Could the UK learn from the Velvet Divorce that created the Czech Republic and Slovakia? Supporters of an independent Scotland would like to think so
In Prague, the trendiest bar right now is called Lokal and serves only one brand of beer. It is a recreation of a dowdy, Communist-era restaurant, complete with surly waitresses and a menu restricted to sausages. It shows that almost anything can be recycled by the nostalgia industry.
Except it seems, Czechoslovakia itself. Twenty years on from the Velvet Divorce between Slovakia and the Czech Republic, both divorcees claim to be thriving on independence and there’s no looking back. The Scottish Nationalists often cite the Czechoslovak model for their proposed divorce from the UK.
I visited Prague in early January, to find out what lessons, if any, could be gleaned for Scotland as it contemplates separation from the UK. I say ‘separation’ rather than divorce because what the SNP is seeking in September is a qualified form of independence, which would retain many common institutions and is even described by Alex Salmond as a ‘new’ United Kingdom.
The first thing to say is that Scotland’s historical experience is very different to this pair of central European republics which have, within living memory, been invaded and occupied by the Nazis and then the Russians. Independence here is a matter of life and death. But there are certain aspects of recent Czech/Slovak experience worth reflecting upon.
The first is that independence is a process rather than an event. Initially, the two countries intended to remain in a federation. Then the Czechs, fed up with what they saw as a dependency culture among the less industrially developed Slovaks, decided to push through independence without a referendum.
When Czechoslovakia disintegrated, both countries intended to remain in a currency union. It seemed the sensible thing to do – rather as the Scottish Government says it is rational to keep the pound after independence. The common currency lasted 18 months, by which time both sides accepted it was much easier to have separate currencies to reflect their different stages of industrialisation.
Then an extraordinary thing happened. Almost overnight, Slovakia became one of the fastest growing countries in the EU – with double-digit growth rates. Growth didn’t falter even during the global recession and in 2012 Slovakia was still the second fastest-growing country in the EU. It is now the world’s largest per capita manufacturer of cars.
With its adaptable workforce and low overhead costs this country of 5 million people – the same as Scotland – confidently joined the single European currency in 2009. The Czechs have no plans to adopt the euro, with Eurosceptic politicians in Prague claiming that the EU is a new form of German domination.
Sounds familiar? Of course, Scotland is not landlocked Slovakia. It has huge natural advantages, with its oil wealth, deep waters, tourist industry and five world-class universities.
But the Slovak experience does confirm that the European Union has been a success story for small countries – and not just in the Nordic states. The 31 EU countries with populations averaging 5 million are the real growth areas of Europe. It is the big indebted countries, such as France, Spain and the UK, that have stagnated over the past five years.
Without the burdens of large defence budgets, centralised bureaucracies and powerful special interest groups, small countries can adapt quickly to changing economic circumstances. They are no longer hampered by trade barriers set up by the big countries. The political classes are closer to the people and better able to achieve national consensus.
So size does matter, though not the way most people expect. Independence no longer means isolation and vulnerability. It’s something many Scots may be reflecting upon in September.
Iain Macwhirter is political commentator on the Sunday Herald
This opinion piece was first published in the January/February edition of Public Finance magazine
