Scottish Independence
Posted on June 11th, 2009 by Anthony Wells
A quick update on a poll I missed while everyone was recovering from the European elections and the government reshuffle. There was a TNS System Three (or, as they will be known in the future thanks to TNS’s takeover by WPP, TNS-BMRB) poll in the Herald earlier in the week with their latest tracker figures for voting intention in a referendum on Scottish Independence.
Currently 39% (-1 since January) say they would vote NO in a referendum, 38% (-2 since January) would vote yes – so the lead is largely unchanged from the last time System Three asked, though the percentage of don’t knows has risen slightly.
Filed under: Scotland
Any indication what the sample size was?
i was unable to find it myself…
Makes sense, people are less sure of things in ‘uncertain’ times…would have expected more of a shift in favour of splitting with those who are still sure when brown is so unpopular, guess SNP get some of the blame too now.
Sample size was 971
My view would be that no-one had thought about the issue since last time; Westminster too much ‘fun’. As such, same results…
Would certainly not view it as SNP getting any blame; their results in the EU election were very good.; they beat Labour for the first time overall.
I take it this question was asked in Scotland. If it had been in England it would be a much higher percentage in favour of Scottish independance ( about 60%)
“Currently 39% (-1 since January) say they would vote NO in a referendum, 38% (-2 since January) would vote yes – so the lead is largely unchanged from the last time System Three asked …”
Looks like last time was 40% each then, so not a lead previously for either camp, and only a small one now well within sampling error.
Adrian why would a poll be carried oout in England? It has nothing to do with us.
John TT,
If you lived in a house with three other people, and one or more of them decided that they were going to divide the house with a separate front door and new internal walls, would you not want a say in the matter ?
Nationalists often point to independance movements in former colonies to support their “right” to self-determniation. However, we are not talking about a colony breaking away from its imperial oppressor, but the dissolution of a long established union.
Not so much the kids moving out to assert their freedom as the parents going through a divorce.
It would be easier for Britain to withdraw from the EU than for Scotland to disentangle itself from the United Kingdom. Anyone who pretends otherwise is fooling themselves as well as the people of Scotand (and England, Wales and Ulster for that matter).
Adrian,
I’m not disputing your point, but if that’s the case, then why is no mainstream English party campaigning to dissolve the Union?
Paul H-J,
our right to self-determination has very little to do with anti-colonial movements. It rests on our constitutional and legal history; in Scotland the people are sovereign. This principle is accepted, at least nominally, by all the major political parties.
It is indeed probable that those with vested interests will make the transformation to full sovereignty as practically difficult as possible. But that is irrelevant to the political case.
If the Scottish people decide to leave the Union, that is what we will do.
@ Agentmancuso
I wonder if it’s because Scotland had been dominated by the Labour Party for so long, that the voters there had become “disconnected from politics” as the Labour Party could count on the return of Scottish MPs as a power-base. Perhaps this “disconnection” engendered by the fall of the Unionist Party meant that there was an opposition-sized hole for a Scotland-specific democratic deficit.
@Agentmancuso
Whilst Scottish law pre-Acts of Union did not declare Parliamentary Supremacy, they nevertheless did not declare where they thought sovereignty was.
The notion that Scottish sovereignty rests in the hands of the “Scottish people”, however they may be defined, only really appeared in the 1980s and 90s as part of the nationalist movement.
Reference: “Human Rights and Scots Law” by Boyle, Loux et al.
A lot of the uncertainty may also be due to the economic climate, the SNP really blundered by showcasing Iceland as a model for Scottish independence just before Iceland went bankrupt.
Does anyone know when the next nationwide poll is due to come out? I am interested to see what it will say:
(i) will the Tory share of the vote increase following the Euro and Council Elections as everyone tries to back the winner? or
(ii) will Labour’s attack on Tory “cuts” (the first time we seem to have heard that for ages) have resonated with the public?
I am assuming the former, partly on past examples and partly because the Labour jibes seem to have raised the question of the poor public finances again.
In any case, if anyone knows when the next poll is due, I would be keen to find out.
And isn’t this a case where if basically 40% want out of an option then there is no meaningful way to shut the gate as the horse has bolted, especially given that try this question 30/ 40 years ago the support would have been laughable.
On such a serious matter the question of Scottish independence is decided but it will take some time before people realise it.
‘SIMPLICITY
A lot of the uncertainty may also be due to the economic climate, the SNP really blundered by showcasing Iceland as a model for Scottish independence just before Iceland went bankrupt.’
Hmm – that’s why they won the vote up there in Scotland then. That’s the sort of blunder all parties want.
I’ve said this before on threads here, and agree with Adrian and Paul H-J. Why shouldn’t the English be consulted about Scottish independence? It’s like a marriage where only one partner is allowed to file for divorce.
You’d think the SNP would also be in favour of the English being consulted, because they’d be much more likely to get a majority.
Most English people I speak to about the subject either don’t care, or are in favour of Scottish (and hence English) independence. And before anyone picks me up on it, I know we’d still have Wales and Northern Ireland, but one step at a time
(Note to Anthony: Any chance of getting a UK English spell-checker? It’s irritating when ‘favour’ is flagged as an error.)
Whoops, forget that last bit – I think it’s my own Firefox checker. How embarrassing!
New Populus Poll for Times
Con 36 – 5
Lab 24 + 3
LD 19 + 4
It is irrelevant what the English want regarding Scottish independence just as it is irrelevant what Scots want regarding English independence.
The jibe about 3 people living in a house and one wanting a seperate entrance makes no sense. Scotland agreed to join England in the union, not disappear in a new entity called Britain.
Scotland is a seperate country governed by the sovereign will of its people. We will decide our own futre. If it is within the union, so be it, and if not, so be it as well. No outsider is going to tell us what we can or cannot do.
English citizens would never accept such an arrangement being imposed on them so why do you think we would accept it.
But we ARE having such an arrangement imposed on us! England is a separate country too, and we would have the Scots telling us that they want to leave the Union, with us having no say in it.
Doonhamer,
I’m English but agree with you that the decision on whether Scotland should be independant is a matter for Scots alone.
There would be some technical qualification issues but the principle is clear.
Of course there would need to be a divorce settlement which would be messy and the negotiations perhaps protracted but this would only be after Scotland filed for the ‘no fault’ Divorce.
Pete B, in a divorce does it take both parties to agree to void the union. I think not. When we decide to leave, the only matter under discussion are the terms of the settlement. Nothing less, nothing more.
One party may want the marriage to continue but it won’t without the consent of both. Once one decides it is over, it is over. All the bluster in the world is not going to change that fact.
To consider otherwise beggars belief. If Scotland votes to leave, are you going to send in the army to occupy the country? It didn’t work in Ulster, why would such a step work in Scotland?
Negotiated settlement is the only answer, otherwise we walk slowly towards the abyss and the violence that would follow.
Salmond said it best, ” England should give up its surly lodger and gain a good neighbour willing to share this island for all our collective good.”
@Doonhamer
I agree about the divorce. However, an Act of Dis-Union, I suspect, would need the Houses of Parliament to pass the bill, so you’d need English MPs to agree to it (probably by convincingly winning a referendum, not just a 50.2% win with 20% turn-out).
I really don’t think that the nationalist claim to prima facie “sovereign will of its people” holds legal water, though. There’s no document saying that they have it, and no Scottish judiciary has ever challenged an Act of Parliament to test the question in 302 years. The precedent is fairly absent.
Personally, I think both countries should hold referendums but it only takes one to agree for dis-union to occur. ie the Scots may vote to stay in the union but the English may vote against it
Pete B (and Paul H-J) – i’m surprised at your comments. They seem silly to me. Who decides whether, for instance we remain members of the EU? There is no poll among other EU countries as to whether or not Britain should pull out – any more than there will be a poll here asking whether we think france should pull out.
We cannot simply kick Scotland out of hte Union. I’m surprised that you think we can.
A proposal for England to withdraw would make more sense logically, but it just sounds ridiculous to me.
Jeff at 1:
the answer in in the TNS-BMRB press release:
“Method
A sample of 988 adults aged 18+ was interviewed face-to-face in-home in 42 constituencies
across Scotland over the period 27th May to 2nd June 2009. To ensure the sample was
representative of the adult population of Scotland, it was weighted to match population profile
estimates in the analysis.
Respondents were asked:
The SNP have outlined their plans for a possible referendum on Scottish independence in
future. If such a referendum were to be held tomorrow, how would you vote?
SHOW SCREEN
I AGREE that the Scottish Government should negotiate a settlement with the Government of
the United Kingdom so that Scotland becomes an independent state.
I DO NOT AGREE that the Scottish Government should negotiate a settlement with the
Government of the United Kingdom so that Scotland becomes an independent state.
(Don’t know) – not shown on screen”
Relevant links:
http://www.tns-custom.co.uk/our-sector-focus/scottish-market_polling-results.aspx
http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/news/display.var.2513247.0.Vote_on_independence_would_be_close_say_polls.php
http://www.snp.org/node/15367
John,
The EU treaties have no provisions for a member to withdraw. Technically, since the Union is by Treaty, any withdrawal would constitute an amendment to those Treaties (there being several), and so would requrie the agreement of all parties thereto. We could then have the absurd situation where British withdrawal from the EU would be subject to a referndum decision in Eire.
Having said that, while that may be the technical legal position, it would be politically absurd for the other member states to refuse to allow a member to leave.
Re Scotland, the legal situation is subtly different. The Union was not by Treaty but by acts of both parliaments. Also, the Union created a new sovereign state, whereas the EU – at least up until now – acts as an (upwardly) delegated representative of the member states who (nominally) retain their individual sovereignty.
Nonetheless, on a political level, the same would apply – ie if Scotland had expressed a clear and unambiguous preference to leave the Union, that would need to be respected. I am not saying that Scottish independance is conditional upon the consent of the other parties to the Union, merely that unravelling the Union is not as simple as it is sometimes alleged.
If the UK were to leave the EU, the only changes to our political system would be that we dispense with an expensive election every five years and recover our sovereignty over a swathe of policy areas – including foreign policy. That would actually do much to rejuvenate our political system. It would not even require any significant changes in the statute book since most EU derived legislation is enacted in the UK either via Acts of Parliament or Statutory Instruments, so would stand unless/until amended by our Parliament.
The economic consequences of leaving the EU are nowhere near as calamitous as the EUs supporters claim. The idea that the EU would suddenly throw up a host of tariff / non-tariff barriers against the UK is laughable – it would damage their economies more than ours.
So, while leaving the EU may have political and trade ramifications, once the UK had decided to do so, a swift and orderly exit could easily be achieved.
For Scotland to leave the Union would not be as simple, swift or clean. The reason I drew the comparison with colonies is that in most cases these already had a local political / adminsitrative infrastructure (even if often not that developed) and had not been fully integrated into the colonial power. In the case of Scotland, despite its historic separate legal system and a decade of devolution, the country is fully integrated into the United Kingdom. A large part of Scotland’s economy is dependant on the public sector – a public sector that supports the entire UK. The unravelling required to separate out what functions are required for an independant Scotland, and what needs to be repatriated to the residual Union is phenomenal, and would likely leave behind it extensive unemployment.
Separation is not impossible, but the transition period would need to be measured in decades not months.
It is on that last point that I believe supporters of independance are being disingenuous.
Paul,
“The EU treaties have no provisions for a member to withdraw.”
But the Lisbon treaty does…. Just think UKIP are opposing a treatry that givbes them the right to do what they want.
Peter.
Paul , my point was simply that you don’t have polls on what other countries should or should not do. The only logical poll in England/Wales/NI re independence would be on whether England/Wales/INI should separate from the Union, not whether Scotland should.
Peter,
Delicious irony I agree. Nonethless, I see that as more of a sop to entice us further in. If we said “NO” loud enough, the others would agree to let us go whatever the treaties say. That is the fundamental difference between law and politics.
John,
You may find that you get a very different response if you offer all the people of the UK an option to consder a revised, federal, Union structure.
certainly it would be unfair to agree the terms of any divorce settlement without inviting the opinion of the parties who will be footing the bill.
Paul – ” revised, federal, Union structure.”
that’s more accurate, but it’s still not going to work. If the result was that Scotland should be forced to go it alone against their wishes, I just can’t see that happening. Therefore a poll would be pointless – just another way of saying “look how little we value you”.
Appealing to the nationalist mood in times like this is most unpleasant.
John
I seriously doubt that England would ever ask Scotland to leave against Scotland’s wishes.
It is true that you can easily round up a number of bloggers suggesting that England would be better off without Scotland, but in the main these are from the dotty fringe who are fed up of Scottish “whinging” or domination of the British cabinet. The nearest to a party calling for “English” independance is the English Democrats.
Where there may be a legitimate grievance is that the devolution settlements for Scotland, Wales and NI have no parallel in England. Indeed, in contrast, we have seen a combination of a cack-handed attempt by Prescott to break England into regions, while at the same time power has been sucked up into the centre (or overseas). That is a reflection on how poorly Labour’s many constitutional changes have been thought through.
I don’t think that an “English Parliament” is necessarily the right solution, but genuine devolution of power to local authorities in England, coupled with a reduction in the level of general government intervention, would probably defuse that.
I have no problems with an English Parliament; many countries of the world (Australia, Sth Africa, Germany, France, Usa…) have federal systems. At the moment we are stuck between Westminster doing the lot (for England) and a devolved -or federal- govt. and so are stuck in an illogical state. What a surprise.
Here is an interesting question:
Which is the more likely to happen first,
a – Scotland leaving the Union; or
b – the UK leaving the EU ?
If (b) happened first, what effect would that have on the likelihood of (a) ?
Paul :
“genuine devolution of power to local authorities in England”
I think that’s almost achieved consensus status hasn’t it? (although one could argue about “genuine”.
However, level of general Govt intervention is different. Personally, I’m a little left of New Labour on some issues (I’d have raised the top rate to 45% in 97), though I’ve never believed in measuring for its own sake. I get the impression that people want proper Govt intervention to prevent undesirable decisions being made on account of accountancy.
In other words, specific interventions rather than “general intervention”
The biggest mistake re the banking crisis was the lowering of the “general level” without increasing the specific testing and bar-setting that would have rung alarm bells earlier.
In answer to your question, Scotland leaving the UK would lead to their immediate application to join the EU. UK leaving the EU would lead to an increase in the pressure to have an independence referendum in Scotland.
Personally, if Labour get in the answer is a and if the Tories get in the answer is b, swiftly followedf by a.
I don’t think Scotland would be allowed to leave, Scotland is part of Britain. No one else in the world would recognise Scotland as a seperate country, as people would respect Britain’s territorial sovereignity.
If you think about Kosovo who tried to split from Serbia, only 50 countries recognise Kosovo, and that is probably because not many people respect Serbia because of the past. But Britian is a a very much respected nation. Do you really think America, France and Germany would recognise Scotland’s independance against Britain’s wishes? I doubt it very much.
Scotland would be supported by a few minor countries who don’t like Britain, even China who clearly doesn’t like Britain wouldn’t dare recognise Scotland for fear about what precedent that would set for Tibet.
I think Scottish independance is a long way off, and would definately need consent of the rest of Britain before being allowed.
Sorry Salmond.
Oh and while we are at it, abolish those silly national parliaments, they serve no purpose, other than to fuel the separitists claims.
People need to check there information, Scotland isn’t a country in a Union, Great Britain is a sovereign state, of which Scotland is a part of.
Richard Manns,
the Scottish conception of popular sovereignty rests on the authority of the Community of the Realm to choose their king, as expressed in the Declaration of Arbroath in 1320.
“Quem si ab inceptis desisteret, regi Anglorum aut Anglicis nos aut Regnum nostrum volens subicere, tanquam inimicum nostrum et sui nostrique Juris subuersorem statim expellere niteremur et alium Regem nostrum qui ad defensionem nostram sufficeret faceremus. ”
The historical precedent to that is the Celtic custom of tanistry, whereby the claimant regarded as the most effective was chosen to be king or leader of the local tribe. Primogeniture wasn’t finally established till the 15th century in Scotland.
Parliamentary sovereignty has no place in the Scottish constitutional tradition. The Union between the Scottish and English Parliaments could not confer sovereignty on the UK parliament, as the Scottish parliament did not hold this sovereignty in the first place.
The UK parliament is not sovereign in Scotland. We are.
Max King,
thanks for that contribution to the ongoing constitutional debate.
It can come of no surprise that the whole notion of Britishness is in terminal decline in Scotland when the defence of the Union is invariably couched in such arrogant terms.
This is just an observation and my constitutional law knowledge can be written on the back of a postage stamp..but if Primogeniture was established after Arbroath with the King exercising executive power, with the crowns united in 1603 and Parliament then enabling the Act of Union, surely common law would then apply that sovereignty would rest with the UK parliament. After all there is no oath unlike the one which the Spanish monarch had to take when faced with one set of unruly nobility which was “we are equal to you and it is only on our consent”. There is no separate area within the various treaties AFAIK (and please correct me if I am wrong) where the United Kingdom signs on behalf of itself and Scotland.It signs for all constituents.
2. If Sovereignty resides with the Scottish people and after a referendum and the split, then according to some commentators (Bagehot; The Economist) Scotland would most certainly have to leave the EU as the law as applies, applies to the UK as a whole. This would be for say, 2 years whilst Fishing, Farming and the rest is sorted out and then the application for admission would be thrown in. The Scots will have to face a vote from the French (should be easy – the auld alliance!) and the unanimous consent of the other members of the European Union. If I were an English politican who really really wanted to squeeze things out……!!
3. Would the vote for an independant Scotland have to be unanimous through all the regions rather like the parliament votein the first instance. Shetland would vote no, possibly Orkney as well; so in the free process of self determination Shetland and the bloody great oil finds which lie off the West coast of Unst would stay part of the UK? I would find it hypocritical if the argument went it is not up to the rest of UK to stop Scotland’s destiny, well OK its not up to Scotland to choose which way the islands want to go then……!
I am all for a vote. If the vote is No, please stop whinging and agitating a la Quebec, if the answer is Yes – then fine. Best of luck and like the rest of us you will find that any romantic notions of being able to choose your own way will disappear up its own backside as power inevitably drains from the nation state to the supra national institutions, and in those institutions those with the bigger voice will be those with the biggest populations and he who pays the piper will call the tune.
Personally, I am finding it getting a bit bitty north of the border. A small but telling example; I once took a tour around the Parliament building at Holyrood and very interesting it was too. I signed the visitors book – sneering voice “so you’re English”; no I am British came the reply.
Max,
“If you think about Kosovo who tried to split from Serbia, only 50 countries recognise Kosovo, and that is probably because not many people respect Serbia because of the past. ”
But they all recognised Bosnia, Croatia and Slovenia when they democratically voted to leave Yugoslavia. Kosovo wasn’t seen as a seperate country by the majority of nations, I think you’ll find that scotland will be.
The Wiki entry on Scots puts the world population at 30m, of which almost 10m are in the USA, 4m in Canada and 1.5m in Australia. If the Scots vote for Independence all three of these will almost cdrtainly support it.
Peter.
Canada woln’t by a long chalk Peter. And Yugoslavia is perhaps not the best example as it involved a bitter civil war whose wounds time will take a long time to heal.
Cogload,
Canada will as the canadains have long accepted the right of Quebec to leave if it ever voted for it.
In addition both crotia and Slovenia were recognised before the fighting started. It was Serbia’s unwillingness to accept the democratic vote that lead to war.
Unless you are suggesting that it is now the position of the major western democracies, that democratic votes should be ignored if a larger neighbour is willing to use violence to overturn them.
Peter.
Cogload,
English Common Law does not apply. Scotland is a separate legal jurisdiction.
In the test case in 1953 (MacCormick v. Lord Advocate), Lord Cooper, Lord President of the Court of Sessions said:
“The principle of the unlimited Sovereignty of Parliament is a distinctively English principle which has no counterpart in Scottish Constitutional Law…Considering that the Union legislation extinguished the Parliaments of England and Scotland, and replaced them by a new Parliament, I have difficulty in seeing why it should be supposed that the new Parliament of Great Britain must inherit all the peculiar characteristics of the English Parliament but none of the the Scottish Parliament, as if all that happened in 1707 was that Scottish representatives were admitted to the Parliament of England. That is not what was done.”
Regarding EU membership, as a dissolution of the Union would legally constitute the end of the UK, either both Scotland and England-and-Wales-and-a-wee-bit-of-Ireland would have to reapply or neither would.
Agentmancuso:
I would like to see that tested in the Privy Council – which it will do. I know that there are separate legal systems in both countries as we had to apply to the courts to go and visit relatives after my parents divorced.
You and I are going to disagree on the question of EU membership; from my understanding and prima facie looking at your arguments and that case as well – if Scotland leaves then the UK continues as the three. There would for instance be no requirement for the UK to dissolve and reapply if NI voted to join Eire, which is where one line of your argument would follow.
So for the time being we will agree to disgree on that point.
Peter:
I disagree here. Canada has stated that it would abide by the decision of Quebec maybe, but it hardly wants to encourage separatism in its own ranks does it? The same I would argue applies to Spain and its creaking federalist system; recognising Scotland would add fuel to the basque fire….As for the expat population sure; they exert a big influence but not as great as one would like to think (see NI).
Slovenia wasn’t recognised before the fighting started. Croatia wasn’t – it was recognised by the Germans to the horror of the rest of Europe and that decision by Helmut arguably lit the torch for the anarchy and chaos which followed.
Slovenia was recognised as an independant republic by the EU in 1992, the 10 day war was in 1991.
Agentmancuso – see Charlemagne (The Economist; April 19th 2007 for a more lucid explanation of the setup – and I quote:
“Yet that is a bigger if than the SNP admits. The party insists that an independent Scotland would have automatic, seamless membership of the EU as a successor to the defunct United Kingdom. The European Commission’s legal advisers insist otherwise. They say that what is left of Britain would remain an EU member but that Scotland would have to apply to join as a new member, a process that triggers all sorts of complications. Not the least of these would be a referendum in France, whose constitution—thanks to French anxiety about Turkish membership—now requires such a vote on all future EU applicants (bar Croatia, whose entry talks kicked off before the deadline”
Scotland will never gain independance.
I think the rest of the world would side with Britain not Scotland.
May I remind you, China has a dim view on this subject, Salmond received a firm warning by armed police during his visit to China in which he sometimes promoted Scottish independance. Needless to say, China quickly made sure he shut up.
And in today’s world China is a big player, no one dares recognise Tibet, as no one wishes to offend China, I think coupled with how many allies Britain has, I don’t think many would dare recognise Scotland.
The only countries I can think of that would recognise Scotland would be North Korea, just to spite us infadels in the west, and Serbia as a retaliation for us recognising Kosovo.
Well done Scotland, 2 countries would support you, now only 211 more to go.
I can see the letter landing on Obama’s desk now informing him of Scotland’s independance, at first he’d laugh, then when he realised Salmon was serious he’d reach for his Atlas, as most Americans view Britain as England, and are unaware of Wales and Scotland.
Plus the little matter of Scotland’s survival, amy I remind Scotland that the North Sea oil is property of Great Britain, not property of Scotland, so if Scotland wants to cut its ties with the rest of Britain, it will indeed be cutting its claim to the North Sea Oil.
Indeed, if such a situation were to occur, I can see Scotland being left penniless, envious of Moldova and Zimbabwe for all their “wealth and riches” I would give Salmond 1 year, before crawling back to Britain with a begging bowl.
Scotland is so intertwined in GB, it would take ages to entangle, now all it would take is for one Prime Minister to change the Law and education in Scotland to match the rest of Great Britain as well as make the Bank of England and RBS into Bank of Great Britain, and that entanglement would become an irretrievable knot. Oh and, dissolve that Scottish parliament which costs citizens millions each year, to be represented by both an MP and an MSP, why not jsut be represented by an MP, and have one parliament make the decisions for a whole country, I think that would be a lot cheaper.
It would be very quick to end any Scottish rebellion, indeed as mentioned above, mixing England, Wales, and Scotland, and NI, into one Great Britain where there is no distinction between one to the other, indeed have a British football team etcetera, and Scotland would be so entangled, the idea of Scotland getting independance would be equivalent to that of Cornwall getting independance.
Cornwall is now an irretrievable part of England, when 100s of years ago it was a celtic nation just like Scotland the brave.
I think regional paraliaments in England would solve this issue. England is too dominant a nation in the UK, and it keeps growing. Split it up into regions, under an English senate with the leaders of each devolved region meeting, to elect a yearly first minister of England.
Why is it the further you get away from London the poorer English people are? Cornwall and the north east. Power is too centralized in London. These regions would thrive with more control of their own affairs.
All the machinations of parliaments are not going to solve the issue. It will be decided by the Scottish people.
The fastest way to encourage a YES vote for independence is to continue to deny the Scots the right to make their own decision. I encourage our unionist friends to continue with the scaremongering and innuendo about a British veto. It helps considerably.
A better option would be to convince the Scots that their best choice for a prosperous future is by staying in the union. Tell us what the union will mean for our people and convince us that we are better to stay. If you cannot do that, then step aside and let us get on with building our own future.
How long do you have to off been a member on this site before your comments dont have to go through moderation?
@Doonhammer
I take offence slightly at your comment?
Why should the rest of the nation have to appease Scotland and convince it to stay?
I don’t think Scotland would survive very long on its own if at all.
And I’m sorry, but Great Britain is a sovereign nation, you can’t just have parts of a sovereign nation trying to break free, just look at Tibet, and even Kosovo, which I deem as a failed attempt.
Kosovo now floats in limbo and faces an economic crisis far worse than the one which we currently bemoan. Kosovo, yes has acheived self rule, although it has no money no resources, and a small workforce, and hardly any international recognisation (under 25%) and is a member of hardly any organisations, I think they are in the IMF, but that is about it.
Does Scotland really want to end up like Kosovo,
In response Doonhammer, I don’t think it’s the rest of Britain that should be trying to persuade Scotland to stay, it is Scotland who should be trying to persuade the rest of Britain to allow it to remain.
I tell you, if there was a referendum in England, “Should we kick out scotland and leave them to fend for themselves” the result would be comprehensive, whereas at the moment, Scotlands “Do we stay or go” question is on 40% each way.
Tell me Doonhammer? Why does the rest of Britain even want Scotland to stay??? And before you mention that North Sea Oil, it is recognised internationally as the property of Britain, if you cut off from Britain, you cut off your claim to that oil. In fact, you cut off your claim to anything British, for example, the NHS, University funding, education, you know all the stuff that the British Government gives you money for.
Cogload,
you are of course correct about the Privy Council. It depends largely on the potential determination of the British State to crush democracy. It’s unlikely that they will try the same murderous tactics used when Ireland voted for independence, but making things difficult diplomatically is certainly a possibility.
Paul,
You write -
‘Re Scotland, the legal situation is subtly different. The Union was not by Treaty but by acts of both parliaments.’
WRONG – The Union was by Treaty – Treaty of Union 1707. The Acts of Union in both parliaments were the ratifying instruments of that Treaty.
‘Yet the Scots made a grave miscalculation. They thought of the treaty as a written constitution, and, even with all the concessions they had obtained, they would not have accepted that an omni-competent had power to abrogate provisions which they fondly imagined to be ‘fundamental and essential’…But the theories of English constitutional lawyers prevailed, and the union has proved to have no more sanctity than any other statute. From time to time attempts have been made to appeal to the terms of union, but always without success. The list of violations of the treaty is already a long one, and always growing longer…The fact is that, contrary to the beliefs and hopes of those who framed it, the treaty of union has proved to be a mere scrap of paper, to be torn up at the whim of any British government.’
SOURCE: ‘Scotland: The Shaping of a Nation’ by Gordon Donaldson, pp. 58-59, ISBN 0 7153 6904 0.
‘If the Scottish people expressed a desire for independence the stage would be set for a direct clash between what is the English doctrine of sovereignty and the Scottish doctrine of the sovereignty of the people.’
SOURCE: ‘The Operation of Multi-Layer Democracy’, Scottish Affairs Committee Second Report of Session 1997-1998, HC 460-I, 2 December 1998, paragraph 27.
As an Englishman I am thoroughly fed up with the anti-English sneers of our Celtic and gaelic brethren whilst through the Barnett formula paying for the privilege. I agree that it is up to each of the four nations of the union to decide their own destiny, and therefore I would like England to withdraw from the United Kingdom. That should put the cat amongst the pigeons as Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can then finance themselves as best they can!
Max, it is unfortunate that you choose to personalize this, but if you are slightly offended or not, that is irrelevant. As a non-Scot, your comments are also irrelevant in the big picture.
The union is not going to survive by bluster or threats. It will only survive if the partners feel that it is best to continue the union.
You are not going to pressure us into staying, or threaten us, or try to scare with tales of insolvency. Most of our English neighbours would reject your venom. If the English people wish to dissovle the union, we Scots will recognize their sovereignty and wish them well. We will not threaten or insult but negotiate the best future relationship between our two countries. If you feel this the best option, go ahead and demand your referendum, we will not stand in your way.
As for the oil, your theft is not recognized by anyone. You imposed it on the Scotttish people without our consent. International law is clear and supports the natural resources are the property of the sovereign nation wherein they reside. if Scotland become independent, the oil and other natural resources will belong to the Scots.
Tony, if the English people voted to dissolve the union, a cheer would erupt from John O’Groats to Lands End. That is all you need to know about your so-called union.
Max,
If Scotland votes for Independence nations have a simlpe choice they can accept that that is the will of the Scottish people and recognise it or they can ignore a democratic vote.
Accepting it might give incouragement to those who wish to follow Scotland but not accepting it has far more serious consequences.
If Governments in democratic nations take a stance that says they can ignore democracy when it is inconvenient then they lay themselves open to domestic attack.
Sarkozy might not want to acknowledge Scotland ( although like most french politicians I suspect he’d probably be delighted to do so) but the French people would as would the Americans because for the average american for the US not to recognise a legitimate vote for Independence in a Countruy like Scotland would be an afront.
As to the not being able to survive bit, that is just nonsense. Scotland even without oil is roughly on a par with Denamrk Ireland and Finland and ahead of the Likes of Portugal or the Czech republic. as well as all three baltic republics.
These states may not be as wealthy as the big four, the UK, Germany france and Italy, but to suggests that staes of that size and wealth can’t survive is economically illiterate.
If you want to make a case against scottish Independence you will really have to do better than comparisons with Kosovo.
Oh and oil is recognised Internationally as it lies in British territorial waters where the law of the sea gives us the right to exploit the seabed out to 200miles or to the half way point between us and another country.
Post Independence that same law will put the best part of it in Scottish territorial waters and unless the likes of Canada want the Russians putting oil rigs off of Baffin Island and the US Cuban rigs at the Florida Keys they will insist of the enforcement of the rules that protect their own resources.
If you really think that the likes of the US will back Britain against a democratic vote in Scotland you might want to read up on Suez, or indeed look at last weeks stories about Bermuda and guantanemo.
Final I did an wide search of news web sites and I can’t find a thing about Alex Salmond being silenced in China by armed police or anyone else… any chance of posting a link.
Peter.
A couple of points. Though I fully support Scottish independence, as do many English people, I would like to make the distinction between a colony voting for independence, and a part of the UK voting for independence.
Your mention of the US made me think of Texas, where I believe there is now a majority of Mexican-descended population. Suppose for a moment that they decided to vote for independence from the USA. Would the other States and the Federal Government feel that they had a right to have some say in the debate? Isn’t this analogous to the Scottish situation?
Personally I am in favour of the Union. Being a mongrel Brit with English, Welsh and Scots blood – I find English nationalism as distasteful – we now live in a world where pooling sovereignty is becoming commonplace and very much in our favour.
However you cannot argue with the popular vote however “wrong” a personal opinion is. Like Ulster, if they vote to “rejoin” the south then you cannot stand in their way; if Scotland votes for independance then you cannot stand in their way – however it will be a day that I will regret.
I am sorry that this thread has become personal and coloured – I think that the SNP vote in the 30’s is strong but would like to see that tested under a full frontal assault at a general election – which may happen if the pro union parties collectively “gang up”. However we live in interesting times.
My apologies to Cllr Cairns and Agentmancuso if you think I overstepped the further up as well.
PeterB, Scotland is no more a state of the UK than the UK is a state of the EU. Scotland and England are sovereign countries who agreed to be governed by a united parliament and government. When this occurred, they closed their former parliaments and replaced it with a union parliament.
What can be put together can also be taken apart. The union exists as long as the partners agree.
The UK can remain part of the EU for as long as it wishes. Would we agree to a proposition that stated once we joined the EU, every member of the EU must agree to vote to the UK to leave? Would any EU member country have joined in those circumstances?
Doonhammer
I am afraid you are mistaken, England and Scotland are not 2 different Sovereign countries under one banner.
I am afraid, Great Britain is Sovereign as far as the UN and EU are concerned, and the majority of Britain.
Apart from different sports teams, GB is always represented as one sovereign entity.
Great Britain is sovereign, and that is why it is by the grace of Westminster that you have a Scottish Parliament, Scotland is no more sovereign than Cornwall.
Now one of your arguments is that other countries would recognise a democratic vote in Scotland for independance, if that is the case, please expalin to me why no one recognises South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Negorno-Kerabkh.
All 3 of these countries/states have their own individual parliaments, and all have had referendums for independance, and all chose independance.
At the moment, no one in the world recognise Negorno-Kerabkh, and only Russia recognises South Ossetia and Abkazia, but this is only to anger Georgia.
Also, I am not sure of the situation in Tamil Eelam, although I am sure they may have voted for independace, which was then crushed my the Srilankan military only a few weeks ago.
So if Scotland wants to be recognised independant, after its own referendum, I am afraid there seems to be a bit of a queue forming. Scotland will have no more claim to independance than Kosovo or any of the other regions mentioned above.
I am afraid Scotland the brave is no longer a sovereign nation, but in fact, a mere region of Great Britain.
Also, Scotland is irretrievably British, does anyone in Scotland still speak Scottish, if so please tell me how many?
Scotland will never be recognised as independant without the rest of Britain’s consent. I am afraid the world works on precedent before democracy, and I am sure many countries would fear the precedent that would be set, if regions could suddenly just vote to split away. For one, it weakens territorial integrity, and leads to a lowering of standing of the country.
Also, your claim that America would recognise Scotland due to the Scot population over there is nonsense.
America doesn’t even allow its own states to get independance, and stopped the confederacy of states wanting independance in its tracks all those years ago. If America was to recognise Scotland, people would argue, why didn’t America recognise the Southern States as independant all those years ago.
Obama is a clever man, and America are very good at international politics, I’m sure they’d prefer Britian to be in one piece, so as to maintain its own stability.
On a final note, I can’t find the site where it said Salmond received a warning from Chinese Police, although I can assure you it did happen. I believe it was on BBC News, but I don’t know how to find old stories on BBC News, as it only goes back a certain amount of time.
I suspect this is going to end up rather like Quebec – the separatist party will continue to gain support but would fail a referendum.
Well said Wolf.
Max, it is obvious that no amount of factual data is going to change your perceptions. Fortunately, for Scotland, you Kiplingesgue views of the UK and empire died off after the First World War and are only kept alive in the bigotry of those who pine for the days when Scots knew their place and “England expects all to do their duty”.
Your argument would be belittled by all political parties in Scotland even those who support the retention of the union. Arguments like you have just made only make the argument for independence stronger and the good day come sooner.
Wolf, you may be right but keep in mind that the last Quebec referendum had the independence vote only 50,000 behind, a margin of less than 1%.
For over 20 years, Canada fought the Quebecois movement with many of the scare tactics and bigotry espoused in some previous posts. After almost losing the vote, they changed tactics and starting asking the quebecois people to explain their grievances and tried to address them. This has not ended the debate but it has strengthened the pro-Canada side.
It shows that there are two ways to defeat an independence movement. First you can supress it at the barrel of the gun like in Sri Lanka, or second, you can offer a better future.
Those who choose the scare tactics and bigotry only strengthen the independence movement.
Doonhammer,
Your last point is pertinent, not just in relation to Scottish independance but also in how the UK as a whole (but mainly England) deals with the BNP.
John TT responded to my question above suggesting that (a) is inevitable. I happen to disagree.
If the UK were to withdraw from the EU, a British government would recover control of agricultural and fisheries policy, which would enable regeneration of large parts of the economy in the Highlands and Grampiam regions. That is a prime example of addressing the concerns and grievances of local people. At that point what price the SNP policy of “independance in Europe” ?
So the point of my question is whether a Tory government which delivered the above benefits would actually do more to rebuild the Union than a Lab or Lab/LD one which allows sovereignty to seep progressively away to the detriment of Scotland’s economy ?
[Just for the pedants - no EU withdrawal is not (yet) official Tory policy, but of the main UK parties it is the most likely to deliver it.]
I am not British, though my dream is to be one. For the time being I am Greek. I’ve been twice to the UK, once to Wales and once to England. Whenever I breathed British air I felt like in paradise. I loved Britain, I loved the UK due to it’s being a multicultural nation, a nation respecting and loving difference. I don’t know wether you care about a foreigner’s point of view but anyway, here it is. NATIONALISM IS NEVER AN ANSWER TO ANYTHING!.I repeat. NATIONALISM IS NEVER AN ANSWER TO ANYTHING! Everything bad that has ever happened in the world is due to some people having an overinflated sense of self, ego, nationhood etc (e.g. Nazis, Zionism, Serbs etc). Being a Greek I can give you many examples that people have had here since ancient times (”Pas mi Ellin Varvaros- AKA – Anyone not Greek is a barbarian”) and where have such tactics and practices led Greece? To being a voiceless, powerless, and useless nation with no sense of respect for anything different despite being the oldest nation in Europe. The UK is a million times stronger together than apart. To me England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland don’t mean anything. They are just some random uninteresting flags with crosses and x’s. I grew to love the UK, the Union Jack (it’s sported everywhere in the world, on clothes etc, it’s the best flag ever), everything British. The only way forward is through concord not discord, union not dis-union. The only way forward is through constant union (e.g. EU, future global union etc). The only way ahead is by being selfless and by not harbouring negative sentiments and ideas issuing from the ego.
My personal motto for the UK is [LATIN] “e pluribus unum” (From many, one).
P.S. I love anything British, hence I love England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland so long as they are part of the UK.
‘AGENTMANCUSO
Cogload,
English Common Law does not apply. Scotland is a separate legal jurisdiction.’
A point many people forget of course is that it is – at best- only a partly United Kingdom (and never a wholly United Kingdom) with Scotland retaining independence in Law and Education and probably something else. And now, of course increasingly getting further independent powers…
Cogload,
Informed contributions are always welcome, as is the civility in which your opinions have been couched. Unionism would be far better served were all its proponents of such a mould.
Unfortunately, boorish arrogance and jingoism are far more typical, as per other contributions here.
As for a pan-Unionist approach between the other parties, there are various practical difficulties, not least that great many Labour voters could be described as ’soft nationalists’, and would display their horror at any serious pact with the Tories by voting SNP.
Likewise, many Liberal Democrats are deeply uneasy at the Unionist line being pushed by the party hierarchy, believing it to be a betrayal of the century-old liberal Home Rule tradition.
And the Tories, as the most ‘Unionist party of all’, are stuck in the electoral wilderness in Scotland, despite rampant success elsewhere. It is probable that the centre-right will only recover serious ground after the Scottish Conservatives have UDI ‘declared on them’ by an English Conservative party playing the West Lothian card.
While I respect Anonymous’s views about Britain staying together, I disagree with the Eu point. Britain is very detached from Europe, and I can’t wait for the day we leave this dreaded union. Anonymous, I feel the only reason you support the Eu is because you can come to Britain whenever you like. SOmething I personally disagree with.
Cogload, I see you are the first to play the Empire card. I expected as such much sooner.
Why is someone who believes Scotland is part of Britain and doesn’t have the right to just split away, a supporter of the Empire? As I can tell you, I do not support the Empire.
Apart from accusing me of bigotry cogload you did nothing to address my points. Clearly yourself and your cause are defeated when you have to resort to insults like you just did, and fail to address any of my points, all of which are valid.
So, as you seem to have caught Politician fever, an illness that renders the victim completely incapable of answering or remembering a question, I shall only reiterate this once.
Why have none of the other regions I mentioned (South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and Negorno-Kerabkh) been recognised, despite your claim that most countries recognise a democratic vote.
Also, can you back up your point about America, supporting scottish independance if Scots voted for it, even though America crushed its own regional rebellion years ago, and has a new clause in its own constitution saying that states cant’t leave, and would be fearful of the precedent it would set if regions could just break away?
Finally. you accuse me of scare tactics, please explain to me what it is that I have tried to scare you with, indeed I believe it is you using the scare tactics, after every comment pro unionist, you claim that unless we bow down to Scotland they will (illegally) seperate from Britian.
Understand that England and Scotland are dead. The only thing defining a slight difference, is the law, education, and fact you have your own parliament. 3 minor details that can quickly be dealt with with an Act of Parliament, or a meeting of the Privy Council.
@Argentmancusco
I don’t really consider Labour pro-unionist, they claim it however, like all politicians, what they claim and what they do are completely seperate things, Labour proved it wasn’t pro-unionist, when it gave Scotland it’s own parliament, and tried to break England into 9 different regions, thus weakening England’s strength.
Plaid Cymru is the party FOR Wales
SNP is the party FOR Scotland
Labour is the party AGAINST England, why else would they try and break it up? Why else would they use that silly method that a portion of English Tax Payers money gets given to Scotland, why else, give Wales, and Scotland their own parliaments and leave ENgland without one.
Personally, I would like to see the regional parliaments/assemblies abolished, and see the power devolve further down into the local councils and thus the local people, this would settle it for both sides, this allows the Scottish people to be very much self determined, as they have more control of their local area (all the power the scottish parliament had) and it makes everywhere in Britain equal as there is no longer a system where Scottish Politicians vote on ENglish issues, but English politicians cant vote on scottish issues.
Also, the complaint that England is too powerful would be gone, as it would all be your local council deals with local issues, and the national parliament would deal with national issues like terror. There would be no problems like we have now, with people believing Scotland has too much power, of if your in Scotland people believing England had too much power, as every council would be equal in its own powers, and continue with the system of every constituency being represented by an MP for the National parliament.
The debate about too much power versus not enough power is a silly one to have. Either a country has the power to meet the needs of its citizens or it doesn’t. The power of the parliament is to serve not to impose. Our MP’s have forgotten that important point as have many on this site.
How the needs are best met is a question that has evolved over the centuries and will continue to evolve. How we are governed today may not be how we are governed tomorrow.
Max, you accuse others of insulting behaivour, but you are oblivious to the impact of your words and opinions on others. Your comment that declared both England and Scotland dead is deeply offensive to many. Your self-congratulation and jingoistic pro-British attitudes are insulting and pathetic.
You argue for the right of local representation but deny that right to Scots to choose for themselves how they wish to be governed and by whom.
Let me make it simple for you, I don’t give a tinkers damn how you you choose to be governed or by which style of representation, if any, but YOU will not make that decision for me. I am a free man and I will choose for myself. If my countrymen choose the independence path, I will accept it and work to make our country strong so it may serve the people. If they choose to remain in the union, I will do the same. If they choose another path, I will do the same. The real point here is that we will choose our own path and not have it imposed by others.
Max King,
Please calm down. As Talleyrand would say – “pas de zele”.
There are many arguments which can be deployed in favour of the Union (just as there are arguments in favour of independence) – but the idea that Scottish independance is dependant on which foreign powers might / might not recognise it is not one of them.
If Scotland were to negotiate its independance from the UK, then the first “foreign” country to recognise Scotland as an independent sovereign nation will be the United Kingdom (though it may then need to look for a new name since it will no longer be a Union of two Kingdoms).
Your arguments appear to be based on the premise that Scotland might opt for UDI. While some nationalists may dream of doing so, I do not think that UDI is SNP policy. As far as I know, the SNP position has always been to seek a negotiated separation on the back of clear mandate in a referendum. (Cllr Cairns may wish to confirm). While Salmond may occasionally use confrontation with Westminster as a tactic, this is not a strategic objective.
Any other approach would be foolhardy because of the extent of disentanglement which would be required. Antagonising the rest of the UK to the point of goading England into obstructing independance may help fuel nationalist demands, but would lead to administrative chaos and could cripple the nascent state before it could establish its own effective fiscal and monetary system.
.
Paul, in the nicest possilbe way of saying it, and I do mean this nicely but it might sound rude, if so excuse me, I would ask you to check your facts.
It was Cogload who implied they would go for Unilateral Declaration of Independance, not me to quote Cogload “you will not stop ME”
Yes they can choose the route of negotiation, but none of the 3 westminster parties support this, so it would be dead in the water. Obviously, if negotiation worked, then everyone would recognise them, however if they were to go for UDI against Britain, they would be stopped in their tracks, I think the rest of Britain has the political clout to stop such a move, and very few countries are willing to accept any UDI, let alone a UDI against the 5th biggest economy in the world, as lets be honest, politicians from other countries don’t get involved if its a big country at stake, they all recognise Kosovo, as Serbia is a LEDC, with little money, army or resources, but no one dares recognise Tibet for fear of lost business with China.
Plus, UDI is illegal, so try dealing with that.
Max,
I have reread the thread above but cannot locate the quote you attribute to Cogload.
In your comments above you have consistently couched the argument in terms of whether the rest of Britain would allow Scotland to leave. That presupposes that Scotland were declaring its independance without the negotiated consent of the UK, ergo UDI.
As to what the attitude of the Unionist parties would be in the event of a Scottish decision in favour of independance, they are most likley to be in the terms outlined by Cogload in one of his earlier posts above. Sad regret at the outcome but respect for the decision of the Scottish people.
The battle to preserve the Union needs to be fought before any referendum on independance, not as a rearguard action obstructing the path to separation after the event. Even intimating that this may be so is to hand ammunition to those who would break the Union.
FWIW – if Salmond were to declare UDI today, he would rightly be rebuffed not just by the government of the UK, but by any other democratic country overseas. It would probably also do more to put back the cause for independance than anything the Unionist parties could currently say or do. But, if he does so after he has just secured a convincing mandate for independance in a referendum, who is to deny him ?
No democratic government worth the name could do other than to work constructively for an orderly break-up of the Union, even while regretting the task. However, with the best will in the world, that process will be neither easy nor swift.
On your last point, things may be legal, or not. But that is very different from right or wrong. Issues such as this are not determined by what the legal position is, but by the passion and emotions of the people concerned. The role of the lawyers will always be to find a way to give “legitimacy” to the view expressed.
Paul H
I believe to join the UN you need to be legally recognised by all 5 of the Security council do you not? I think you do.
And America wouldn’t allow it for fear of the precedent that one of their states may leave, the South had a mandate which was then crushed by Lincoln and forced to rejoin the union. I hope it doesnt come to that.
Max,
If, God forbid, the Scots voted for independance, the US would have no grounds for refusing to recognise Scotland or block its membership of the UN. (They may be less enamoured if Scotland declined to join Nato). Doing so is hardly likely to encourage any US state to embark on the path to independance, not even the Lone-Star state.
Parallels with the American civil war are misplaced. The Confederation was set up because the southern states felt their economic interests were being subordinated to those of the industrial north. Slavery gave Lincoln a moral pretext to launch what was effectively an economic war for the south’s agricultural resources. I am not aware of any grievances that might lead a state to consider leaving the USA today.
As I said earlier, if we want to preserve the Union, then we need to present positive reasons for Scotland to remain. That includes understanding and addressing any issues which may give grounds for grievance (however unjustified one may think those grounds are). Threatening or bullying is no basis for a partnership – whether the enterprise be marriage, a business venture, or a political Union.
We may disagree as to means, but I believe we are united as to ends.
Well said Paul.
Well said Paul.
But America isn’t the only one of the Security Council who could block Scotland, the rest of Britain indeed could, I believe Liberals and Labour would accept Scotland’s breakaway, especially as Labour secretly support it, but I feel a Conservative government is coming in next, with a majority, and they are far more unionst than the other parties, and Cameron being the toff he is, wouldn’t want to feel spurned by Scotland, so would try to regain control and some sense of power maybe by blocking Scotland’s bid if he deemed it an illegal breakaway, say if they resorted to UDI, and I doubt cameron would negotiate to the point of independance, he might grant more powers, but I think he;d insist on them staying in the Union.
Also, America might veto them due to an interest in keeping Britain stable, and protect the union that they revolted against, but now have a strange fascination with. Then theres Russia, increasingly nice to Britain and America, trying to build better relations, Russia lending Iceland money, so Uk citizens get their money back owed from Iceland, sending their own navy ships to free a British/American ship captured by Somalian pirates. The list goes on. Aswell, doesn’t Russia have its own regions that it wants to keep, it wouldnt want to set a precedent of letting them split, and it would look hypocritical of allowing Scotland and not allowing Kosovo, (IF SCOTLAND CHOSE UDI)
Then, my favourite, China, do you really believe that after such troubles with Tibet, China would even contemplate allowing a sepertist region to become its own region, and although I have lost the article about salmond being warned in china, because the BBC NEWs doesnt allow you to go back to far, I think that also plays a part,
So anyone of the 4 above could veto Scotland’s independance claims attempts to join the UN, it only takes 1 to say no and Scotland cant join.
Max,
As I have explained above, I think you are barking up the wrong tree in terms of anyone seeking to block Scottish independance post facto or who may not recognise an independant Scotland
The legitimacy of an independant Scotland will derive from the size of the majorty in favour of independance in any referendum. What other countries care to do is their business, but no “democratic” country is going to refuse to recognise a Scotland which has “won” its freedom via the ballot box and through due legal process. Once Britain has formally recognised Scotland as a separate state, there is no reason for any other country to refuse recognition or seek to block its access to any multi-lateral organisations.
As to the reaction of the UK government, it matters not which party is in power or who the PM is. However much one may regret such a decision by the people of Scotland, the responsible course for the government is to manage the division in an orderly and effective manner.
It comes back to what action Unionists should be taking now to address the concerns of the people of Scotland in order to persuade them of the benefits of the Union, and that separatism is undesirable.
Note – that action does not include blocking or delaying a referendum, that merely plays into the hands of separtists. It is about listening and understanding; identifying and addressing problems; alleviating fears about loss of identity; and in so doing, demonstrating that the Union delivers real tangible benefits.
The SNP hope that a Tory government after the next election will remind Scots of the fears and loathing which Labour whipped up north of the border in the 1980s. Their greatest fear however is that a Tory government will reveal that Scotland’s woes are as much to do with weak and corrupt Labour local administrations in the central belt as any deliberate oppression by Sassenachs, and that a responsive Conservatiove & Unionist Party really can deliver positive change on both sides of the border.
On a philosophical level, it is worth noting that Fear is a weapon which feeds one’s enemies, while Hope is a tool to win converts. Fear only works while the wielder is strong. Hope works best when the wielder is weak.
Paul h
I think you misundestood me.
My point is that if Britain didn’t allow the referendum, if Salmond hosted the referendum even though he has no permision, as it is illegal to just declare yourself independant without consulting the rest of the Union, no one would recognise Scotland, obviously if Britain said, “ok go ahead, have a referendum on the issue” and then “ok you want independanct take it” then the rest of the world would recognise it, just like everyone in the world recognises Montenegro after it asked permision for a referendum to leave and was granted it, Kosovo wasn’t granted it, so that is why 75% of the world doesn;t recognise Kosovo, depite its 99.5% mandate, as the Government of Serbia didn’t authorise it so it is illegal.
If Scotland tomorrow was to hold a referendum, and Scotland said yes, Gordon Brown (I doubt he would) could refuse to allow it citing it as illegal. Cameron would almost certainly do this, Cameron won’t allow us a vote on Lisbon treaty, do you really think he;d allow Scotland to just split from a country he was running.
Scotland can;t get independance without the rest of Britain’s consent, as it is not the Scots who own Scotland, its the Brits who own Britain, I have the freedom to go and live in Scotland if I want, I am entitled to go anywhere in Britain as I am British, if you want to blockade a bit of it off, then you have to consult either myself in a referendum or my government.
This is one of the reasons that Serbia doesn’t allow Kosovo, there are Serbian Orthodox statues and buildings located in Kosovo, which the people of serbia should be able to visit at any time, but by declaring independance, and puting up borders they have taken away the Serbs freedom to visit a part of their own country.
I am British so am entitled to go to any part of Britain, again if you want to change that, you need the consent of people in a referendum or from my government. Any other action is illegal.
Max,
In order for Scotland to have a referendum, there would need to be a legislative framework to conduct this. The SNP cannot do that on its own (though that could change if they won an outright majority at the 2011 Holyrood election), so any referendum would have at the least implicit support from the unionist parties. Since, whoever instigated it, the Unionist parties would presumably actively campaign for a vote in favour of Scotland remaining in the Union, they could then not simply reject the result if it goes against them.
It is a moot point whether any legislation on a referendum would have to be passed through Westminster or could be done at Holyrood. But then again, legal technicalities cannot be used to deny democratic desires. If Holyrood passed a motion requesting a referendum, do you seriously think the Government at Westminster would refuse to allow one ? [They could of course take the opportunity to frame the question and timetable in a way to best support the Union but that is a different matter.]
Please don’t keep referring to the Serbia / Kosovo example. It really is not relevant in the context of Scotland. Kosovo was a Serbian province in which ethnic Albanians eventually grew to be a majority. That is more akin to the Irish population of Merseyside declaring UDI.
As to your comments about Lisbon, I think you misunderstand the reality of being leader of the opposition. Mr Cameron can no more give us a referendum on Lisbon today than he can give us a general election. Only the PM can do that, and Mr Cameron is not (yet) PM. Once he is, he will have to deal with the situation as he finds it, which may not be as he would wish it. There is a world of difference between being able to say – “I do not want to make the change proposed” and “I wish to reverse a change that has already been implemented”. This is true for any form of constitutional change, and is why Blair is culpable for his incompetent tinkering which has left our country’s constitutional architecture in such a mess.
Paul H
Stop talking to me like an idiot please. I show you respect so may I ask for the same respect back.
Ofcourse I know Cameron isn’t PM yet, I NEVER suggested he was, I jus mentioned, that he wont give us a referendum, Ken Clarke has said that much on Daily Politics Show, so do you want to say the same comment you just made to me to Ken Clarke.
And the only reason you dont want me to use Kosovo is because it proves my point, you need the governement to give permission, Salmond can go ahead if he likes, BUT WITHOUT GOVERNMENT APPROVAL IT MEANS NOTHING.
Now let me clear any things that you may try and twist, I know that if they allow a referendum then they would have to abide by it, but why can’t you seem to grasp the fact that, the government might say no to a referendum in the first place.
Salmond asks, give us a referendum, the government says no, just like they are currently denying us a referendum on the Eu, and shall continue to do even when Cameron is in power.
You don’t have to grant an area a referendum, otherwise, I could say I want my road to have a referendum on independance, and if a majority of us agree, you’ve got to let my road be an independant country.
Also, if you dont like the Kosovo example, South Ossettia, Abkazia, and Negorno Kerabkh, all are areas who want independance, have had a referendum and got independance, but no single country in the world recognises them, because the Government didnt allow it.
Can you see that now Paul???
Anthony,
The Independence and Scottish polls seem a bit out of date equally the calculations on the GE predictor.
I know the Scottish page isn’t a huge priority nor should it be on a Uk site, but if the trend the Scottish polls are suggesting is correct then a loss of seats by Labour to the SNP in Scotland could well have an impact on the size of any Tory majority in an election.
I think that starting with a Scottish predictor but eventually adding a series of regional predictions and then creating a UK prediction by agregating the regional results might ultimately be more accurate.
Peter.
Peter.
I agree with Peter, the G.E. results in the Scottish dynamic might well dictate hung parliament or governing majority.
Given especially that the polls are moving in opposite directions than the UK wide polling data anyway (given that the UK pollign suggests a Liberal recovery at Labours expense and in Scotland their polling range seems to be; with a few rare exceptions; somewhere around 11-14%)
Max,
The fundamental difference between all the examples you cite and Scotland is that in all these cases they are provinces seeking independance from the country of which they have formed a historic part.
Scotland is not and never has been a “province” of anywhere. It was a sovereign nation state which willingly joined with another sovereign nation state to create a new united sovereign state. If it no longer wished to be a part of that union, it can and should revert to being an independant sovereign state.
Please note that the case of Scotland is different from that of Wales (effectively conquered by England in 12th century) or Northern Ireland (a Province of Ireland, itself subsumed into the United Kingdom, which declined to follow the rest of Ireland into an independant state).
It comes back to my core point. If one wants to preserve the Union (as I do) then the case in favour of the Union needs to be put clearly and positively in advance of any referendum in a manner which either renders a referendum unnecessary – because the demands for it abate – or secures a victory for the Union in any such referendum.
Focusing one’s efforts on how to block any decision in favour of separation after it has been democratically expressed is like planning trip-wires in the stable-yard instead of ensuring an ample supply of oats hay and water in the stall.
I would akin it more to barricading the door, the horse cant get out at all.
Max,
Fine. But what’s the point of owning a thoroughbred if you don’t allow it some exercise ?
Look after it well, and it will be happy to stay.
Cage and constrain it, and it will fret and underperform.
We cannot force the Scots to remain reluctant members of the UK. That way we all waste our efforts on dealing with perceived gripes and grievances from both sides of the border.
We need to show Scots why it is in their interests to be actively engaged in advancing the Union for the benefit of all Britons – as Scots nobly and ably did for pretty much all of the first 300 years after the union.
The support for independance has only emerged in the past 30-40 years since Labour managed to gain a stranglehold on Scotland’s electorate – then has taken its support for granted.
Only the Conservatives can rebuild that lost trust by demonstrating that Scotland’s concerns are being listened to, understood and acted on. There is clear evidence that Annabel Goldie (affectionately known as Aunty Bella in Scotland) is doing just that, but it is not a quick or easy task.
Preserving the Union may now be a race against time, but it can only be won by engaging with Scoland’s electorate and promoting support for the Conservative & Unionist party. Labour is discredited and the LDs appear impotent. So, the more Tory MPs are elected north of the border, the safer the union will be.
I say that not just because I am a conservative unionist, but because it is also a necessary antidote to the potential for little Englanders who push the view that Britain would be better off without Scotland to gain traction within the UK government.
Hi.
I rarely look at myself as English, I see myself as a British citizen who lives in the UK, but I still see the other nations in the union as they are; Nations. I hope right down to the bottom of my heart that the union never breaks, we have too much progressive history to just throw it all away! This in my eyes is not evolution, it is the complete opposite. In this day and age the world is not made up of petty kingdoms, every country is on the world stage so why become less as a world power just to satisfy a few over inflated egos. No country will benefit from this split and would undermine our status as a world power.
Look at what we have achieved with the union. we created the greatest empire the world has ever known, we have touched every corner of the globe.
We kick started the industrial revolution and have invented machines and devices that have changed the world!
Our culture is known across the globe and are recognised as a potent world power! On the same level as countries many times our size.
We have stopped many a dictatorship together Napoleon, Hitler, kaiser Wilhelm just to name a few.
We stood shoulder to shoulder against the threat of murder and Nazi dictatorship and yet again together we stood firm.
This is just to name a few, could we have done this alone i think not.
Lastly how are any of these seperate countries possibly going to sustain themselves money wise? all four countries are going to be &*?! poor and seen as some back drop on the world stage aswell as seeing our countries drift into obscurity in the back pages of history.
I’m not sure what Scotland is going to do for money, that oil won’t last forever and they can’t make any real money anyother way. I seem to recall that IF Scotland gained independence they would join the EU… That doesn’t make sense to me, swapping the economic, cultural and historical values of the so called “dictatorship” union for a real dictatorship that WILL steal your or our oil and will make a good 90% of your laws. It is madness!
It is up to Scotland if they want to stay or not but I think it would be a huge lapse of judgment that will benifet no one.
I agree with Paul. The best way to deal with this is to sort out the problems at the source. Scotland obviously feels left out and unwanted in many ways and the MP’s need to persuade the people of Scotland that nationalistic suicide is not worthwhile. I love Scotland, it is beautiful, the people are great and I believe it is a important part of the union. You just have to look at the union jack, the very foundation of that flag in Scotland with it’s blue and white.
The union jack is recognised the world over and it is a shining beacon to all that shows what it is to be a multi-nation union and what it is to be multi-cultural union! This is something people should be proud of, not hate.
In all of Max King’s examples, he doesn’t mention Montenegro, which recently became independent of Serbia with full acceptance. He also ignores the fact that Taiwan, despite its extremely limited recognition, is most definitely a functionally independent country and a successful one at that.
Both RJP and Max King have talked about the positive recognition of the UK worldwide. But this is inaccurate. Many people see Britain, like America, as an unwanted imperialistic force. This has increased greatly in recent years due to the government of both countries approach to the war in Iraq. The UK has for a fews decades now become a second-rate power, not a potent world power.
Scotland is certainly not going to go without money. Whether its economy will get better or worse, on the other hand, is a valid question. And I think Scotland will follow Ireland’s example in getting better.
On a Conservative government making the problem better:
Conservatives have never had a high percentage in Scotland. The only parties to ever be the major party in Scotland are Labour and, since 2007, SNP. And it doesn’t look to change to the Conservatives any time soon. There have already been several governments of the UK that were Conservative though but these were rarely popular in Scotland.
On the EU being a dictatorship that makes 90% of your laws(RJP):The UK is already a part of the EU. Does that mean that 90% of UK law is made in Brussels? Because that’s wrong. There are many things on which the EU doesn’t have laws. These things are either dealt with at a Scotland(e.g. age of marriage) or UK level (e.g. military).
On the UK stopping dictators:
Well, they didn’t do anything to stop Augusto Pinochet, who was helped into power by America. And going back to the 19th century or further gives countless examples of abuse by the British Empire.
Anonymous:
Greece becoming “voiceless, powerless, and useless nation” (I find that’s exagerration in any case) is more to do with the military might of the Ottoman Empire of the time than because of Greeks being nationalistic. How is loving Britain any less nationalistic than being Scottish nationalist?
And governments like those of Stalin are hardly caring much about nationalism. Doesn’t make them any less evil.
I don’t see independence as about negative sentiments but about a country deciding for itself whatit wants to do.
Filling in the gaps … This is a dull contribution but, for the sake of maintaining full and updated records, the % breakdown from the 2006 SSA survey on the Scotland constitutional options question is as follows:
Scot not in UK or EU – 11%
Scot not in UK in EU – 22%
Scot in UK with tax power – 50%
Scot in UK and no tax power – 7%
Scot in UK, no parliament – 10%
(Weighted and percentages rounded)
Anthony,
This is from an SNP press release.
The SNP’s Depute Leader and Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has
welcomed the results of the TNS-BMRB (formerly TNS System 3) poll
conducted for STV’s Politics Now programme which shows that the SNP would boost their number of seats at Holyrood to 57 – an increase of ten.
The results of the poll are:
* Constituency result (with change from 2007 in bracket)
SNP: 39% (+6)
Labour: 32% (0)
Tory: 12% (-5)
LibDem: 11% (-5)
Other: 7% (+5)
* Regional result (with change from 2007 in bracket)
SNP: 39% (+8)
Labour: 29% (0)
Tory: 10% (-4)
LibDem: 12% (+1)
Green: 5% (+1)
Projected Number of Seats:
SNP: 57 (+10)
Labour: 43 (-3)
Tory: 11 (-6)
LibDem: 15 (-1)
Green: 3 (+2)
Q1 Since the Scottish Parliament was established in 1999 do you think it
has achieved a lot, a little or nothing at all?
A lot – 20%
A little – 53%
Nothing at all – 15%
Don’t know – 12%
Note:
The results of Q1 can be compared with a MORI Scotland poll question
commissioned by ‘Politics Now’ in September 2004 to mark the opening of
the Holyrood building. The wording was the same:
Since the Scottish Parliament was established in 1999 do you think it has
achieved a lot, a little or nothing at all?
A lot – 8%
A little – 49%
Nothing at all – 36%
Don’t know – 7%
Peter.