The end of the affair?
Alex Salmond, Scotland’s nationalist First Minister, today launched a White Paper (available here) regarding Scotland’s constitutional settlement. As expected, the national discussion that is proposed includes the thorny question of Scottish independence. The First Minister proposes that a referendum should end the union between Scotland and England. Given that the majority of Members of the Scottish Parliament are opposed to independence, it is unlikely that a proposed referendum on independence will see the light of day (see the reactions of other parties here). Still the SNP executive is adamant that the discussion shall be had.
The White Paper recalls that the revived Scottish Parliament is now almost ten years old. It is argued that devolution has borne fruit; the people of Scotland are invited to discuss the pros and cons of taking devolution further - ‘further devolution could...provide greater coherence in decision-making and democratic accountability for delivery of policy.’ An independent Scotland would acquire sovereignty over ‘all domestic and international policy, similar to that of independent states everywhere, subject to the provisions of the European Union Treaties and other inherited treaty obligations.’
The Executive invites views on three options:
(i) First, retention of the devolution scheme defined by the Scotland Act 1998, with the possibility of further evolution in powers, extending these individually as occasion arises.
(ii) Second, redesigning devolution by adopting a specific range of extensions to the current powers of the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government, possibly involving fiscal autonomy, but short of progress to full independence.
(iii) Third, which the Scottish Government favours, extending the powers of the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government to the point of independence.
The main opposition parties argue that a discussion of the constitutional settlement is untimely. Yet, as noted in the White Paper, the constitutional settlement of the United Kingdom is topical now. Salmond has probably set himself up for a defeat in parliament. However, it is submitted that he has chosen wisely. Politically a nationalist First Minister could not be taken seriously if he abandoned the main plank of his party’s manifesto; from a legal perspective there is no better time than now to discuss Scotland’s constitutional affairs – the UK’s constitution is soon to undergo a major shakeup through such drastic measures as the complete upheaval of the House of Lords. A thorough discussion followed by a coherent settlement is preferable to the piecemeal change that has been practiced to date.
The White Paper recalls that the revived Scottish Parliament is now almost ten years old. It is argued that devolution has borne fruit; the people of Scotland are invited to discuss the pros and cons of taking devolution further - ‘further devolution could...provide greater coherence in decision-making and democratic accountability for delivery of policy.’ An independent Scotland would acquire sovereignty over ‘all domestic and international policy, similar to that of independent states everywhere, subject to the provisions of the European Union Treaties and other inherited treaty obligations.’
The Executive invites views on three options:
(i) First, retention of the devolution scheme defined by the Scotland Act 1998, with the possibility of further evolution in powers, extending these individually as occasion arises.
(ii) Second, redesigning devolution by adopting a specific range of extensions to the current powers of the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government, possibly involving fiscal autonomy, but short of progress to full independence.
(iii) Third, which the Scottish Government favours, extending the powers of the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government to the point of independence.
The main opposition parties argue that a discussion of the constitutional settlement is untimely. Yet, as noted in the White Paper, the constitutional settlement of the United Kingdom is topical now. Salmond has probably set himself up for a defeat in parliament. However, it is submitted that he has chosen wisely. Politically a nationalist First Minister could not be taken seriously if he abandoned the main plank of his party’s manifesto; from a legal perspective there is no better time than now to discuss Scotland’s constitutional affairs – the UK’s constitution is soon to undergo a major shakeup through such drastic measures as the complete upheaval of the House of Lords. A thorough discussion followed by a coherent settlement is preferable to the piecemeal change that has been practiced to date.
Comments
As a visitor here, I'd of course defer to the opinion of Scots. However, it seems to me that to justify independence there must be either some kind of discrimination or ill-treatment, or a compelling reason for independence which would allow for a better constitutional framework.
I haven't heard anything persuasive from the SNP that they will do anything noteworthy with an independent Scotland. The last two UK Prime Ministers have been Scottish, and arguably Scotland has a disproportionately-strong voice in Westminster.
India just celebrated the 60th anniversary of independence from British rule, and when you compare such a situation to Scotland, the case for independence becomes less and less compelling. It also seems much different from the independence of former satellite-states of the Soviet Union.
Perhaps a federal system will work, and it seems like a good idea to lay out a constitutional framework. But the UK has done very well cobbling together bits and pieces without a written "big 'C'" Constitution. I would be hesitant to break with that tradition.
The SNP independence platform was a successful political move to garner support. It helped them win the last election, but now that they are narrowly in power, they are going to have to use their political capital to construct a narrative for what an independent Scotland could be. Independence is a powerful idea, but I haven't heard any compelling reasons why an independent Scotland would be better for Scots.