Scottish Independence Referendum - 18 September 2014

[Gary J]

A yes vote for independence, would give the Scottish government a mandate to negotiate the terms for disunion. I would have thought the financial terms would be as contentious as those negotiated at the time of the Treaty of Union.

[Gary J]

Siloch's interesting contribution seems to suggest that an independent Scotland would re-create the 1603-1707 situation. Scottish ministers would, in theory, lead an independent country but in practice that independence would be severely constrained by English influence.

Before the union the common monarch, resident in England, was far more likely to be guided by his English ministers and English interests than the Scottish ones. King James VI said something about finding it easier to govern Scotland with a pen from Whitehall, than a sword in Scotland.

During the union, Scottish politicians have found it easier to influence the United Kingdom than their pre-union predecessors had to be taken into account in London. A fair number of Prime Ministers have been Scots or at least represented Scottish seats in Parliament, considering the relative sizes of the two countries. In the last century and this; A.J. Balfour was Scottish (representing an English seat), Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman (both Scottish and sitting for a Scottish constituency), H.H. Asquith (English sitting for a Scottish seat), Bonar Law (a Canadian born Scot who represented a Scottish seat for part of his career), Ramsay Macdonald (born in Scotland), Winston Churchill (was MP for Dundee during part of his long career), Harold Macmillan (Englishman of Scottish descent), Sir Alec Douglas-Home (Scottish aristocrat representing a Scottish seat), Tony Blair (born and educated in Scotland), Gordon Brown (a Scot and Scottish MP) and David Cameron (very English but undeniably of Scottish descent).

[Gary J]

Looking at the wording of the Treaty of Union and the Acts of Union which gave legal effect to the treaty, the Kingdoms of England and Scotland were combined into a united kingdom of Great Britain. Whilst England and Scotland continued to exist, the two former Kingdoms had been ended by being merged into an incorporative union.

The Great British united kingdom, created by the Anglo-Scottish union, was itself subsumed into the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland from 1 January 1801. After that point there were three parties to the union, so the withdrawal of just one would not automatically end the union itself.

Subsequent developments have created a United Kingdom which now includes the four nations of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.

None of these components of the union is currently a sovereign state, but they all have somewhat different institutional relationships to the United Kingdom and to a certain extent different laws. I do not see why one nation withdrawing from the relationship would end it between the other parts, any more than the departure of 26 Irish counties to become the Irish Free State (now the Republic of Ireland) affected the remainder of the union.

If Scotland now decided to withdraw from the United Kingdom, the remaining three components of the modern United Kingdom would clearly be the successor state.

Some may argue that the union between England and Scotland is more fundamental to the United Kingdom than the other links, but I do not see the legal basis for such a claim today rather than in the 1707-1800 period.

[Gary J]

A vote for independence is the start, not the end, of the process of disunion. Various contentious issues would have to be negotiated. When there is an agreement, the Westminster Parliament would have to legislate for the end of the union.

The current devolved Scottish Parliament does not have the legal authority to end the union. Only the Westminster Parliament could do that.

[Gary J]

I see no reason why Labour, Liberal Democrats or Conservatives in Scotland would just disappear, if there is a pro-independence majority in the referendum. All of them have and are likely to retain  representation in the Scottish Parliament.

In the longer run there might be a realignment on the centre-right of Scottish politics. Perhaps the Tories could dissolve the existing party and reform as the Scottish Party or some patriotic name like that. One of the Scottish Conservative leadership candidates a while back suggested that sort of approach.

[Gary J]

Quote from njwes

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The history is indeed different. The SNP has always been a non-violent party. The Irish political system emerged from a War of Independence and a subsequent Civil War between the pro and anti treaty wings of the independence movement. Fianna Fáil were the part of the anti treaty side in the Civil War which, a few years later, took their seats in the democratic legislature of the 26 county state. 

Vote as you shot will not be the principle around which the Scottish political system will be organised.

[Gary J]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I have not noticed anything, although I am in southern England so I might not have seen it.

Presumably a yes vote, would be followed by some negotiations over the terms of disunion. The independence constitution might be negotiated during that process, but I would suspect that Scotland would prefer as little interference as possible from the rest of the UK.

The Scottish Liberal Democrats have suggested a constitutional convention, with representatives of all the parties and civil society groups in Scotland. This was modelled on the body which came up with the current devolution arrangements (which notably was boycotted by the SNP). The existing convention proposal is related to changes within the union, but there is no reason why it could not be used to draft an independence constitution if there has been a yes vote on independence.

Such a body would not be likely to make major changes to the existing Scottish Parliament electoral system.

[Gary J]

I found some material on page 352 of the Scottish government's document about ''Scotland's Future''. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0043/00439021.pdf

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The SNP definitely want the constitution to be wholly made in Scotland. The 'initial constitutional platform' would presumably be drawn up by the existing Scottish Parliament dominated by the SNP. Nothing is said about the electoral system to be used in 2016.

[Gary J]

The royal representative in Scotland before the union of parliaments had a title like Lord Commissioner.

I imagine Princess Anne would be well placed to represent the Queen, as she and her son have been building up support for a while. Princess Anne often attends rugby union internationals in Edinburgh and her son was involved in playing the game within the Scottish system.

The Queen is, of course, half Scottish herself and spends part of her year in Scotland (Christmas and New Year), so no doubt some arrangement could be made foe who does what within the royal family.