• Research
  • Politika
  • About
Carnegie Russia Eurasia center logoCarnegie lettermark logo
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "Thomas de Waal"
  ],
  "type": "commentary",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
    "Carnegie Europe",
    "Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Europe",
  "programAffiliation": "",
  "programs": [],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "Caucasus",
    "Armenia",
    "Eastern Europe",
    "Ukraine",
    "Western Europe",
    "United Kingdom"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Civil Society",
    "Foreign Policy"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

Commentary
Carnegie Europe

The Scotland Effect

Separatists across Europe are hailing Scotland's referendum, but they also know that breaking up is a traumatic process.

Link Copied
By Thomas de Waal
Published on Sep 17, 2014

At the recent meeting of the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan at the NATO summit in Wales, convened by U.S Secretary of State John Kerry, the issue of “territorial integrity” came up as usual.

The final NATO summit declaration formally pledged support for Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity—alongside that of Armenia, Georgia, and Moldova. This was despite Armenian objections that the plan under discussion by the Minsk Group of the OSCE foresees a future vote on secession for the Armenians of Nagorny Karabakh as a way of breaking the impasse in that conflict.

Secretary Kerry himself reportedly asked the question, “What about Scotland?” Because of course the “territorial integrity” of no less a country than the United Kingdom could be broken by Friday morning, if Scots vote “Yes” in the independence referendum.

The Scotland vote has become about more than Scotland. Parties embroiled in territorial disputes, from Catalonia to Somaliland have been giving keen—if rather naïve—support to the pro-independence campaign.

In Armenia last week I sensed great excitement about the vote, based on the simple premise that a vote for separatism in Scotland legitimizes the case of Karabakh Armenians for independence. Highland Karabakhis are expressing highland solidarity with pro-independence Scots.

At the same time, Abkhaz are recalling the Kilmarnock-Sukhum twin-town scheme, which links their capital with a Scottish town and treating it as a good omen for their own independence aspirations.

Sergei Aksyonov, the new pro-Russian head of Crimea, has declared that if Scotland votes Yes, the world will have “no other option” but to recognize Crimea’s secession from Ukraine.

Conversely, a lot of world leaders are grumbling at David Cameron’s rashness in allowing the referendum to go ahead in the first place.

Nation states hate the idea of separatism, even in the most clear-cut cases. It smells too much of anarchy. That is why Somaliland has not been recognized as independent, even though it objectively has more statehood than its nominal “parent state” Somalia. And why, five European Union members, Cyprus, Greece, Romania, Slovakia, and Spain, have still not recognized the independence of Kosovo.

Scotland has set a good precedent in Europe by staging a democratic debate on separatism in which everyone with a stake in the outcome has been given a voice. Even so, as the actual vote nears, that debate has got more angry and bitter.

Breaking up a state is a traumatic process. If the pro-union camp is still in the lead in Scotland, it is mainly because voters fear a prospect of massive uncertainty resulting from a Yes vote. Unresolved questions range from whether an independent Scotland will get to keep the pound, to what will be the status of Queen Elizabeth to what will happen to pension entitlements.

People on all sides of the conflicts of the Caucasus know all about the pain of break-up. Those Abkhaz or Karabakh Armenians who cheer on the pro-independence Scots also recall in quieter moments that they did not start with independence slogans. The referendums on independence of the 1990s in Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Karabakh, and Transnistria, unrecognized by the rest of the world, came after a long interval of conflict and uncertainty.

Recalling the trauma, even these separatists might tell the Scots that breaking up with the United Kingdom is best avoided, when other alternatives are available.

About the Author

Thomas de Waal

Senior Fellow, Carnegie Europe

Thomas de Waal is a senior fellow at Carnegie Europe, specializing in Eastern Europe and the Caucasus.

    Recent Work

  • Article
    Rewiring the South Caucasus: TRIPP and the New Geopolitics of Connectivity
      • Areg Kochinyan

      Thomas de Waal, Areg Kochinyan, Zaur Shiriyev

  • Commentary
    Europolis, Where Europe Ends

      Thomas de Waal

Thomas de Waal
Senior Fellow, Carnegie Europe
Thomas de Waal
Civil SocietyForeign PolicyCaucasusArmeniaEastern EuropeUkraineWestern EuropeUnited Kingdom

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    What’s Having More Impact on Russian Oil Export Revenues: Ukrainian Strikes or Rising Prices?

    Although Ukrainian strikes have led to a noticeable decline in the physical volume of Russian oil exports, the rise in prices has more than made up for it.

      • Sergey Vakulenko

      Sergey Vakulenko

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Russia Is Meddling for Meddling’s Sake in the Middle East

    The Russian leadership wants to avoid a dangerous precedent in which it is squeezed out of Iran by the United States and Israel—and left powerless to respond in any meaningful way.

      Nikita Smagin

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Is Frustration With Armenia’s Pashinyan Enough to Bring the Pro-Russia Opposition to Power?

    It’s true that many Armenians would vote for anyone just to be rid of Pashinyan, whom they blame for the loss of Nagorno-Karabakh, but the pro-Russia opposition is unlikely to be able to channel that frustration into an electoral victory.

      Mikayel Zolyan

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Will Hungary’s New Leader Really Change EU Policy on Russia and Ukraine?

    Orbán created an image for himself as virtually the only opponent of aid to Ukraine in the entire EU. But in reality, he was simply willing to use his veto to absorb all the backlash, allowing other opponents to remain in the shadows.

      Maksim Samorukov

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Power, Pathways, and Policy: Grounding Central Asia’s Digital Ambitions

    Central Asia’s digital ambitions are achievable, but only if policy is aligned with the region’s physical constraints.

      Aruzhan Meirkhanova

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center
Carnegie Russia Eurasia logo, white
  • Research
  • Politika
  • About
  • Experts
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Privacy
  • For Media
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.