The Conservative Party’s new policy of calling for a referendum on Scottish independence in the near future is a pretty dangerous strategy for unionists, and a sign of their evident fear that what was once a distant and romantic fantasy has become a very real possibility indeed. In every statement, the government resorts to using frightening language – the SNP are ‘separatists’ and ‘seek to break up our country’. Unfortunately for the government this language is likely to frighten English people rather than Scots, for whom phrases such as ‘our country’ have a hollow ring when they come from the mouths of English politicians. To what extent can a Scot say that Britain is his country when Scotland is still governed from Westminster?
Insisting that the independence referendum must be approved by the Westminster Parliament rather than the Scottish Parliament on the grounds of its binding legality is a particularly cynical move on the government’s part, given that the very act that could potentially free Scotland from subjugation to the Union will now be legally undertaken by the Parliament that asserts sovereignty over Scotland. If the Scottish Parliament were to launch a referendum whose result were in favour of independence, it would of course be impossible for the Westminister Parliament to dispute it, whatever its technical legal status. Recent governments have a track-record of disregarding the finer points of constitutional law when it has suited them but evidently not when the Union is at stake. To suggest that a referendum run by the Scottish Parliament would be illegitimate is tantamount to impugning the legitimacy of the First Daíl in 1919. The Scottish Parliament represents the Scottish people, albeit the Scottish MPs at Westminster do the same, but it would be absurd to deny its authority to conduct a referendum on independence. If Scotland were to become independent, then that independence would require a legislative act in England (repeal of the Act of Union) but presumably no legislative act would be required in Scotland – just as the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927 terminated the existence of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, but was not mirrored by any act of the Daíl. Ireland did not need to make a legal declaration of independence in order to be free of Britain – the onus was on Britain to free Ireland, as the onus now is on the UK to free Scotland.
I believe that the government’s unionism may backfire – their hope is that the Scottish people are not ready for independence, that they are fearful in a time of economic hardship and will not wish to surrender the economic support that they receive from London. I believe that the Scottish people are stronger and prouder than the government believes, and that every fresh insult that is heaped upon the cause of Scottish independence will merely inflame Scots to react against the arrogance of the Conservative Party and their unionist allies.
One possibility is that Cameron envisages a near-permanent Conservative majority in England and finds the prospect attractive. Certainly the Conservatives have far less to lose from Scottish independence than Labour. Perhaps he is trying to help the SNP, while maintaining a pseudo-Unionist position in order to keep his party happy.
Either that he’s simply very, very stupid…The Nationalists must be licking their lips.
There is now so much bad blood between England and Scotland that the union may already be living on borrowed time. Indeed those defending the British union are caught in a nasty trap: the more unionists try to persuade Scotland that its interests are best secured in the United Kingdom, the more English taxpayers feel aggrieved at the disparate expenditure. After Cameron I suspect the Conservative Party will adopt an English Nationalist stance, particularly as it’s totally failed to garner Scottish support (….just 1 MP!…how is that sustainable?!?).
I think that the nature of this post is counter to the real Jacobite cause. Jacobitism is not necessarily a Scottish Nationalist cause but rather a British cause for a strong and legitimate crown that applies to both England and Scotland and thus as we propose that the Stuarts should’ve continued to rule both Kingdoms, it’s perfectly plausible to suggest that Union would have happened anyway. Please keep Scottish Nationalism out of this. Imagine how left wing and social democratic an Independent Scotland would be. Nothing like what us High Tories would want. Also, this blogs harsh words for the Conservative Party are also grossly unfair. The alternative is Labor, the SNP or the Liberal Democrats, all of which are either social democratic or social liberal, not what we support either.
Stephen, are you British yourself? If so, why does you spell Labour as ‘Labor’?
“Please keep Scottish Nationalism out of this.”
If I may say so, it is rather rude of you to instruct a blogger, on whose platform you are a guest, about the opinions he is entitled to express.
…should be *do* of course.
Allow me to clarify: my point about the spelling of ‘labour’ was that it suggests that you aren’t British, ‘labor’ being the American spelling.
Our Australian friends have a Labor Party too.
The strategy adopted by Conservatives and Labour will be counter-productive. Which is of course a good thing. As is the hysteria engendered by London based “unionists” in London….politics banks, media, trade unions etc. The sheer weight of the opposition will be its weakness. Which is of course great news for nationalists. It is impossible to be an Irish nationalist and not support nationalism in Scotland or (at random) Costa Rica. If the three kingdoms is a basic theory in Jacobitism then it stands that they are three different places, the Act of Union is anti-Jacobite and given that there is no real prospect of a Jacobite restoration then surely Jacobites have to work for Scottish independence. The notion that a usurping United Kingdom is somehow superior to a two republics (not that Scotland wants that anyway) is absurd.
The weakness in the unionist case is that Conservatives and Labour are acting for different reasons. That Labour NEEDS Scotland is obvious. But really we are talking about a “beginning” of History rather than an end to History.
Essentially the Conservative view is that there is no Scottish history prior to 1707 that the line in the sand is drawn and as conservatives they rest on tradition as much as pragmatism.
For Labour Scottish History effectively begins with the Enlightenment and progress since.
Neither really countenaces Scottish History as the Scots see it.
It is of course entirely honourable that a “unionist” put forward a pragmatic argument but keeping the debate pragmatic is not necessarily in the “nationalist interest”. They must choose their ground.
The increasing hysteria is grist to the mill. When Reg Empey declares that “Scottish Independence will turn Northern Ireland into West pakistan” he has almost got a good point that the “kingdoms break up is more likely.
Nothing in “Northern Ireland”was set in stone in 1998. Rather the GFA was a series of stepping stones to……or obstacles to…..a United Ireland.
“Events dear boy events” as a Prime Minister observed. Scotlans Referendum is an event which could bea (to use an awful word)gamechanger.
Perhaps I could just add that it is in “unionist” interest to make the debate more complex than it really is.
If I was to look to a near parallel it would be the Australian Monarchy Referendum of some years ago. There the basic question was made more “complex” to engineer a result.