At first blush, it seems that the vote for Independence in Scotland is miles away (or very far across the pond) from the Tea Party that has taken root in the United States. However, policy wonks suggest that the Scottish Yes movement has more in common with the right-wing tea partiers than meets the eye.
While voters rejected independence from the UK by a margin of 55% to 45%, the impetus for the vote stemmed from the belief that Westminster bureaucrats are out of touch with the needs of Scots. Similarly, tea partiers believe that Washington elites are incapable of effective governance.
Interestingly though, pro-independence Scots are on the opposite end of the spectrum from American tea partiers. As the New York Times notes, Scotland is far more liberal than the British ruling party (Scots favor increased social welfare spending, are strongly pro-green, and are antinuclear) whereas tea partiers are to the right of America’s executive and half of the legislative branches (though that could be just the executive branch after November if the Senate changes hands in the midterms).
What does this mean for advocates trying to advance policy? How do governments the world over regain the trust and faith of their citizens? There are no quick answers to these questions, but unless the bridge between the federal government and local populations are repaired, we will see more parties capitalize on discontent or event mount full scale independence movements (we’re looking at you, Montreal and Catalan).