Hum...remember Robert Hazell warned it would take years to get both Scottish and Welsh devolution legislation through and it didn't: Derry Irvine just made it happen. There is a mandarin 'complicationism' to the Constitution Unit, if I may be permitted the neologism. Should the wording of a Scottish referendum authorised the Scottish government and parliament to agree terms there would not have to be a second referendum. It might be a good idea but it would not be a legal obligation or, more important, or moral obligation.

The point about the authority of the Scottish Parliament that Salmond seized upon and I noted is simply this. Up until now, there was a unionist line of resistance which could have gone: "Huff and puff about a referendum as much as you wish Alex Salmond, you do not have the power to call one. You might try to use the Scottish parliament to hold an exercise. But an outcome like this has to be agreed with Westminster - the constitution itself has not been devolved it is rightly shared with Britain as a whole. So your demand is just a game". While slightly technical, the political point would have been a strong one: the unionist parties saying that devolution was not about giving Scotland the authority to decide its own fate.
Now Alexander's call to Salmond to "bring it on" and her demand in Holyrood parliament itself (as can be seen in the video I linked to, if you have not watched it please do: it is another parliament debating the fate of the UK)  that the Scottish government bring forward a proposal to hold a referendum in 2009, means Labour has accepted that this is a full and proper power for the Scottish parliament to exercise on its own. This is a very significant shift in expanding the powers of Holyrood whatever happens in the next 25 months.

In response to the above:

There are at least three points to be made re the process of independence:

Firstly, that Scotland has the right to self-determination, that can only be exercised in a referendum restricted to Scotland;

Secondly, in Scotland the people are sovereign, not Westminster. Ultimately, we do not require the consent of Westminster. Regardless, it's difficult to see In practice the point of a second Westminster-run referendum;

Thirdly, if the second referendum took place, it would not be a referendum on independence but on the conditions agreed between the Scottish and Westminster governments. A no vote would only endorse a renegotiation.

The Constitution Unit is not correct. According to the UN Charter, the right of self-determination gives any nation the right to decide whether it wants to be independent. This means that England or the UK cannot prevent Scotland from becoming independent, if that is the wish of the people of Scotland. However, since it is clear that some nations (e.g. the Indian tribes of N America) are very small, the International Court of Justice (effectively the UN court) has, in two landmark judgements, set down the three conditions under which the right can lead to full membership of the UN. They are i) cultural and political distinctiveness: ii) a track record of independence; and iii) the will to become independent. Scotland could well qualify on all three counts.

I seem to remember the Scotsman punting a similar story last year. But I think the premise of Chris Thomson is very much the right one. Scotland is a nation and unless we have disbanded the UN it has the right to self determination just like any other. I can’t think of anything more likely to secure independence than the Westminster establishment actively trying to prevent it after the people had spoken. If the Scots vote in a free and democratic referendum to leave the Union I can't see how Westminster would try and stand in the way of that and ignore the verdict of the Scottish people. I think if the people of Scotland go for independence in a plebiscite, that’s it. Game over union. How the pretense of unity could be fostered in the ‘UK’ after such a vote of no confidence would require levels of suppression and revisionism similar to the post-Prague spring ‘normalisation’.

When the dust settles I think closer examination of this tumultuous period will show just how much ground the Scottish Branch of London Labour has ceded to the Independence movement. As Anthony highlights, Labour admitting the Scottish Parliament and people can have a final say in Scotland’s constitutional future will not be quickly forgotten. The people of Scotland are sovereign, not Westminster and this tradition of the ancient of nation of Scotland can not be airbrushed out by the Constitution Unit who find it inconvenient.

'According to the Unit a “Yes” vote by the Scots in a referendum authorised by Holyrood would not be enough to secure independence.'

Well, they would say that, wouldn't they? Unfortunately, it usually doesn't happen that way. India need not need British permission to go its own way. Australia does not need Mummy's permission to become a republic. In the same way, people in Scotland were never consulted on the London Assembly, and that was not a bad thing.

It would not be a "consultative referendum" - it would be the real thing. Why pretend to be a democracy when you never bother to ask anything from the electorate? Maybe I'm being a bit too lenient on a political system which manages to hang on to quaint relics of medieval politics, such as Monarchy and a House of Lords.

However, there is one thing that any such referendum must have and the British establishment will begrudge us. I speak, of course, of INTERNATIONAL OBSERVERS. We cannot and must not do it without them.

Judging from the fiasco during the last Scottish Election, we are going to need them. Not from Commonwealth Countries, or the USA, but from neutral observers. Just to make sure that they don't try and jerryrig it like they did in the 1979 Referendum.

Brian B
http://www.barder.com/ephems/

I'm afraid there's a good deal of confusion here about which groups of people are entitled to self-determination (not a right but a principle in the UN Charter, incidentally, and applied to 'peoples', not nations or states -- Articles 1 and 55). A group of people who form part of a sovereign state (generally recognised as such, e.g. as a member of the United Nations) is not generally regarded as entitled to self-determination, and can't acquire that entitlement by calling itself a 'nation', or even by being generally referred to as a nation. To distribute such an entitlement to any part of an existing state that wanted to break away would be a recipe for global anarchy and would be strongly resisted by the numerous states which face secessionist problems. If there were ever to be a general wish among Scots for Scotland to secede from the UK on terms acceptable to the rest of the UK, there would certainly be a strong political imperative not to resist it, especially as Northern Ireland has been assured that the UK would not resist a majority wish in the Province to secede and join the Republic. But that would be a political, not a legal imperative.

Scottish secession would have such a cataclysmic effect on the future of the rest of the UK that it's hard to imagine any UK government or parliament agreeing to it without a prior consultation with all the people of the other three 'nations', presumably by referendum.

Brian

http://manaboutthehouse.wordpress.com

"Scottish secession would have such a cataclysmic effect on the future of the rest of the UK that it's hard to imagine any UK government or parliament agreeing to it without a prior consultation with all the people of the other three 'nations', presumably by referendum." - Brian Barber

And yet I fail to see how, regardless of the outcome of any referendum outside of Scotland, how Scotland could be prevented from leaving the UK.  To do so would be to behave in the imperialistic manner that England has often been accused - not an accusation I have ever levelled myself.

The refusal to accept and agree to Scotland's right to leave the UK following a referendum (in Scotland) which supports that action would likely lead to turmoil, anger and ultimately violence.

Brian B
http://www.barder.com/ephems/

Alasdair, I'm certainly not arguing that a demand for secession from the UK supported by a substantial majority (or even a simple majority) of the Scottish people should simply be ignored and resisted. There would be, and already is, an urgent need for Scotland and the other three nations of the UK to have full autonomy over all their own internal affairs, with the parliament and government at Westminster becoming federal organs responsible mainly for foreign affairs and defence -- the classical pattern for a democratic federation. Australia and the US provide pretty good models as starting-points for a federal UK. It's not unreasonable to believe that this would meet the understandable objections of very many Scots, including those who shrink from the idea of total independence, to the feeling that despite limited devolution they are still ultimately ruled from London -- in other words, by the English. Unfortunately the idea of a whole-hog federation seems to be too radical for our timid politicians; to make the case for it (including an essential element in it, a government and parliament for England) would need bold leadership, a commodity currently in regrettably short supply. If only Alex Salmond had the generosity of spirit to espouse it!

But it would be fatal to the whole enterprise to wait to launch the federal project until the SNP has got its majority for independence in a Scottish referendum. The launch should be now, even though it would take at least 20 years to achieve a full federal constitution -- probably preceded by another 20 years to get UK-wide consent to or even understanding of the idea!

Brian
http://www.barder.com/ephems/

I'm sorry Brian, but your arguement is flawed, although I do understand your point.  England, wales and N. Ireland may well be adversely effected if Scotland metaphorically sailed away (although I'm sure there are many who wish we would), indeed it may be the trigger which sees the UK disintegrate in it's entirety, yet these are decisions to be made by the people of each nations.

 Of course, if the rest of the UK suffered economically from Scotland's departure it would finally put to rest the idea that Scotland is some sort of 'subsidy junky'.

A vote for independence in Scotland, would mean independence in Scotland.  Regardless of what any of the other home nations decided or the 'cataclysmic effect' it might have on the rest of the UK, the notion that any of the constituent nations of the UK could be held within the UK by the will of the others really is 'bizarre' and really does invoke images of the old imperial Brittania - which is not imagery I'm keen on invoking, but certainly seems appropriate in this context.

I'm not going to enter a debate about federalism, other than to say that even within a fully fledged federalist system Westminster would still hold too much sway over the affairs of the 'states'.  Especially on 'big' issues such as arms policy.

http://manaboutthehouse.wordpress.com