Should be an interesting discussion I have put it here instead of Elections, as equally to do with issues aside from the upcoming Scottish independence referendum as with the referendum itself.
The UK is 305 years old this year, but it increasingly looks like its days are numbered. You might be aware that the Scottish Executive, run by the Nationalists, are planning to hold a referendum by 2014 on whether Scotland should leave the British Union. The central government at Westminster has been having a number of shouting matches with them lately, trying to drum up support for maintaining the Union and exposing problems in the Nationalists’ plans.
I am cautiously optimistic that the referendum will end up with a healthy ‘NO’ to independence, as I don’t think the majority of Scots are too fired up on the issue - they’re either rabidly against or in favour, with the majority lazily wedded to the status quo.
However it seems that the eventual death of the Union might not actually come from Scotland but from England.
Historically, English nationalism has been restrained by the fact England is so vast, as its identity has been tightly bound up with the idea of Britishness in general. But since devolution in 1999 the argument is that a series of myths and half-truths have gained muster about how Scotland gets an unfair advantage from the Union - supposedly more money, trade advantages, free public services not available to England and the right to vote on English affairs (while Scottish affairs remain exclusively Scottish).
I don’t think the Union is imminently doomed, but given a few decades unchecked this could turn into a major flashpoint.
So what do you think - will the UK break up in the next ten, fifty, hundred years? Or will this pass? Or is there a solution that allows the Union to remain but substantially reformed?
Yes. Eventually. In general the direction in Europe is towards more and smaller regional states, a more natural (and medieval) subdivision. GB should consider being ahead of the evolution and transforming itself into confederation.
I don’t see this going anywhere. The whole point of devolved government authority is that it can be taken back. A Scottish Parliamentary independence vote just means Westminster shuts down the Scottish Parliament.
In Eastern Europe, perhaps, which is unsurprising considering that most of its states were held together by the threat of Soviet military intervention.
I can’t think of any state in Western Europe which has fragmented since 1950.
Yes, Eastern and Central Europe. But Western Europe has been moving in the same direction. Iceland split from Denmark in 1940. Faroe Islands and Greenland have been moving in the same direction. Catalonia has been moving towards greater independence since Franco’s end. Northern Italy has been making noise. Can Belgium even be considered a state anymore?
Iceland declared independence when Denmark was occupied by the Germans and Iceland by the Brits. The same situation as was the case of the Faroe Islands and Greenland. Iceland was not obliged to declared independence and could have followed the same route as the two others. The war just made for an opportune occasion, but it would have happened sooner of later in any case. I think Denmark should have anticipated the situation and transformed itself into a confederation, that way it could possible have retained all nations inside the same political construction. I still advocate the same for three remaining nations. The alternative will be complete independence.
Legally, Westminster could do that, but if it did Scotland would explode in its face. Westminster could not crush the democratic rights of Scotland without starting widespread civil disorder (if not all-out war) and lose respect worldwide. It would be insane.
It’s only meant to be taken back if devolution becomes unworkable, as happened in Northern Ireland a few times (and then Westminster only ever did that reluctantly, and at the earliest opportunity re-established devolution).
Well as the referendum-creating legislation would have to be passed by Westminster to start with (or have the power delegated temporarily to the Scottish Parliament), that would pretty clearly write out the British Government’s obligation to respect the decision in the referendum.
Unlike America’s codified constitution, where what’s not written down is not possible, in Britain’s uncodified constitution, what strikes the biggest chord politically and constitutionally is possible. We couldn’t grant a referendum with the intention to simply ignore it and expect to be taken seriously.
Spain has refused to recognize the independence of Kosovo, presumably out of fears of encouraging its own separatists in Catalonia and the Basque region. There is some speculation that Spain would similarly oppose the entry of an independent Scotland into the EU.
The Scotland Act 1999 lists a number of ‘reserved matters’ that the Scottish Parliament cannot legislate on. It also, however, created a procedure by which the Scottish Parliament could pass a motion (colloquially called a Sewel Motion after its progenitor, Lord Sewel) permitting Westminster to legislate for it on a specific matter; conversely, it also created a power by which Westminster could temporarily delegate a reserved matter to the Scottish Parliament.
The status of the Union is one of those reserved matters, and so a proper, binding referendum needs to be passed by Westminster.
They could have a non-binding referendum, but those things aren’t cheap, so it would be criticised. There’s also the risk that as it’s seen as non-binding, people wouldn’t take it as seriously; and finally, there’s the risk of people being confused about the nature of a non-binding referendum and demand it be considered authoritative.
In any case, a non-binding referendum isn’t on the cards.
Wouldn’t it make more sense, and more or less satisfy everybody, to have an English Parliament, a Scottish Parliament, a Northern Irish Parliament, etc., and an Imperial Parliament above all and representing all? (Why didn’t they think of that in 1707?)
(Nitpick: The United Kingdom hasn’t been “imperial” since 1947. It was the possession of India that made the British monarch an emperor/empress.)
It seems logical, but in practical terms, the economy and polity of England is really the bulk of the economy and polity of the United Kingdom. If you have both an English Parliament and a British Parliament, inevitably one of them is going to end up as the “real” parliament and the other is going to end up redundant and useless.
Pretty much exactly as Acsenray says. A ‘federal’ Britain would be a no-brainer if no single country of the United Kingdom was overwhelmingly bigger than the rest. But England is about 3/4 of the UK in land size, population and economic clout. It outnumbers, outproduces and outsizes the rest of the UK combined.
If we had an English Parliament (which some are demanding), it would constitute the vast majority of the UK by itself, and every single thing it did would impact the rest of the UK - so much so that it in fact makes sense for them to have a say in English law.
If England wanted to do X, but Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland were united behind Y, then England would essentially decide their policy for them. I would forsee the eventual conclusion would be dissolution of the Union.
Scotland is a bit more left-leaning than what is the average over the whole United Kingdom, but I’m not sure that there is much likelihood of independence. Scotland really doesn’t like Tories though, not in the last 40 years or so anyway.
Funny you mention this, I have read a few books and articles that challenge the widely held belief that Scotland is more left-leaning; from what I have read, what is more accurate is that the Tories do badly in Scotland because they are perceived as an English party rather than a British one, so the right-wing vote either stays at home or the vote goes elsewhere (some SNP, some Liberal).
Which is why there is some support in the Conservative Party for winding up their party north of the Border and encouraging the establishment of a completely separate right-wing Scottish party, like the old Unionist Party (which, by the way, was the last party to win an outright majority of the vote in Scotland since the war).
Scotland definitely has it’s own characteristic left of centre that is miles different from labour heartlands in England, for example. A lot of small-c conservatism that seems to align more to the left than to the right somehow, IME.
Speaking of which, would an independent Scotland not decimate the labour party in Westminster? Plenty of seats to lose there - ironic that the conservatives could never support it.
I’ve always thought there was no real appetite for full monty independence amongst the Scots (although there may be amongst the English), more a desire for fairer and better representation at Westminster. Salmond is very good at delivering this whilst he gets to set the agenda. I’m a bit worried (as someone who would rather keep the union) about this being taken out of his hands and a single yes/no vote being railroaded onto a riled Scottish public. I understand why Cameron is saying let’s get the show on the road, just hope it doesn’t backfire.
I have put it here instead of Elections, as equally to do with issues aside from the upcoming Scottish independence referendum as with the referendum itself.