IN this column I have tried to sort the wheat from the chaff on Brexit and pass on useful news. But, in what looks like yet another “sound and fury signifying nothing” Brexit week, I’ll look at something else crossing my desk as a member of the EU’s Foreign Affairs Committee – New Caledonia’s independence referendum.
We’re neutral in others’ internal discussions, believing the people best placed to make decisions are those who live there, but in the SNP we support the right to self-determination and the rule of law.
READ MORE: Alyn Smith: Forget the Budget, Merkel is quitting and this is what it means
Over the weekend the 175,000 eligible voters of the islands were asked: “Do you want New Caledonia to attain full sovereignty and become independent?”
Around 56% voted “No” and 44% voted “Yes.” The turnout was extremely high at 80.6% so the tiny Pacific territory has voted, for now, to remain part of France in a long-awaited referendum.
READ MORE: The UK is broken and Westminster is not going to fix it
This was a much closer final result than even recent polls suggesting a far more comfortable win for the pro-France side. But the vote has also exposed other divisions, difficult to resolve.
Around 40% of the population are indigenous Kanaks, with the next largest ethnic group being ethnic Europeans, at just over 27% in the latest census. Of New Caledonia’s three provinces, two – North Province and the Loyalty Islands – voted for independence, while a majority of voters in South Province, which is largely ethnic European, chose to stay with France. To see voting divided along such lines makes me uneasy.
While the first European to see New Caledonia was James Cook, who named it after the Latin term for today’s Scotland, the islands were annexed by France in 1853 on the order of Emperor Napoleon III.
The desire for independence has long been a defining element of the local politics and after an occasionally violent campaign, in 1998, the French government signed an agreement with an alliance of pro-independence political parties – the Kanak and Socialist National Liberation Front (FLNKS) – to hold referendums on full independence proposed for this year, 2020 and 2022, should the local government wish to hold them.
While some powers have been devolved to the islands, their population are French citizens and vote in the country’s elections, one of 12 overseas territories France retained sovereignty over since the end of colonialism. Constitutionally, they’re as much a part of France as Arran is a part of Scotland.
The islands’ main newspaper, Les Nouvelles Caledoniennes, predicted that the strong showing by the “yes” campaign will be used as an argument for another poll in two years. I would agree – I don’t see how with a timetable already in place there cannot be another vote. However, they also noted that while a “vast majority” of indigenous Kanaks voted for independence, other ethnic groups did not, which it said showed pro-independence groups failed to win over voters outside their historic support base.
There was also limited violence in the run up to the vote, and the question is far from settled. “For us it’s just a question of time, and you know that time in Oceania is measured differently,” FLNKS independence spokesperson Daniel Goa said in a speech last month. There are not many signs of compromise. He went on: “As long as a single Kanak person is standing, he will fight for his freedom … We are this country, we are this land, it is Kanak and it will remain Kanak forever.”
There is a lot at stake. New Caledonia has huge nickel resources already being exploited, as well as massive maritime assets which France counts towards its “blue economy”. There is scope for further violence, we can only hope that Paris does more to encourage dialogue and respect, and that all sides show restraint.
But the world is changing, and the old orders are breaking down as the world shifts focus away from former colonial powers. It is up to every place everywhere to decide its future, and so long as that is peaceful and within the rule of law then change is not to be feared in and of itself.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel