open Democracy News Analysis - Giving only Scotland a say on independence negates the existence of Britain, David aka Britology Watch - Comments

britologywatch on "Giving only Scotland a say on independence negates the existence of Britain"

britologywatch — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 05:48:43 +0000

I agree with Hendre; but my point was who is entitled to vote on Scottish independence, and what should be the question on which they are voting? Should only people living in Scotland be entitled to vote on a question that asks for people's views on independence out of any UK-wide context; or should Scottish people (not defined ethnically - I'm not the one who's viewing this in ethnic terms; I never stated I saw Scottishness as an ethnicity) living elsewhere also have the vote on the same context-free question; or, if you admit the principle that interested persons outside of Scotland (which unionists might wish to extend to all UK citizens) should also have a say, should a single question (e.g. Scottish independence and a newly defined state / constitution for the rest of the UK) be put to the whole of the UK - the consequence of a 'no' vote in the rest of the UK not being a veto on Scottish independence but the requirement to find another settlement for the remaining UK countries, including the possibility of independence for them? See my further discsussion on this (my final word here on the matter!) at: http://nationalconversationforengland.wordpress.com/2008/08/16/scottish-independence-a-uk-wide-referendum-would-be-required/.

Anthony Barnett on "Giving only Scotland a say on independence negates the existence of Britain"

Anthony Barnett — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 18:23:57 +0000

I agree with Hendre. The crucial thing to understand about nationalism is that it is not a racism or ethnism. It is open to anyone who 'imagines' themselves to be part of the community, to follow Ben Anderson's analysis. His point being that this imagining is very real and influential. There can be chauvinists who proclaim a racially defined nationalism but they can be - and mostly are - successfully frustrated because they are, among other things, making a category mistake.

On Wales, I know an English born person who not only speaks Welsh and is now the parent in a Welsh speaking family, but has also taught it.

As Alex says, in the UK nationalism is civic.

Hendre on "Giving only Scotland a say on independence negates the existence of Britain"

Hendre — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 11:35:57 +0000

The 2001 census revealed that 1 in 5 people resident in Wales were English-born. While this ‘English vote’ is significant it is probably misleading to term it as such since the reasons why English people live in Wales and their attitudes towards Welshness vary so much.

Two Plaid Cymru Assembly Members are English incomers; both Labour and the Conservatives also have English-born Assembly Members. Voting based on ethnicity really is a non-issue.

alex_buchan on "Giving only Scotland a say on independence negates the existence of Britain"

alex_buchan — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 16:27:09 +0000

“How about if you - not your parents - were born in Warsaw or Karachi; or London or Newcastle upon Tyne, for that matter? Does that make you not Scottish and, by that token, not entitled to a vote on Scottish independence?”

The fact that this has never been raised in Scotland and that no one would ever consider raising it says all that needs to be said, and flows directly from the fact that Scottish nationalism is civic [or as Nairn would say ‘constitutional’] rather than ethnic. But it leaves me wondering why it is so important for your argument to find an ethnic nationalism lurking under the surface.

britologywatch on "Giving only Scotland a say on independence negates the existence of Britain"

britologywatch — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 22:42:03 +0000

"Whether your parents were born in Warsaw or Karachi or Inverness is immaterial to you feeling Scottish. From birth onwards your experience of life is shaped by distinctly Scottish institutions".

How about if you - not your parents - were born in Warsaw or Karachi; or London or Newcastle upon Tyne, for that matter? Does that make you not Scottish and, by that token, not entitled to a vote on Scottish independence?

alex_buchan on "Giving only Scotland a say on independence negates the existence of Britain"

alex_buchan — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 13:13:08 +0000

“Well, there is a point in mentioning the situation of Scots living outside of Scotland, which relates to the question of who should decide on Scottish independence.”

I think it would be instructive if you could spend some time in Scotland. You might be surprised to find that even the very unionist BBC, along with STV, in their Scottish current affairs output rarely refer to Scotland as if it were part of Britain. For instance, if there are surveys done it is always reported in a Europe wide context. So we get Scotland has the worst record on ‘x’ in Europe, or the best record on ‘y’ in Europe. In effect, Scotland is already treated in many regards as an independent entity in Europe.

In this respect the BBC in Scotland and others are merely in tune with the society they are based in. The UK as a state is an anomaly, and even before devolution, Scotland had its own administration in virtually all aspects of life, such as education, health, local government, law and order and its own separate sporting associations. So in the sense of the argument above, living ‘outside Scotland’ is naturally regarded as anywhere, irrespective of whether it is another part of the UK or abroad. As far as people in Scotland are concerned whether a person moves to Australia or to Northumberland is immaterial, they no longer live in Scotland.

Those Scots, like myself, living in England, know this very well. Some may feel aggrieved if they do not get a vote in a referendum. But if they claim this is unjust they are conveniently pretending to not know the situation on the ground in Scotland.

Such arguments as the above totally misunderstand the Scottish experience of nationality because they are based on a mistaken view of Scottish identity as being based on ethnicity. Scottish identity is civic. Whether your parents were born in Warsaw or Karachi or Inverness is immaterial to you feeling Scottish. From birth onwards your experience of life is shaped by distinctly Scottish institutions.

You have a Scottish birth certificate, in your early years you are cared for by the Scottish health service, attend Scottish schools, sit Scottish exams and attend Scottish universities have Scottish public holidays and if you break the law you are dealt with by the Scottish criminal justice system. It is this shared experience that recreates Scottish identity anew for each generation regardless of ethnic origins.

The fact that the anomaly that is the UK lasted so long and that these state structures did not have a legislative branch until recently is not the fault of the Scots. They have been denied this successively by both main UK parties since 1950 when 2 million signed the National Covenant calling for the establishment of a Scottish Parliament.

britologywatch on "Giving only Scotland a say on independence negates the existence of Britain"

britologywatch — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 22:19:57 +0000

Well, there is a point in mentioning the situation of Scots living outside of Scotland, which relates to the question of who should decide on Scottish independence. If the principle behind the vote is that of the sovereignty of the Scottish people, then surely only Scottish people should decide. So it would be wrong for English and Welsh people living in Scotland to have a vote, and thereby determine whether a Scot living in England or Wales could suddenly become either a citizen of another country (Scotland) or have to decide to become a citizen of the country (s)he lives in, which would be other than what (s)he considers to be her / his country. The only way round that would be to oblige people to register whether they wished to be counted as a Scottish citizen post-independence and would thereby be entitled to a referendum vote. This would potentially disenfranchise English and Welsh people living in Scotland who, it could be argued, have a legitimate interest in determining whether the country they live in suddenly becomes a different state from their own country.

Of course, it's easier to ignore such situations and dismiss them as isolated cases, even though this would affect hundreds of thousands of individuals and families.

Mike Small on "Giving only Scotland a say on independence negates the existence of Britain"

Mike Small — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 19:06:31 +0000

"35.5 % of those who voted in England voted for Labour; 35.6% for the Tories. An argument that concludes from this that 'England' wants Tory-type policies could do so only by asserting that Labour and the Conservatives are natural allies. "

I dont think they are natural allies but their policies are virtually indistinguishable. They have coalesced around what they think Middle England wants. It might not be what ME wants, or it might be what you want it to want, but its what they think it wants.

The bit I dont get is: "if I were a pro-Union Scot living in England, I could feel terribly aggrieved that I were denied a say in a process that could see my country severing ties from the country I lived in - especially as English people and Welsh people living in Scotland would have a say in the same vote. Whose rights are being respected and whose ignored here? "

I don't think argument has legs.

Toque on "Giving only Scotland a say on independence negates the existence of Britain"

Toque — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 11:07:09 +0000

"The Scottish MP's don't vote as a block either".

I know. But they're also much more likely to take the whip and vote with their front bench because they won't be held to account on much of the stuff they are voting on.

britologywatch on "Giving only Scotland a say on independence negates the existence of Britain"

britologywatch — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 07:17:43 +0000

Joe Middleton wrote:

"Scotland and Wales both have the right to determine their own destiny. Cornwall also incidentally has the same rights". Agreed. Would you be happy with the same rights being asserted for / by England?

And again:

"The reason why Labour is putting through Toryish policies in England however is because they see this as popular with the English electorate who used to vote Tory and are now getting ready to vote Tory again. Labour is tailoring its 'British' policies towards England and the agendas of English owned newspapers". Are they trying to appeal to the English people or to the 'English' (? - cf. News International) media? Aren't they just trying to stay in power? 35.5 % of those who voted in England voted for Labour; 35.6% for the Tories. An argument that concludes from this that 'England' wants Tory-type policies could do so only by asserting that Labour and the Conservatives are natural allies. On the contrary, there is a natural majority for centre-left policies in England. Under an English parliament or independence, with a proper PR system, we'd get coalition government rather like those we've seen in Scotland and Wales. Give us a Parliament for England, then!

"Ultimately however England only has the power of self determination over itself (like any other country) which is where the above article is inaccurate. Any country can break the union and no one country within that union can stop the others from leaving once they make a clear decision to do so". Does England have self-determination? Good, so there's no problem about us getting the English Parliament a majority want, then? I think not. Unlike many of those England-denying politicians that assert the Scottish Claim of Right.

"Also the United Kingdom refers to the kingdoms of Scotland and England". Does it? That's the whole point of my article. It does from a Scottish perspective, admittedly. However, if I were a unionist (which I'm not), I might feel a tad miffed that only one part of the Union had the right to dissolve it; and that, accordingly, one part of 'my' country were given the right to break it up. Similarly, if I were a pro-Union Scot living in England, I could feel terribly aggrieved that I were denied a say in a process that could see my country severing ties from the country I lived in - especially as English people and Welsh people living in Scotland would have a say in the same vote. Whose rights are being respected and whose ignored here?

Keith McBurney on "Giving only Scotland a say on independence negates the existence of Britain"

Keith McBurney — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 18:39:59 +0000

It's broke. Let's fix it.

All the foregoing means it seems, is that the English cannot themselves take leave of a UK that was and is Scotland, Wales and Ireland sans the ROI incorporated in England writ large until they are the last to leave, closing the door which locked us in Empire past, and joining us in a confederal "Union of the Isles" comprising our nations of families and friends and family of friendly nations - including all the Irish as in the Council of the Isles too.

And there is no reason why the English should wait in frustration whilst others shape their own future that they might wish to be getting on with determining for themselves too, when the means to that end are also in their own hands. That is if they too but recognise their own sovereignty.

But, just as an English parliament would be, they already have one. Which is why it is not a solution the UK-wide political parties put forward to whenever the English Question "what about us?" is put to them. The bottom line is that a de-jure federation only seems a possibility which might deliver a solely English parliament were it not for the inconvenient facts that the incorporating 1707 Union of Parliaments was not unitary, the Scottish parliament is no longer adjourned, the UK & English parliament has its drawbridge pulled up by Whitehall between general elections, and it in turn seems disinclined towards PR and Citizens’ Conventions let alone Referendums. Gnashing teeth don’t make it any easier to swallow what they chew over but cannot spit out. What other recourse then apart from the ballot box?

As Westminster's parliament lays claim to being sovereign over all other institutions of governance, it is in effect a law unto itself to keep itself in being. Nor can it - even if the Whitehall executive would allow it to do so - acknowledge that it would prefere to be simply another sovereign legislature, without letting the judicial cat out of the bag, swiftly followed by the electorate's. So, whilst waiting to see what the new Supreme Court will make of the matter if not in bringing back Bingham, recalling what he had to say might help the judicial inroads he started upon reach the conclusion that those of the public who had given more than passing thought to it might have known all along in response to cries of "it isn't fair". It ain’t. Lawful maybe. But whose law is it, if under its rule we are enslaved, willingly or no? And if it is our law, is it legitimate that we are? Hence, it would be as well to have something to put before the Supreme Court at the earliest opportunity so that it might pronounce judgement sooner rather than later, even though the matter might then have to be taken to the UN and Council of Europe as some canny Scots did.

That something which is in English hands to bring forward is their own Claim of Right. When used in an inalienable context, “ceded” means “given up” not back down. That which cannot be taken from you cannot be given back. If all else has and looks likely to fail before sovereignty can be recognised, acknowledged and enacted, it must be asserted first. It is by laying claim to the right to self-determination of their own governance that the English would be asserting their own sovereignty, individually and severally. Who else, if not the vested interests of political parties, especially now? (Yes, the LibDems have done so, but only to proscribe their party’s self-determination in federation.)

So yes, it is high time the English caught up on our journey back to the future, as i hazard to suggest the overwhelming combined result of any constitutional referendum in Scotland will be for Independence and Union. In independence first, the win-win outcome that accommodates both preferences is not in unco' federation, but confederation. Not together, but set apart divided by devolution to rule. But apart, yet still together in the mutually interdependent interests of sharing our individual and several sovereignties as peoples and nations. And that does affect all of us, if we will and make it so for all our sakes. Let it be so.

Aye Ours,Keith, frae Fife and Yorkshire, for Independence & Union.

(And for the avoidance of doubt, a member of no party as yet, and never one to vote for any which remain part of the problem rather than party to the solution.)

Joe Middleton on "Giving only Scotland a say on independence negates the existence of Britain"

Joe Middleton — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 15:45:54 +0000

"MPs representing England don't vote as an English bloc, the House splits down party lines as you well know."

The Scottish MP's don't vote as a block either, nor do the Welsh. England has most of the MP's in the British parliament, 529 out of of 646 (82%). On the other hand Wales (with 40 MP's) is outvoted 16-1 and Scotland (with 59) 11-1.

All the 'main' parties are effectively English and are ran from London. They are not 'English nationalist' because they perceive England's interests as indistinguishable from Britain's. Those Scottish MP's who keep the British Government's majority intact do not put Scotland first either they put their British party's interest first.

"MPs from outside England are able to determine the outcome of the vote on English legislation, and sometimes even the drafting and implementation of that legislation because they have executive power in what is in effect the English government."

Yes, MP's outside England can have an influence on the ultimate numbers of votes to an extent (as they should be able to do in an 'all Britain' parliament) but they cannot outvote England's MP's as a whole. That's the point. A few Scottish MP's are in Government but that is not the same as Scotland controlling the British Executive branch.

Is there a problem in that Labour's Scottish MP's (Scotland has one Tory) vote through policies that their own voters in Scotland wouldn't accept? Indeed there is but given the above arithmetic it is over emphasised in the media.

The MP's who do identify themselves with Scotland (ie the SNP's) try and avoid any such votes (unless there is a direct effect on Scotland, which there often is due to the funding mechanism for devolution).

The reason why Labour is putting through Toryish policies in England however is because they see this as popular with the English electorate who used to vote Tory and are now getting ready to vote Tory again.

Labour is tailoring its 'British' policies towards England and the agendas of English owned newspapers.

Labour's Scottish MP's influence can be removed with independence for England or Scotland. England will subsequently get the right wing policies that it wants directly through the Conservatives.

The reason why Labour aped the Tories however and sold their political soul was to gain power in England.

It has not helped them in Scotland and indeed the SNP and Plaid Cymru have been increasing their share of the traditional Labour vote ever since Labour began to move to the right. So the idea that parties are ignoring the 'English political agenda' is also wrong.

While Scotland and Wales can be effectively ignored due to the overwhelming majority of MP's being from England the parliament has to strongly consider English opinion.

Ultimately however England only has the power of self determination over itself (like any other country) which is where the above article is inaccurate. Any country can break the union and no one country within that union can stop the others from leaving once they make a clear decision to do so.

Also the United Kingdom refers to the kingdoms of Scotland and England. As long as Scotland and England share the monarch then this still exists but it cannot refer to a state whioch does not include both Scotland and England without being an illogical absurdity.

Having said that though logic hasn't stopped the Queen claiming to be defender of the [Catholic] Faith, nor has it stopped the awarding on imperial medals despite the slight problem of the disappearance of Empire so perhaps a new state might be initially delusional enough to try and keep such a name.

The 'problem with names' isn't likely to last long in any case as Wales will more than likely follow Scotland's example.

Toque on "Giving only Scotland a say on independence negates the existence of Britain"

Toque — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 11:34:04 +0000

"That fact means that it is logically impossible for England to be dominated by other countries and in actual fact it isn't."

True. However, MPs representing England don't vote as an English bloc, the House splits down party lines as you well know. Therefore MPs from outside England are able to determine the outcome of the vote on English legislation, and sometimes even the drafting and implementation of that legislation because they have executive power in what is in effect the English government.

Joe Middleton on "Giving only Scotland a say on independence negates the existence of Britain"

Joe Middleton — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 10:29:10 +0000

Can I first of all say that I am not keen on the name of this website since it implies support for 'our kingdom'. In fact the UK is an anachronism and while the kingdoms of Scotland and England might remain united for a time after independence this is unlikely to exist in perpetuity.

Support for the monarch seems to be constantly assumed but in actual fact a principled republican cannot actually enter either the British or Scottish parliaments without taking an oath of allegiance to the monarch. While obviously most republicans cross their fingers and mouth the oath without worrying too much about what it represents, the fact is they are forced into beginning their career with a blatant lie. This is deeply unfair and deliberately undermines the credibility of republican candidates.

The basic argument employed here is false. The British state is an undemocratic construct created by the elites in society for their own purposes. The 1707 union was involuntary and extremely unpopular with the people of Scotland. Even the 'nobles' were only convinced by a combination of bribery and the threat of military force (religious freedom and some independence of law making was also preserved).

The 1801 union formalised an absurdity since England had never properly conquered Ireland. The Irish parliament which agreed to it excluded representatives from 90% of the population and was therefore in no way representative of the people of Ireland.

Ireland broke from Britain eventually. Unfortunately because Britain subsequently declared war on Ireland and because a certain segment of Ireland (mostly) preferred British rule Britain was able to retain rule of that portion.

However the fact is Northern Ireland is not considered to be a proper state under international law and Britain's control over it is legally dubious though Ireland has been forced to accept it. It obviously relates back to James VI and I plantation of Ulster by Scots protestants a classic instance of divide 'n' rule.

England sought these unions to benefit her power. She was the guiding influence in both, just as she militarily annexed Wales and Cornwall. As Scotland and Wales have retaken some of their power from the centre England now starts to worry about her own position. However given that England had no right to control over these countries in the first place it is difficult to have any sympathy.

The fact is that England controls 83% of the British Parliament. That fact means that it is logically impossible for England to be dominated by other countries and in actual fact it isn't. The current PM is 'a Brit' first and foremost and in no way acts in Scotland's interests over England's, if anything it's the reverse since he is denying Scotland any share of oil revenues and has imposed a tight financial settlement on the Scottish parliament.

Britain was designed to amplify England's power abroad. The flag represents this reality with the St George's Cross front and centre. England's parliament remains (it is in charge) and would remain in existence after the other countries independence.

The problem with desiring 'an English parliament' is that such a body already effectively exists and therefore a further layer of Government seems unnecessary. English independence however logically fits because after Scotland and Wales declare independence an English only parliament will exist by default.

(Northern Ireland is a seperate question and it depends whether the unionists consider they have loyalty to England or Britain only whether they might want to maintain any future relationship. Ireland's view will also become more relevant under international law once the British state ceases to exist.)

Just like all the other countries in the Empire however who have decided to go their own way Scotland has the ultimate right of self determination and has emphasised that explicite right as far back as 1320.

This is accepted by all Scottish parties including the Lib Dems and Labour as they showed in their pre-devolution adoption of 'the Claim of Right for Scotland'. (The Lib Dems appear to have forgot about it in terms of an independence referendum but they would have even more difficulty in rejecting the basic premise).

There is no possible chance of England and Wales being entitled to vote to keep Scotland in the union (though they might not vote in favour anyway).

Scotland and Wales both have the right to determine their own destiny. Cornwall also incidentally has the same rights and a sister-like party to Plaid Cymru and SNP which represents that position (Mebyon Kernow who have gained some success).

England will have to accept the rights of the others to withdraw from union. She will then be independent by default and can then spend her own money in the knowledge that she is not being swindled by the others.

The fact that the reverse is actually true is a fact known well to the current British cabinet and ultimately the reason why they do not wish Scotland or Wales to become independent.

While the financial position is possibly murkier in Wales and Cornwall in comparison to Scotland the fact is that England in comparison to the former UK state will likely lose some international influence even if the financial position evens itself out. (The security council seat and place in the G8 would go). However since that coin has been bought by ignoring the other countries identities she had historically no right to such influence in any case.

In fact in both bodies the existing UK acts as a proxy of the US and the dissolution of the British state might free England to become a more positive influence on the world stage rather than being a cats paw of America. Certainly that is the role I think most Scots want to see Scotland play.

At the moment Britain is puffed up with delusions of her own importance. When that state is burst and the component countries emerge blinking into the light then hopefully all will share a new realism about their place in world affairs and will desire to work with others in Europe and Scandinavia on common projects rather than bully countries with unusable, expensive and ultimately pointless nuclear weapons.

Tearlach on "Giving only Scotland a say on independence negates the existence of Britain"

Tearlach — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 21:10:23 +0000

A key issue that almost everyone manages to ignore - or simply miss - is that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (to give it its Sunday name) is pretty unique in the world of nation states. That's because it’s not a real Nation state, in the sense that anyone else would understand. It’s only accepted because it’s been around a long long time, and most other countries find this Britain/England/Scotland thing something for the too hard box.

The UK is a political assemblage of two Kingdoms (England, Scotland), a Principality (Wales) and a Province (Northern Ireland). It used to be three kingdoms and a Principality, but Eire chose to dissolve its political ties to the rest of the UK over 80 years ago.

The best way of looking at the UK is that it was a very early form of the European Union - formed in 1707 - and then added to in 1800, as an economic and political union to do two things - prevent war, and promote free trade through a single currency. Sound familiar? Yep - Jean Monet was 250 years late in coming up with the idea of free trade zones and economic growth through free movement of goods, services and people.

And what's the Pound Sterling – its only a 300 year old version of the Euro.

But the UK as was from 1707 until about 1880 was really only about macro economic issues, international trade, defence, wars and all that stuff. The important stuff for the average subject – law, education, religion, roads, poor relief was all sorted out at the national level – ie Ireland, Scotland and England – Wales is/was effectively a conquered province, primarily distinguished by a separate language, like Quebec in Canada.

It’s a pretty key statistic that the Scottish Office was only set up in 1885 – was only felt to be necessary – in 1885, as the modern centralised state began to develop (its interesting to note that that’s when centralised control in countries such as Italy and Germany also started to develop).

But the key issue is that Scotland - and England (and clearly Ireland!)- remained - and remain - separate nations within a political union. Harry Reid in his Herald article on the 31st July detailed this quite succinctly, albeit in a Scottish context. Its worth a read.

tinyurl.com/5ezlxx

The big problem with the UK, and the one that is now coming home to roost, is the fact that for the past 300 years Britain has meant England, to the English, and to most of the rest of the world.

Now that that is unravelling, for the simple reason that the way Scotland benefited from the Union on the 18th and 18th century - it had access to huge markets for goods and service, free movement for its labour and the ability for its politicians to drive the growth of an empire have now vanished subsumed within a much wider European trade zone.

So the the sort of benefits that the UK used to supply to Scotland - especially access to markets and capital, and free movement of labour have long gone. In simple trade terms, Scotland does not need the UK, as we have the EU.

You see that’s its also clear that smaller EU and EFTA nations - such as Ireland, Finland, Sweden and even Iceland have many more fiscal and economic tools at their disposal to ensure that their populace are ready to face up to the challenges of developing modern, open, knowledge based economies than anything that can be seen coming out of Westminster. (And doing that without being burdened with the trappings of empire – two lame duck aircraft carriers anyone?)

Look at some of these Nations - Finland, 600 years under Swedish rule, then Russian, then existing almost as a Soviet satellite - now one of the worlds most progressive countries. If you follow the logic of UK Unionist politicians it should be clamouring to for full economic and political union with Sweden, or Russia. If you follow that same reasoning Canada and Mexico should also be beating at the doors of the White House, desperate for membership of the US. Oh, and not much evidence of Ireland wanting to re-join the UK.

No the problem here is that England needs to realise that the world has changed completely, and that the very concept of the UK is well past its sell by date. If we stop thinking about the islands of Britain and Ireland as UK plus Ireland, and think of them as a West European Scandinavia we could move these islands and their people smoothly into a European Post Industrial 21st Century.

Will that happen – I think not. In my humble opinion England and the English, have a lot of hard, difficult self examination, soul searching and very difficult self realisation as to their real place in the world before they can move forward as a modern progressive nation. I wish them well in their journey, as it will make the nations and provinces that make up the rest of these islands own journey to that end all that easier.

Giving only Scotland a say on independence negates the existence of Britain, David aka Britology Watch

David aka Britology Watch — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 13:51:22 +0000

David (Cambridge, Britology Watch): What is the Union from which Scotland would separate if it voted for independence? Is it the United Kingdom (that is, of Great Britain and Northern Ireland: the continuation of the 1801 Union between Great Britain and the whole of Ireland); or is it merely Great Britain (the Kingdom that resulted from the 1707 Union between England & Wales and Scotland)?

If it is the former, then I would concede the point that only those living in Scotland should have the automatic right to vote for Scottish independence in a referendum: irrespective of questions of national sovereignty, it satisfies the demands of natural justice that it is the people living in a particular country or region who should decide whether to separate from a larger national or supra-national entity of which that country or region has hitherto been a part. The analogy here would be with the 1995 referendum on independence for Quebec. It was right that only those living in Quebec were entitled to vote; and even if independence had been carried, the rest of Canada would have remained Canada without Quebec. Similarly, the United Kingdom would still be the United Kingdom without Scotland, albeit a continuation of the 1801 Union in which the absence of the southern part of Ireland would now be paralleled by the absence of the northern part of Great Britain. I hope we could then sensibly call it the ‘United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland' rather than what could well be regarded as a ‘logical' alternative in view of this ironic ‘symmetry' of Irish and Scottish independence: the ‘United Kingdom of Southern Britain and Northern Ireland'! Let's at least include England in the name of the state now that Great Britain was no more - even if England did continue to be governed, as it is now, as if it were the UK.

‘Now that Great Britain was no more', I said. Well, that's the problem. If a Scottish vote in favour of independence is viewed as breaking up Great Britain, rather than the UK, then the question of who has a right to vote on Scottish independence takes on a different character. This is because the result of a ‘yes' vote would now not be merely the reduction in size of a state that would continue to exist but the actual breaking up of what many still regard as a nation: Great Britain, or Britain for short. The point of the above discussion on the absurdity of calling the resultant rump state the ‘United Kingdom of Southern Britain and Northern Ireland' is that it makes it obvious that Britain as a nation would indeed cease to exist if Scotland became an independent nation: we'd be left not with Southern Britain, or Lesser Britain, but just England and Wales.

In view of these facts, if Britain is regarded as a nation, then it should really be all of the people of Britain (i.e. of England, Wales and Scotland) who should have a democratic say on Scottish independence; because then what is at stake is whether the British nation continues to exist or not. It should not be down to just one part of a nation to decide whether the nation as a whole remains. The analogy here would be with the so-called ‘Velvet Divorce' between the Czech Republic and Slovakia in 1992: a peaceful dissolution of a bi-national state into its two constituent parts that carried the consent of the majority in both parts. From this point of view, it really is a matter of national sovereignty: if Britain is a nation, then its dissolution should be an expression of the sovereign will of all her people. In other words, if you advocate the view that only the Scots should decide on Scottish independence, then you are saying that Britain is not a nation, i.e. a national polity whose sovereignty is founded on the will of its people. Unionists who concede that the issue of Scottish independence should be resolved through a Scotland-only referendum should be aware that they are thereby also conceding that Britain is not a real, sovereign nation.

Indeed, many who consider themselves to be unionists have gone even further than this and have accepted the Scottish Claim of Right of 1988: the claim that it is "the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of Government best suited to their needs". As is well known, one of the most notable signatories of this declaration was Gordon Brown. Ironic that one of the most impassioned defenders of the idea that Britain is a sovereign nation should doubly negate that nationhood by 1) accepting that only one part of that ‘nation' can decide to break it up; and 2) that the part in question is itself a sovereign nation.

Now, if Scotland is a sovereign nation, it is of course profoundly illogical and unfair to deny that England in particular (the other, and larger, part of the 1707 Union of Great Britain) is a sovereign nation. [This is quite apart from the question of the status of Wales, which is beyond the scope of the present posting; but at the time of the 1707 Union, Wales was subsumed into England.] Therefore, if Scotland's right to decide on its independence is seen as a rightful expression of its sovereignty, it is wrong to deny the same right to England. Logically, therefore, England should be allowed to hold a referendum on independence alongside a Scottish poll. Note, however, that - if these referendums are based on the principle of Scottish and English national sovereignty - the vote in England would not be just about dissolving the 1707 Union and, as a consequence, departing from the 1801 Union which otherwise might remain intact: this would be Scotland's choice. In England, the vote would be about separation from all of the countries of the UK, including Wales; and it would therefore result in a dissolution of the UK, not just of Britain.

To summarise:

if Scottish independence is seen as separation of one part of the UK state from the rest, this means that the right for the Scots alone to decide the issue is based merely on natural justice and fundamental human rights
if, on the other hand, Scottish independence is viewed as breaking up the nation of Britain, then according the right to decide on that break up to the Scots alone negates the proposition that Britain is a real nation and violates the sovereignty of its people
but if the right of the Scots to vote for independence is based on a view that Scotland is a sovereign nation, then England must also be regarded as a sovereign nation and cannot fairly be denied a vote on its independence, which - if carried - would break up not just Britain but the UK
but logically, the right to make that decision on English independence should also be offered to the Welsh and the Northern Irish: only if the (rump) UK is a nation, that is, in which case all the people of the UK should decide on its break up.

However, this last scenario scarcely seems imaginable; which only goes to show that the UK - even less than Britain - is not a real nation at all.