Scotland's Future And Federalism

Scots went to the polls yesterday to cast ballots for the future of Scotland. By the time this article was written, the results had not been announced. It seems this referendum will usher in a considerable debate in terms of federalism and the coexistence of nations irrespective of its results.
It is obvious that the referendum for Scotland has the potential to influence a number of separatist political movements around the globe.

This referendum shows us that one of two coexisting nations may become richer than the other and may not be willing to share this wealth with the other, and that these two nations may come to the point of deciding whether to continue to coexist or search for more autonomy or more federalism. And they may go to the polls to make this decision in an extremely civilized manner and without any conflict or confrontation.
The government of the United Kingdom tries to give the message, "We are a family and we should not divide this family," by making statements to soothe the Scoots, but this referendum has already made the federalist structure of the European Union debatable. Therefore, this referendum stands out as a brand-new experience that may affect disputes in various parts of the world as well as the very foundations of the EU.
A political solution that could be brokered in Iraq would possibly be a federal one. Federalism was the choice for keeping Arabs and Kurds together when the political structure of Iraq was shaped in 2003. The federal Kurdistan region was given constitutional guarantee. But this federalism lacked a strong social basis. We had to wait for 11 years to realize that Iraq was deprived of the democratic culture that may support federalism.
Syria's future will be similar to that of Iraq. Kurds have obtained de facto autonomy. A federal Syria is the only political formula that could keep Sunni Arabs part of Syria.
The referendum for Scotland may also be discussed within the context of Turkey's settlement process.
Although experience tells us that the Kurdish issue is not about status, but about democracy and equality, the pro-Kurdish political movement's demand for democratic autonomy is very likely to create problems.

Currently, the pro-Kurdish political movement is busy with obtaining this democratic autonomy in a de facto manner. This is the reason why this movement recently split into two parties. The Democratic Regions Party (DBP) mainly focuses on the eastern provinces and its duty is to build democratic autonomy. The Peoples' Democratic Party (HDP), on the other hand, appeals to all of Turkey. The DBP and HDP slam the government for failing to take steps for education in the mother tongue, but when they try to use this right in practice, the problem emerges.
This tension is likely to continue unabated in spite of the settlement process. There are efforts to build a democratically autonomous region on one hand, and there are statements that pro-Kurdish politicians make to assert their allegiance to the central political structure on the other. Hatip Dicle, one of the most powerful actors of the pro-Kurdish political movement, made one such remark recently. He said they do not want to secede from Turkey, as rich nations seek to secede from the poorer ones all around, and that poor nations wouldn't want to separate from the richer ones. "Who would want to secede from a country where the per capita national income is $10,000 in order to live in a country where the per capita national income wouldn't be $1,000?" he asked.

ORHAN MİROĞLU (Cihan/Today's Zaman)