and intentional in their aims. This new generation wants change. They do not want to inherit an old Thailand where fundamental rights such as freedom of expression are suspended in the name of reverence to the King. They want a new and freer Thailand where publicly criticizing the King or other royals is not a crime but a fundamental right.

Parliamentary elections were held in August after two pandemic-related delays. Approximately 71% of voters participated in the election and overwhelmingly voted for the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP). This party is led by Mahinda and Gotabaya Rajapaksa, two brothers who have long been involved in Sri Lankan far-right politics. The SLPP won 145 seats out of the 225-member Parliament while their main opposition, the Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB), won only 54 seats. The SLPP is an offshoot of the previously powerful Sri Lankan Freedom Party, and the SJB originates from the older United National Party. Both of these traditional parties only received one seat in Parliament each, suggesting that the public is now eager to deviate from customary politics.

Several of the remaining 24 seats were taken by parties allied with the SLPP, giving the SLPP, and therefore the Rajapaksa brothers, control over Parliament for the next five years. This comes nearly a year after the election of Gotobaya Rajapaksa as president in 2019. His brother, Mahinda Rajapaksa, was appointed the prime minister again in August after serving the previous term. 

The History of the Rajapaksas: Conflict, Division, and Monopoly 

The Rajapaksa brothers have long captivated Sri Lankan politics and been ambassadors of the populist movement to uphold a Sinhalese Buddhist-controlled government. In 2019, Gotabaya Rajapaksa campaigned with the election slogan “One Country, One Law,” implicitly rejecting the notion of power-sharing with minority Tamil and Muslim communities. Mahinda Rajapaksa served as the president of Sri Lanka from 2005 to 2015 and led the government to victory over minority ethnic Tamils in a 26-year long civil war. 

This ethnic conflict began as a result of tensions between Tamils and the majority Sinhalese-Buddhist population. Tamils had long argued that they had been systematically marginalized by the Sri Lankan government since the country’s independence in 1948. In 1983, the Tamil Tiger rebels killed 13 soldiers, triggering anti-Tamil riots that started a civil war with a death toll of over 100,000 civilians. In the final violent stages of the war, the government murdered 70,000 innocent Tamil civilians. 

While Mahinda Rajapaksa was president during this time period, his brother and current president Gotabaya Rajapaksa led military operations as the defense secretary. The United Nations directly accused Gotabaya of ordering the military to commit war crimes during the war. Gotabaya has shown his disregard for these serious allegations multiple times. Only a few months after his election, the president withdrew from a 2015 UN Human Rights Council resolution that required the country to investigate allegations of human rights abuses and international law violations. In March of this year, Gotabaya pardoned a soldier sentenced to death for killing 8 innocent Tamil civilians, including 3 children, during the civil war. 

Furthermore, the Rajapaksa brothers have a history of stifling dissent, nepotism, and manipulating the law to increase their political power. During his 2010 presidency, Mahinda added the 18th Amendment to the country’s constitution, resulting in an expansion of presidential power. The amendment removed the two-term presidential limit and withdrew the requirement for presidents to seek approval from the Constitutional Council before appointing judicial positions and heads of independent commissions. 

As a result, loyalists to the SJPP, including direct relatives, became the head of independent commissions. This allowed the Rajapaksa brothers to indirectly influence decisions related to public services and election conduct. The defeat of Mahinda in 2015 largely occurred as a result of protests from minority groups and complaints of economic failure. 

Last Year’s Glaring Warning Signs

However, the power of the Rajapaksa regime has once again been solidified with the results of the 2019 and 2020 elections. Their resurgence in popularity is due to weariness with political infighting and economic instability under the power of traditional parties. However, despite their popularity, political analysts and minority group leaders are concerned that SLPP will pave the way for eventual militaristic rule and disenfranchisement of Tamil and Muslim minorities. 

Since the beginning of his presidency in 2019, Gotabaya has appointed several retired military officers to different civilian administration positions. Former officials have been placed in charge of the Ministry of Law and Order, the Ministry of Human Resources and the Ministry of Finance. With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Ministry of Health was also placed under the charge of a military official. Predictably, the Sri Lankan pandemic response, while praised internationally, has been characterized by heavy surveillance and strict police enforcement. In addition, Gotabaya has placed the Ministry of Defense in control of 37 government agencies, including the police and the secretariat for non-governmental organizations. Gotabaya has simultaneously stalled in appointing a Minister of Defense, which places him in de facto charge of the Ministry and allows him to make military decisions unchecked. 

The Gotabaya administration has also attacked the minority Muslim community as tensions within the country have worsened after the Easter terrorist attacks. With reports of militaristic witch hunts and threats against Muslim activists, many Muslims are concerned about the repercussions of the Rajapaksas’ rule. On September 29, the government announced a ban on cattle slaughter in a political attempt to satisfy the majority Sinhalese Buddhist communities. This legislation especially impacts the mostly Muslim-owned slaughterhouses and beef stalls. 

Authoritarianism Under the Rajapaksa Dynasty

Now, with a majority in the Parliament and both brothers occupying the government’s two most powerful positions, the SLPP has the power to propel the country towards authoritarianism. The Rajapaksa brothers are currently pushing for a rewrite of the 19th Amendment, which was passed after Mahinda was unseated as president in 2015. This amendment was created with the purpose of decreasing executive power, a move that the brothers aim to reverse. The Rajapaksas also aim to abolish the 13th Amendment that provided autonomy for provinces and encouraged power-sharing with different minority groups. 

In another extreme move, the SLPP proposed a 20th amendment that allows Gotabaya to control ministries, have total power in appointing ministers and public service leaders, and be immune against possible prosecution. A particular clause that removes the ban on dual citizens in public office has been criticized heavily. This move will further empower the Rajapaksa family by paving the way for appointment of several relatives with dual citizenship. 

Several petitions were filed to include a public referendum to vote on the amendment, with the Supreme Court agreeing that certain clauses in the amendment required public approval. However, revisions were made to remove these clauses and the 20th amendment was passed on October 22 with 65 legislators voting against it. 

Making Amends for the Past

Sri Lankan political analysts and leaders within the Tamil and Muslim communities warn that these moves by the nationalist Rajapaksa brothers could worsen the relations between majority and minority communities. The Tamil Guardian, a news organization dedicated to ethnic Tamil affairs, has published several scathing pieces on the danger of the Rajapaksas. The recent actions of the brothers have also spurred criticism from major human rights organizations such as the UN as well as allies including the United States and India. 

However, the empty condemnations from these international actors have not been paired with substantive action or threats that could alter Sri Lanka’s path. In addition, these countries and the UN in particular have drawn criticism in the past for their failures to protect innocent Sri Lankan civilians during the ethnic war. 

An internal report released by the UN revealed the failures of senior UN staff located in Sri Lanka to adequately respond to the ongoing crisis. In particular, the withdrawal of UN staff from the country in 2008 was criticized as a move that allowed the government to carry out human rights violations without witness. This same report called out the lack of international publicity for this crisis. Former UN official Edward Mortimer pointed out the political motives behind the difference in reaction to the Libyan civil war, stating that “it didn’t get publicity like in Libya… Sri Lanka doesn’t have much oil and isn’t situated on the Mediterranean.” 

Moving forward, ethnic division and extreme nationalism will continue to foment in Sri Lanka unless the international community takes an active role in condemning the anti-democratic actions of the Rajapaksa brothers. The past failures of international players led to the ethnic genocide and fragmentation of the Tamil population and have now allowed tyrannical rule to creep into Sri Lanka unchecked. The same rhetoric and rulers have recovered to full power, refueled by growing nationalist sentiment and recent events, including the Easter attacks. 

Now, the international community needs to pay attention to the outcomes of this monumental election season. Most importantly, they need to work to preserve democracy in Sri Lanka with the same vigor and scrutiny given to foreign issues they have a vested interest in.