Now that the votes have been tallied and the world relieved of the Scottish suspense of Sept. 18, the wait begins for the results of that “secession scare.” While the “yes” camp sits in disappointment, questioning its fruitless campaign, those in the “no” camp must now work to ensure that the promises they obtained from Westminster come to fruition.
Indeed, Scottish secession would have generated immediate repercussions for the would-be Scottish state and the larger global community, but the failed attempt at secession may equally provide new direction and opportunity for those in Edinburgh who are fighting for increased autonomy. Ultimately, a common lesson to be remembered from these events is that the threat of secession certainly does not conclude without benefits.
A more local example serves as a template for deeper understanding of secession.
The summer of 1984 may have been hot, but Rhode Island politics were even hotter. A May 30 article in the New York Times introduced Americans to a secession campaign that was gaining traction within the smallest state of the union. Fostered by the tumultuous debate over to what degree a municipality could regulate the use of mopeds, the mere 620 residents of Block Island quickly found their local government at odds with the State Supreme Court in Providence.
Like the Scottish struggle of 2014, the struggle on Block Island similarly revolved around the desire for greater ability to self-govern. The 620 residents of Block Island found their island in disarray with a regular weekly influx of around 15,000 mainlanders during the height of summer, many making use of the aforementioned controversial mopeds. Residents had reason to pressure Providence for greater ability to regulate as well: As People magazine reported in July 1984, 78 moped accidents occurred on Block Island in 1983, up from 42 accidents in 1982. In 1983, one moped accident even claimed the life of a mother’s seven-month-old fetus. For the limited Block Island emergency response team, this data clearly indicated a trend calling for policy change. Accidents aside, residents also argued that the increased moped presence altered the calm environment of the island — for the worse.
As the People article pointed out, media from Manhattan to Tokyo picked up coverage of the conflict hovering over Rhode Island, stirring heated conversation. Governors Michael Dukakis of Massachusetts and William O’Neill of Connecticut each reached out to the residents of Block Island, promising that annexation by those states would allow for the protection of substantial self-governance on the island. A residents’ town hall meeting on the island quickly resulted in bursts of protest for votes on secession.
Tension on the island increased and the citizens rallied against Providence, where a 1981 State Supreme Court ruling had struck down initial attempts to regulate the usage of mopeds on the island, citing such ordinances as “unduly oppressive.” In the years to follow, vacationers to Block Island enjoyed the ability to traverse the island on two wheels — causing many accidents — and moped dealers continued to take heat from the locals.
Inevitably, the moped debate hit the statehouse, where the legislature passed a bill during a special session in June 1984 that granted Block Island the ability to self-regulate moped use within its jurisdiction, beginning in the spring of 1985. While rescinding the Rhode Island Department of Transportation’s control of moped regulation, newly introduced state regulatory language was presented as a strong model for future Block Island ordinances.
The elected officials of Block Island assembled a commission to further determine the extent of regulations of mopeds on the island, as the debate dwindled from one that was statewide to one that was merely island-wide. Nevertheless, they had learned their lesson: The scare of secession succeeded in granting the residents of Block Island a greater role in island governance.
Like the citizens of Block Island, some 30 years later the citizens of Scotland await the promise of change in governance from Westminster. In a show of impressive democratic practice and solidarity, the Scottish public demonstrated above all that they possess the will and potential for self-governance. The question remains whether the Scots truly desire full independence or just the benefit of the doubt that their government is indeed able to steer the direction of the Scottish people without fail.
As in the Block Island case, the Scottish debate over secession was a bargaining chip to expand self-governance negotiations — and ensure the success thereof. While the verdict on Scottish independence is still fresh, it represents the hope that, with time, the “no” campaign will bear the fruits of victory, like the win on Block Island three decades ago.
ADVERTISEMENT
