Following Alexander’s turn around (spinning wildly out of control) on the issue of a referendum on independence it seems, that in some sectors anyway, that the debate as to whether or not there will be a referendum has become a debate on the mechanics of:
- how any referendum should be conducted and who should have a vote;
- how Scotland will separate from the rest of the UK once that referendum has been won by the ‘yes’ vote.
On the first issue I have read a number of comments calling for ’Scots abroad’ to have a vote, sometimes outside Scotland but within the UK, and sometimes outside of the UK too. There have been more frivolous calls for ‘people with an interest’ to be given a say, people who may only know Scotland through parents and grandparents. Never before though had I heard it mooted that England should have a say though.
Tim Luckhurst, former editor of The Scotsman, has written an article for the Times Online in which he argues that any referendum on Scottish independence must be a :
three-question referendum - independence, devolution or a unitary state - with all the British people eligible to vote.
Yet his reasoning is based on the fact that:
The 1707 Treaty of Union, passed both by the Westminster and Edinburgh parliaments, reflected the combined will of both political establishments to augment the union of the crowns with a merger of national legislatures. Ending the Union demands the same mutual consent.
This is, of course, a nonsense given the paradoxical situation that might arise where a Scotland that votes to dissolve the Treaty of Union, and become independent, is blocked by an England which wishes the Union to remain intact.
The article has thrown up some interesting, and telling, discussion online where comments may be interpreted as it being ‘England’s decision’ whether or not Scotland leaves the Union. Afterall, the Union isn’t just Scotland and England, there’s also Wales and N. Ireland to be considered and Scotland voting for independence does not mean that the remaining three will also need to go their separate ways.
Gareth Young writes in response to this debate on Our Kingdom:
Why should the English be made to sit on their hands whilst the Scots determine the fate of the Union, again?
It highlights a fundamental misunderstanding, or perhaps ignorance, of What the Union is. If Scotland wishes to leave the UK, to become independent and leave England, Wales and N. Ireland to get on with it, than that’s Scotland’s decision, it’s not a decision for anyone living outside of Scotland to make.
Not wishing to pick on Gareth here, but he also goes on to say:
I don’t think it’s at all acceptable for Scotland alone to decide on this.
It patently is for Scotland alone to decide on this, I wouldn’t expect a vote if England wished to become independent, I don’t see why they should get a vote on Scotland becoming independent either.
I’m inclined to agree with another contributor (Ray Bell) to the debate who says:
This is a stupid and futile argument coming from last ditch defence of the Union.
…
By the way, why are these arguments usually so anglocentric? There are millions of people in the UK who are neither English nor Scots.
But enough of that discussion if you want to participate or read it in full the link’s here.
image from michael greenwell
The second debate arising, this time from the UCL’s Constitution Unit Press release (view PDF), is in reference to the agreement for terms of separation. I can’t say I agree with their press release, although the fact that it has been made does suggest that the debate is moving forward and that the idea of indepedence for Scotland is becoming ‘normalised’. The Press release reads as follows:
Two Referendums Required for Scottish Independence
A single referendum initiated by the SNP government and authorised by the Scottish Parliament could not achieve independence for Scotland. The terms of any independence deal negotiated with the UK government would require a second referendum authorised by Westminster, says the Constitution Unit. A first referendum could only be held on the principle of independence, and authorise the SNP government to enter into negotiation with the UK government about the details.
The Constitution Unit is responding to the apparent U-turn on a referendum by Wendy Alexander leader of Scottish Labour, after her call on Alex Salmond’s SNP minority government to “bring it on.”
“We have long argued that Scottish independence requires two referendums, for reasons of law and practical politics” said Constitution Unit director Prof Robert Hazell. “Under the Scotland Act only Westminster can authorise a referendum that would grant Scotland independence. I would be surprised if Gordon Brown has also done a U turn and wants Westminster to hold such a referendum any time soon”.
“But there are also reasons of principle why there should be two referendums. People in Scotland might support independence in principle, but think again when confronted with the terms of independence. The terms will include not just issues like North Sea oil, but division of the national debt, ending all financial transfers from the UK government, and Scotland’s continued membership of the EU. The Scots are entitled to know the detailed terms of independence before making such a big decision”.
The Constitution Unit addressed the referendum issue (among others) in Jo Murkens’ book Scottish Independence – A Practical Guide (Edinburgh University Press, 2002) and made two observations. First, the referendum question would need to be carefully worded to be about commencing negotiations rather than about independence itself, in order to stay within the confines of the powers of the Scottish Executive and Scottish Parliament defined in the Scotland Act 1998. The question would be on the principle (rather than the details) of independence. Secondly, the terms and conditions of Scottish independence (including that Scotland would separate from the United Kingdom) would be the subject-matter of a second referendum
Jo Murkens (now law lecturer at the LSE) added: “Wendy Alexander’s rallying call to ‘bring it on’ may be of political significance in Scotland. But in constitutional terms it is little more than an acknowledgment that the Scottish Executive (having obtained legislative authority from the Scottish Parliament) has the power to hold a consultative referendum on negotiations with Westminster. That acknowledgement in no way anticipates the eventual outcome of the negotiation process.
I don’t agree with the UCL release on a couple of levels. In the first instance, only one referendum is required for independence to be achieved, and that referendum must be to give an appointed body the responsibility to negotiate the settlement between Scotland and the remainder of the UK. Presumabley Westminster would also appoint a body to negotiate on it’s behalf, free of the like’s of Brown or any other MP in a Scottish seat - and rightly too.
A referendum on the settlement itself is likely to be difficult for the majority of the electorate (in either Scotland or the remaining UK) to digest, simply on the basis of it’s complexity. And who’s going to vote to accept a proportion of the national debt in Scotland, and likewise in England who’s going to vote in support of large sections of the North Sea to come under Scottish jurisdiction. Any referendum would end up being based on headlines and media bias without a look at the finer detail.
The idea that the people at large could make an informed decision in any referendum on the settlement details is unlikely, and in the end most voters would likely support the settlement arrived at following the negotiation process anyway, as this would be the position agreed with and endorsed by senior Government members anyway. Many aspects of the settlement are likely to be reached in reference to international bodies who may be invited to mediate.
The discussion of a second referendum though has once again given rise to the notion that Scotland does not have the ‘right’ to self determination, seemingly on the basis that:
Scottish secession would have such a cataclysmic effect on the future of the rest of the UK
Brian Barder goes on to say (in this debate):
it’s hard to imagine any UK government or parliament agreeing to it without a prior consultation with all the people of the other three ‘nations’, presumably by referendum.
He is of course not alone in voicing this opinion, which is bizarre in the extreme. Scotland should not be allowed to become independent because it might upset the other members of the UK? Really? Remember, unionists would have us believe that Scotland can’t survive economically outside of the UK, so why so keen to hold on?
And what would be the result if Scotland was held within a UK it no longer wished to be part of? Turmoil, anger, and ultimately violence.
Anyway, I think I’ve written enough on this just now. I’ve never been one of those people who agreed with the notion that England is Imperialistic, but reading comments like these you do begin to wonder.
Posted in Britain, British, Conservative, Gordon Brown, Labour, Lib Dem, SNP, Scottish, Scottish Independence, Scottish Nationalism, Wendy Alexander, election, england, english, life, politics, rant, referendum, scotland
of self-determination, between on the one hand what the Charter calls ‘non-self-governing territories’ (broadly meaning colonies and protectorates), which do not include Scotland under the definition in the Charter and UN resolutions, and on the other hand parts of recognised sovereign states, however distinctive the populations of the parts of the states might be — Scotland being a good example. The Wikipedia article on secession at
