The British experience can be instructive for Russia. London retains its British Commonwealth if it wants to use this as a foundation for integration in the future. That’s a valuable lesson for Russian experts who are calling for an end to “ineffective” associations like the CIS, the Russian World and others.

       The result of Scotland’s independence referendum was not as resounding as it may have seemed. While 55.3% voted to remain in the United Kingdom versus 44.7% who voted for independence, a ten percent margin can hardly be called a convincing victory. Rather, the referendum revealed that Scottish society remains divided on the question of independence. The ensuing unrest in Glasgow only confirmed the existence of the problem.

       The Scottish referendum had one important feature. On May 16, 2014, Prime Minister David Cameron promised greater autonomy for Scotland if it remains part of the UK, and on September 19, 2014, he said he was willing to devolve more powers not only to Scotland, but also England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

       Flexible state identity

       Changing the country’s form of government is a defining feature of British political culture. The term “Kingdom of Great Britain” came into use after England and Scotland united in 1707. Almost a hundred years later, in 1801, Great Britain became the “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.” In 1927, it became the “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.” This name remains to this day.

       As for London and its former colonies, the 1926 Balfour Declaration recognized the United Kingdom and its dominions as “equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown, and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations.” In 1931, this system of relations between the Empire and its dominions was enshrined in the Statute of Westminster.

       The structure of the British Commonwealth changed when India joined as an independent republic in 1949. Since then, the British monarch has acted both as the formal head of the Commonwealth and its 17 realms. The British crown had different designations in each Commonwealth realm. In some countries, the Queen of Great Britain is also monarch. In Australia, the Queen is represented by state governors; in Canada, lieutenant governors in each Canadian province. These officials formally have the powers of a constitutional monarch, although in practice they perform only ceremonial functions.

       Scenarios for Edinburgh

       The structure of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth provides a new perspective on the Scottish independence referendum. Any outcome would have involved a subsequent change in the UK governance system.

       Has independence won, Scotland would have become an independent state on March 24, 2016,. However, it wouldn’t have been completely independent from London. The Queen would have remained formal head of Scotland. The two countries could have maintained their monetary and customs union. In the future, Scotland would have gone the way of Canada or Australia.

       Since supporters of unified Britain won, the issue now is about a major expansion of Scotland’s autonomy. Under the Act of Scotland of 2012, the Scottish Parliament will dispose of 23% of all taxes collected by the Treasury of Great Britain in Scotland. At the same time, the Scottish Parliament would be responsible for 50% of budget expenditures. Similar financial autonomy may be accorded to other parts of Britain.

       It is possible that London agreed to temporary concessions in order to get a favorable result during the referendum. However, repealing the Act of Scotland would have been a too controversial a step, leading to a surge in Scottish separatism. The British government is likely to expand the powers of other parts of the Kingdom as well, so that the reform does not look like a favor to Scotland alone.

       Scenarios for London

       When Britain joined the European Community in 1973, it put an end to the idea of an integration project based on the British Commonwealth. The United Kingdom had to abandon preferences on imports from Commonwealth member countries. But Britain has occupied another niche by becoming a gateway for American investment in Europe.

       Since 2011, many in Britain have been talking about eventually leaving the European Union, or (more realistically) changing the terms of its membership. The possibility of holding a referendum in late 2017 is being discussed, as are the prospects for revising the UK’s form of governance. In the future, the United Kingdom may transform into “the United Kingdoms” or a federation of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. In this case, London might be tempted to revive its own integration project based on the “federal Britain” and the “Commonwealth realms.”

       Russia’s interest

       The British experience can be instructive for Russia. Since 2006, Russia has been pondering over the concept of the “Russian World,” which also would be achieved through an integration project. The “German version” whereby all Russians come to live in one state is unrealistic in the modern world. But the example of a heterogeneous British Commonwealth that includes different countries and associations can suggest a way forward. London retains its British Commonwealth if it wants to use this as a foundation for integration in the future. That’s a valuable lesson for Russian experts who are calling for an end to “ineffective” associations like the CIS, the Russian World and others.

       Views expressed are of individual Members and Contributors, rather than the Club's, unless explicitly stated otherwise.