Written by Graham Gudgin
This post was first published at Briefings for Britain and we re-publish with the author’s kind permission.
~~~***~~~
The rules of an independence referendum for Scotland are too lax and should be tightened. The possibility of breaking-up a successful 300-year old union is too important to be decided by a minority of Scotland’s population.
There is no internationally agreed principle for the maintenance or breakup of states even within Europe. While Czechs and Slovaks are rightly proud that their ‘velvet divorce’ break-up of the former Czechoslovakia in 1992 was achieved peaceably, their experience is not typical. At the other extreme, Catalan separatists are locked up and there seems to be no legal way of achieving independence for Catalonia. For all its liberal principles and its previous encouragement of a ‘Europe of the Regions’, the EU exhibits de facto support for the integrity of existing states like Spain. It also opposes regional secession in Ukraine even when secession is locally popular even though it supported the breakup of Yugoslavia.
The UK approach arguably makes secession too easy. UK regions with devolved governments are free to secede as long as a majority of voters agree in a referendum. This principle was followed in the 2014 Scottish Independence referendum and is also built into the 1998 Good Friday Agreement which mandates the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to hold a border poll if evidence suggests majority support for Irish unity. As in Scotland a border poll majority of 50% plus one vote is sufficient to detach the area from the UK irrespective of turnout at a referendum.
In these respects, UK governments have been remarkably insouciant about the break-up of one of the world’s most long-established and successful democracies. There has been only a perfunctory national debate on the value of the Union, leaving the field wide open for secessionists in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Few in the UK would follow the Spanish government’s hard line on regional secession but equally our own light touch approach risks losing the union through the votes of a minority of the Scottish population.
The willingness of the UK establishment to permit a break-up of the union so easily is surprising. England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland formed a unified kingdom in 1603 and since then forged the world’s most astonishingly successful union, pioneering modern democracy as well as both capitalism and social security, and spreading both across the globe. It is a union willing to spend billions to maintain uniform social standards, spending for instance as much to maintain public services in Northern Ireland as it did in its controversial contributions to the EU.
The ONS shows that living standards in Scotland and Northern Ireland are above the UK average once housing costs are taken into account and only a little below those in South East England. The willingness of UK taxpayers to finance uniform living standards is greatly under-appreciated. It is buried in the Barnett Formula for distributing public expenditure and this should be replaced by a much more transparent UK cohesion fund.
Loss of empire followed by membership of the EU loosened the sinews of national cohesion. The temporary largesse of North Sea oil allowed the SNP to rise in popularity in the 1970s under the slogan ‘Its Scotland’s Oil’. The SNP has successful built on Scotland’s distinctive geography and history to undermine the many bonds of language, institutions and a shared 300-year history. As John Lloyd has argued: “The SNP’s standard enshrines an ideal,[a] promise of a fuller civic life, a pledge – in a nation once famously pious, now shorn of faith – of a more meaningful existence.” This appeal may be wide and has a substantial majority in the latest polls, but for many is unlikely to be deep. That support for Scottish independence is wafer thin has been pointed out by George Kerevan a recent SNP MP and past deputy editor of the Scotsman. Within this context the SNP has played its hand extremely well under Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon even as oil revenue drips away and Scottish voters are offered the prospect of voting to give control back to the EU including pressure to join the unpopular Euro currency area.
If the SNP does well in next May’s Scottish Assembly elections the clamour for a second referendum may become irresistible. Such a referendum could be won by the SNP and if so a successful 300-year union could be broken up on the vote of a minority of Scots and with great consequences for the rest of UK who would have no say.
The 2014 referendum was organised under rules almost designed to maximise the independence vote and the pro-union campaign was conducted largely on the same ‘project-fear’ basis that failed so dismally for the government in the Brexit referendum. This lackadaisical approach cannot be risked again. Any future UK referendum must be taken much more seriously with voting rules designed to reflect the seriousness of the issue
A decision of such historical importance not only for Scotland, but also for England, Wales and Northern Ireland, must be based on the soundest principles, avoiding the weaknesses of 2014. If the 2014 rules were reused, the electorate would include non-UK citizens living in Scotland and exclude Scottish-born UK citizens living outside Scotland. The latter would be eligible for Scottish citizenship in an independent Scotland but excluded for the decision on independence. The 2014 rules could mean that Scottish independence was gained with a 51% majority on a 70% voter turnout, i.e. with the votes of only 35% of the Scottish electorate.
A liberal and democratic UK has not denied, and would not deny, an independence referendum to a Scotland determined to have such a vote. It can and should insist that such an important and probably irreversible decision can only be taken by a majority of Scots. Only those eligible for post-independence Scottish citizenship should vote, and all such citizens should be eligible including the expats. To ensure that most Scots want independence, a yes vote should depend on a majority of the electorate and not just on those voting. This is close to the rules used in the 1979 Scottish devolution referendum when devolution was supported by a majority of voters but failed because less than 40% of the electorate voted yes.
Such a hurdle might well prove impossible for the SNP. Having become accustomed to a low bar for independence referendums the SNP would of course cry foul. SNP politicians could persuade some Scots that the referendum was rigged but the logic and morality of such arrangements would be clear and easy to defend both in the UK and abroad. SNP objections would also call attention to the narrowness of the support for independence. The SNP’s strength has been its moderation and adherence to democracy and the rule of law, and it would be difficult for it to oppose UK law by attempting to run its own referendum.
This then would be the British way of deciding the rules of secession. It would be more liberal and democratic than Spain and also more democratic than in Czechoslovakia where no referendum was held and where public opinion opposed a breakup. It would also not repeat the lax approach of 2014. The new principle would be that a region can vote to leave but must demonstrate that a majority of its people favoured secession. Not only would this help to preserve the union but it would set the world an example.
Can anybody imagine the Withdrawal Agreement GB would enforce with 3rd country Scotland, the Trade Agreement certainly won’t contain any Canada Deal.
Stage one of the negotiation will involve the ‘ransom’ to be paid before the talks can move on.
Stage two level playing field requirement
Stage three British access for fisheries supposedly claimed as Scottish waters
(It should be pointed out that Scotland probably doesn’t “own” their land or seas. Both Freehold and leasehold actually mean the ultimate owner is the crown)
Stage 4 the Supreme GB court will continue to be superior to the supposedly independent Scottish court – there is no way the ECJ would be allowed to be involved.
Scottish defence will be “guided” by GB and Scotland will have no direct control of its own armed forces,product specification, ordering or manufacture
I will not go on, but it should be evident by now that lessons have been learned in the Brexit fiasco that it is possible so to frame the outcome of an Independence negotiation that the “escapee” achieves precisely the opposite of that and in fact becomes a colony of the principal country without any representations in its councils.
There’s a lot in what the author says and there are some very useful comments already in this one.
I particularly empathised with that of Paul Rutherford the border man.
We are where we are for various unstated reasons, as has been pointed out there should not be this divergence after 300 years of apparently successful Union in a world where there have been so many unsuccessful unions.but actually I don’t blame the SNP for taking the attitude they do when the opportunity presents itself.
For Blairites Devolution was to be the B all and END all of all ideas of full independence..The new electoral system was so devised so that the SNP were not supposed to win. Unfortunately the political parties England orientated had treated like cannon fodder for majorities in parliament.Basically it operated through the Scottish Office which said “what went” only from an English point of view. On top of that the political parties operated a look after their own backyard manner and worse Labour was rotten to the core ( ref. Helen Liddell – she blew the gaff on them big time) and so the voters deserted the legacy parties en masse straight into the arms of the SNP…
Personally I started this with our border friend. Mine are not quite the same circumstances, but I have two children by a Scottish wife, both born in England, and now living in England but having all their schooling in Scotland
One of them has had an heredity test which advised her she was 62 per cent Scottish.
I haven’t enquirered what they think, but I was incensed, perhaps wrongly, on their behalf I believe all Scottish expats/dependants should have a voice in the future.
Alas this article completely misses the practical implications of what Scotland faces as an independent country. Let us not forget why the Act of 1707 came about. It was all about that Darien Adventure that bankrupted Scotland that led the English to bail them out whilst seeking a political settlement.
Now if the Scots were serious about independence they would by now have created a new Central Bank and a new currency. That alone takes up to five years and just as with the Euro, the currency would have to be traded for at least three years to establish a value.
To imagine you can be independent but still use the Bank of England, as they did last time, is so naïve. Just supposing they won the vote and applied to join the EU what will they use as collateral to exchange for Euros because sure as eggs are eggs the EU will need something of value in exchange.
Then we must look to their future funding. They will need a massive injection of foreign money and if the Brits don’t produce the loans they will have to seek loans from elsewhere.
Yes you’ve guessed it, the Russians or the Chinese will be in there like a shot and in exchange we will see foreign, possibly hostile, warships using former Royal Naval Bases.
And what of all those government jobs that exist north of the border. They will all come home leaving the unemployment potential in their newly independent country at record levels without the Barnet Formula to fall back on.
Scottish independence as peddled by the SNP as just a sop to try and retain their influence. Once it is spelled out in practical terms the prospect of Scottish independence evaporates along with the SNP.
Perhaps we should be reminding all those Scots that have never heard of that Panamanian adventure known as Darien just why they agreed to the Act of Union in the first place.
The UK is too small to be divided up just because one region thinks it should be so.
Devolution, rather than providing more autonomy to the regions has produced division and the sooner the devolved parliament and assemblies are scrapped the better.
Born in Edinburgh 29 Feb 1944.
Spent 2 years being educated in Lockerbie, Dumfriesshire.
Brought up mainly (just) on the English side of the border.
What bloody right does Nicola ‘The Krankie’ Sturgeon have to disenfranchise me?
SHAME on the SNP.
Excellent article, Graham Gudgin. Thank you.
1603, I believe, was when James the First of England, Sixth of Scotland, came to the throne. Seeing as how with the Restoration of Charles 11 we again were ruled by a Scot, a Stuart, it is difficult to understand any hard feelings between Scots and English. There probably are none in fact.
The EU’s attitude is indefensible on any grounds of morality or democracy. Still, we know that don’t we. It’s as if EU has set out for years to destroy the United Kingdom by any means, what with regional quangos and devolution. They are still ‘at it’. Presumably it is because the EU FEAR the United Kingdom of Great Britain.
Your detailed suggestions of how any future Referendum should be organised are excellent. Spread them as widely as you can.
Its bad enough little kids telling me all about how we are going to die, due to trace gases, farming, vacuum cleaners and Lord knows what else.
Before you know it 12 year olds will be allowed to vote in Scotland.
Hardly bears thinking about.
For many years, biggest money export of Scotland anyone?
Whisky – no. Haggis – no. Oppenheimer tartan kilts – no.
Shortbread biscuits (even sold in Cairo airport duty free).
The break up of the United Kingdom presents a wonderful opportunity for the EU to break or bend its own rules as usual and allow Scotland and others to rejoin. We have enough issues with the Eire/NI land border without allowing others.
The only sensible solution is to reverse Traitor Blair’s devolution, no doubt implemented under EU instructions as a prelude to full breakup of the Union.
That’s a good idea Jack Thomas. If we can reverse traitor Blair’s devolution let’s do it. And the EU’s regional quangos while we’re at it.
Here here! I second all those remarks, we must work to bind the union together, Lets start by the repeal of the devolution between England, Northern Ireland ( Ulster to a lot of us) Scotland and Wales
I concur!
Count me in.
Ulster is a province of Ireland consisting of nine counties. Northern Ireland consists of six of the counties of Ulster. The other three counties of Ulster remain in Ireland. This all comes about by the ‘Partition of Ireland’ on the 3rd of May 1921 !
Ulster is nine counties. N.Ireland is six of those counties.
Me to, And if Stormont can be suspended for various reason as it has been in the past, why not the other two?
Brexit, Brexit, Brexit. Nothing can be done to effectively dampen independence fever in Scotland until Brexit is in the bag.
Scotland must see that Brexit is a reality. Sturgeon can see Johnson is dithering and she is making political capital out of it.
Lets face it, the Tory Party have shown little enthusiasm for delivering Brexit feeding right into the hands of the Scots Nats demands.