Tuesday 10 January 2012

Calling Salmond's bluff or Unionist browbeating?

The UK Cabinet met yesterday and the at-some-point-but-we-don't-know-yet referendum (Owen : Alex Salmond has just announced it'll be held in autumn 2014, which I imagine was most people's guess) on Scottish independence was high on the agenda. There are several lines from my last post "Saving the Union – impossible without unity?" that might be relevant and reinforce my own view that creating a New Union – one based on sovereignty at a lower level than Westminster, united by popular consent and a culture shift in unionist thinking - is going to be an uphill struggle for a whole host of reasons.

"There's browbeating of the Celtic Fringe that sounds like the threats a fat, bald, middle-age husband would make to a divorcing wife. "

David Cameron - "....it is unfair on the Scottish people themselves (Won't someone pleeeease think of the children?). It would be desperately sad if Scotland chose to leave the United Kingdom (Go on, see if I care!)....Let's not drift apart....I think he (Alex Salmond) knows the Scottish people at heart do not want a full separation...(Let's give it one last try.)"

DC – "If Alex Salmond wants a referendum on independence, why do we wait until 2014? (You don't tell me what to do! You're not my mother!)"

Danny Alexander - "The idea that we should decide the fate of the UK on the basis of the date of a medieval battle...."

June 24th is also the anniversary of the English destroying a French fleet at the Battle of Sluys, the start of the Great Siege of Gibraltar, a successful British-Native American victory at the Battle of Beaver Dams in the War of 1812, the preliminary bombardment that starts the Battle of the Somme, the start of the Berlin Blockade and the granting of self-government to Zanzibar by Britain.

Every day is the anniversary of something, Danny.

"There's also those who want to "play the ostrich". It's 'all a diversion from the important issues of the day'
. "

DC - "The uncertainty about this issue is damaging to Scotland and Scotland's economy. "

Danny Alexander - "....when we are in the middle of a financial crisis and youth unemployment of one in four would be laughable if it wasn't so serious."

.....damage and crisis of partially your own making guys. Who holds the economic levers again?

"All we're hinted at getting is a typical Westminster fudge that patches over problems until said patches wear out....A British Constitutional Convention – bound to be a needed - could rumble on for years. It would almost certainly open up the whole EU in-or-out debate at some point."

DC - "Then we need a proper debate where people can put forward their views....so let's clear up the legal situation and then have a debate about how we bring this to a conclusion."

"Let's have a debate" – New Labour's favourite line. Not very original, Dave.

There's been an inevitable backlash from the SNP who see Westminster as "dictating" to the Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament. That's a charge David Cameron resolutely denies and he goes further by acknowledging that it'll be the people of Scotland who decide it's future.

The Scottish Parliament has no competence on the constitution. The "Union between Scotland and England" is a specifically reserved matter to Westminster in the Scotland Act 1998. As I post this Scottish Secretary Michael Moore has said that any referendum would require Westminster's authority.

However, as usual, there are potential ways around. All referenda are consultative – so no referendum is ever legally binding. Also, due to parliamentary sovereignty, any action approved via referendum can be repealed (though that's political suicide). The Scottish Parliament does, as far as I know, have the power to carry out consultative referenda. Whether it has the authority to do so on a "reserved matter", without Westminster's say so, is the issue. I don't think David Cameron is suggesting the Scottish Parliament can't press ahead with a referendum, he just wants it done on Westminster's terms to try and regain some control over proceedings.

Most independence referenda usually authorise a negotiation between governments on a settlement that would lead to independence – if there's a yes vote - followed by a confirmatory referendum after those negotiations are completed. So in most cases it's consultative anyway – never a straight case of in-or-out. What's more interesting is if Westminster tries to block, or prevent, the Scottish Government putting a "devo-max" option on the referendum ballot. In my opinion that really would be interfering in Scottish affairs but there's always the threat that a multi-option referendum would confuse the electorate.

I don't think there's any chance of Westminster blocking or changing a consultative referendum on independence or nullify any yes vote for "legal reasons" - the fall out from such a move could have the opposite effect Unionists want. What should worry unionists more in this instance is that a key part of an Act of Parliament (that the constitution and union between Scotland and England are reserved matters) in practice isn't worth the paper it's written on. As a result parliamentary sovereignty and the supreme authority of the UK Government, both cherished by unionists, is undermined just by the Scottish Government considering a referendum, let alone eventually having one.

David Cameron is well within his rights to press the issue but there's not much the UK Government can do in this situation without coming across as arrogant, condescending bullys. Perhaps the SNP will cave in and hold a referendum as early as mid-2013, but perhaps they won't.

I return to another line from my last post.

"It might irk conservatives but some of those cherished traditions might need to go out the window to ensure a New Union happens – in particular Westminster's primacy."

Dave, give it up butt. Stop expecting the worst.

If you love someone, let them go.



0 comments:

Post a Comment