Independence would require two referendums says Constitution Unit
Guy Aitchison (London, OK): With all the hubbub surrounding Wendy Alexander’s U turn on a referendum last week I missed the Constitution Unit’s contribution to the debate, released in this press notice.
According to the Unit a “Yes” vote by the Scots in a referendum authorised by Holyrood would not be enough to secure independence. There would need to be two referendums. The first would be a “consultative referendum” authorised by Holyrood. It would deal with the “principle” of independence and permit the Scottish Parliament to enter into negotiations with Westminster which has the final say under the Scotland Act. The second referendum, authorised by Westminster, would deal with the terms and conditions of Scottish independence (including that Scotland should separate from the UK). Says the Unit’s Director, Robert Hazell: “People in Scotland might support independence in principle, but think again when confronted with the terms of independence. The terms will include not just issues like North Sea oil, but division of the national debt, ending all financial transfers from the UK government, and Scotland’s continued membership of the EU. The Scots are entitled to know the detailed terms of independence before making such a big decision”.
In his post on the Alex-Wendy debate last week, Anthony pointed out that “Labour has conceded an absolutely stunning constitutional principle: it has accepted that the Scottish parliament has the right to call a referendum that will decide on that country's independence.” If the Constitution Unit is right, however, Alexander’s call to Salmond to “bring it on” is of somewhat less significance. She is simply recognising Holyrood’s right to seek authority through referendum to enter into negotiations with Westminster: a requisite second referendum on the outcome of these negotiations might convince the Scots to change their minds.
britologywatch said:
Mon, 2008-05-12 11:14If the CU are right, then this makes it all the more imperative that not just the people of Scotland but the people of the UK as a whole are consulted on Scottish independence - if not in a first referendum, then at least in the second. This is because it affects national assets (such as the oil) and liabilities (the debt), national security and the relationship of the 'continuing' UK to the EU, to say nothing of the governance of the rump UK.
Really, in a second referendum, if it were of this sort (approving a negotiated settlement for Scotland's secession), the other UK countries should be asked whether - if they approved Scotland's separation - they wanted the existing arrangements between the countries in the remaining UK to stay as they are or to be modified. Or perhaps the negotiations on Scotland's separation would have to be accompanied by a citizens' constitutional convention and large-scale consultative process resulting in a new constitutional settlement for the remaining UK, which voters would be required to ratify as part of the Scotland referendum, or in a subsequent poll, assuming the Scots voted yes.
Otherwise, what we could end up with is no consultation of the English people on the terms of Scotland's separation and on the continuing existence / status of the UK - replicating the mistakes made over devolution.