A Not So United Kingdom
by Paul Nesbitt-Larking
Professor of Political Science, Huron University College.
- First Posted: Mar 09 2010 07:12 AM
- Updated: 3 months ago
The Scottish National Party government is pushing for independence, but how much support do they really have?
Alex Salmond, leader of the minority Scottish National Party (SNP) government, has announced plans for a referendum on Scottish independence. Before breaking open the Scotch, however, the announcement should be put into some perspective.
A strong and passionate minority of Scottish voters support independence and it was they, in combination with others disillusioned with the Labour Party, who gave the SNP its narrow minority government in 2007. While there was and continues to be a consensus on devolving more powers from London to Edinburgh, there was little overt consideration of independence for Scotland throughout the campaign.
Scottish independence is the raison d’etre of the SNP and so the fact that Salmond is promoting it should not surprise us. However, as has sometimes been the case with the Parti Quebecois, one has to wonder to what extent the current proposal is just going through the motions.
While the precise language of the two proposed referendum questions has not yet been released, the first would ask voters whether they wish to see greater powers for the Scottish parliament. It remains to be seen whether the question will demand relatively modest or substantial additional powers. The second question asks whether “the parliament’s powers should also be extended to enable independence to be achieved.” This question is so swampy and lacking in active agency that it makes the 1995 Quebec referendum question look like a model of purposeful intention and clarity. It’s unclear who or what would do the extending, enabling, or achieving – not to mention whatever it is that they might chose to extend, enable, or achieve.
Opposition parties have pledged to fight the bill, regarding it as little more than a vanity project for Salmond. Since they have a majority, it is unlikely to pass. However, even the opposition concurs that some degree of increased powers for the Scottish parliament is desirable. After all, unlike Quebec, the Scottish people are not sovereign within their own spheres of constitutional competence. They only enjoy powers that have been devolved from the British government at Westminster. It seems eminently reasonable that the Scottish people should ask for greater autonomy within a United Kingdom.
Opposition parties also point out that, in a time of economic recession, Scots have more pressing matters on their minds than to revisit the battlefields of Culloden.
Perhaps Scottish nationalism will have to be restricted to the chests of those sporting the new Scottish soccer T-shirts prepared for the World Cup later this year in South Africa. Scotland’s team failed to make it; England’s did. “ABE” reads the T-shirt: Anyone But England.
Comments
Re:Marks
“ hard to believe this was written by a professor of political science. There are so many simple mistakes and boneheaded assumptions here it would scarcely pass for undergrad stuff.
bella bugiardini
“ Since there are so many Canadians with a connection to Scotland one would have hoped that the above comment might not have stooped so easily to crass stereotype. The one redeeming feature of the article was the author failed (forgot?) to allude to Braveheart in his 400 words. Maybe the next time (or the first time?) Mr NesbitthyphenLarkin visits Scotland he might catch sight of a few ABC t-shirts...
John McDonald
“ There are two particular issues identified in this article which demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge by Professor Paul Nesbitt-Larking about the politics of Scotland. One of those concerns the wording of the question(s) in a referendum and the other is about sovereignty. "The validity of the legislation will be determined by reference to the 'purpose' of the Referendum Bill (Section 29(3) of the 1998 Act). If the outcome of the proposed referendum means independence then it will be classified as a reserved matter and therefore ultra vires. However, where the referendum is purely advisory in nature and does not pre-determine the effect of the outcome of the referendum, then the Bill has a chance of survival. Its purpose is determined by the wording of the referendum question." SOURCE: 'SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE: A Practical Guide' by Jo Eric Murkens with Peter Jones and Michael Keating (The Constitution Unit, University College London), page 25, ISBN 0 7486 1699 3. "greater power can only be granted to Scotland by the UK Parliament and here there is potential for conflict. To take the extreme example, constitutional matters are reserved but it is hard to see how the Scottish Parliament could be prevented from holding a referendum on independence should it be determined to do so. If the Scottish people expressed a desire for independence the stage would be set for a direct clash between what is the English doctrine of sovereignty and the Scottish doctrine of the sovereignty of the people." SOURCE: 'The Operation of Multi-Layer Democracy', Scottish Affairs Committee Second Report of Session 1997-1998, HC 460 - I, 2 December 1998, paragraph 27. "Yet whatever the protestations of Westminster politicians and the wording of the Scotland Act, almost nobody in Scotland believes that the Parliament is a mere subordinate legislature, a creature of Westminster statute. Its claim to original authority are twofold: its basis in the referendum of 1997 as an act of self-determination; and the residual traditions of Scottish constitutional law and practice which never accorded untrammelled sovereignty to Westminster." SOURCE: 'SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE: A Practical Guide', page 296. The devolved Scottish Parliament may have been established by an Act of the Westminster Parliament, which is subject to English constitutional law, but it is located in Edinburgh where it is subject to Scottish constitutional law.
Michael Follon
“ Many thanks for these comments, Michael, and for the references. I have no doubt that those who wish to delve deeper into the arcane intricacies of constitutional law will benefit from thinking through the issues you raise. However, they do not contradict my basic points - which are that politically the Referendum Bill is unlikely to succeed and if it does, Scottish voters are unllikely to vote in favour of the second question. I also point out that Scotland only has devolved powers and that those who seek independence are looking for sovereignty. The fact of devolution has nothing to do with the "protestations of Westminster politicians," but is a simple fact of Scotland's current constitutional status. Buit don't take my word for it, check the SNP website, where they argue that devolution is not enough!
Paul Nesbitt-Larking
“ I am well aware that at the present moment "Scotland only has devolved powers". Your comment that those who seek independence are looking for sovereignty." reveals a common misunderstanding about the nature of sovereignty in Scotland. If you mean national sovereignty, which I think you do, then say so. Because of two conflicting doctrines of sovereignty and the location of the UK Parliament the idea that that Parliament was supreme has been thought to be a fact. This idea became part of English constitutional law in 1689 BEFORE the Treaty of Union in 1707. Because the site of the UK Parliament was the pre- 1707 English Parliament it has only been ASSUMED that the UK Parliament was sovereign. There is NO reference whatsoever in that Treaty to the concept of the supremacy of Parliament. I have a post on my blog 'The 'Sanitization' of Scottish History' titled 'Understanding Scottish Independence' at http://follonblogs.blogspot.com/.
Michael Follon