The British Government has been attempting to maintain
friendly relations with the SNP and the Scottish Government just as we have
attempted to maintain friendly relations with the EU. There is clearly no point
falling out with anyone unnecessarily. But cooperation and friendly relations ultimately
depend on a foundation of there being the alternative of unfriendly relations.
At times the UK has been overly generous both with regard to the EU and with
regard to the Scottish Government. The SNP, for instance, was given a free hand
in conducting the 2014 referendum.
Sometimes it is necessary to reveal the consequences of a course of action and that these may be negative.
For the first time since 2016 the British Government has made it clear to the EU that we are willing to walk away from a deal and we are willing to do what is necessary to protect our territorial integrity and national interest even if that seriously angers the EU. The same point must be made, albeit quietly and perhaps behind the scenes to the Scottish Government.
In order to protect our territorial integrity and
national interest we must clearly focus on doing what is necessary to prevent Scottish
independence. Just as the British people clearly understood that leaving the EU
involved giving up the rights of being EU citizens, so too the Scottish
electorate must understand that leaving the UK would involve giving up the
rights of being British citizens. At least it would involve a choice.
Clearly it would be wrong to strip Scots who wished to
remain British of their British citizenship. But those Scots who wanted to
become Scottish citizens must face a choice. If they chose to have a Scottish passport,
they must relinquish their British passport.
The Government of the former UK in the event of
Scottish independence would be at liberty to choose whatever citizenship rules
it pleased with regard to Scotland. They need not be the same rules as apply to
anywhere else. Scotland could be made a special case.
Too many independence supporters think they can break
up the UK with no negative consequences for the relationship between the former
UK and Scotland. They do this in part because of the historical precedent of
Ireland. The British Government treated Irish citizens as if they were British
citizens, established a Common Travel Area and Currency Union. Scottish independence
supporters think they could have the same. It is crucial to disabuse them of this
idea.
If Scotland were to leave the UK, then it would have no
trade deal with the UK. The British Government must make clear that in the
event of independence it would be primarily interested in demonstrating the
negative consequences of independence, just as the EU has been interested primarily
in demonstrating the negative consequences of Brexit.
Scottish citizens would not have the automatic right
to live and work in the former UK, nor would they have the right to any
benefits or free healthcare. This is no different from how the EU is treating
Britain at present.
In order to work or study in the former UK Scottish
citizens would have to apply for visas in the same way as people from anywhere
else in the world.
The British Government should make clear that it would
have no interest whatsoever in cooperating with regard to defence or broadcasting.
Indeed, it would allow Scotland to have
complete independence in respect to cooperation with the former UK, i.e. it
would get as little cooperation as possible.
What would be the consequences of the former UK taking
a hard line in the divorce negotiations with Scotland and specifically treating
Scottish citizens as having no more rights than people from Iran?
The first consequence is that there would be two
classes of resident in Scotland. There would be those who remained British who
could take advantage of their British citizenship to move across the border in
order to access benefits and healthcare if these happened to be better than in
Scotland. These British Scots would be able to move if their job was taxed at a
much higher rate in Scotland than in the former UK. The other class of Scottish
resident, Scottish citizens, would be unable to do any of these things.
This is necessary because Scottish finances would
likely to be such that anyone who lost their job in Glasgow, or anyone who got
sick in Aberdeen would be tempted to escape over the border if they were able
to retain dual Scottish/British citizenship. Why should the former UK look after people who
voted to leave? The former UK would have to protect itself from the financial
consequences of too many refugees from Scotland realising they have just voted
for poverty and unemployment.
How many Scots would opt to retain British citizenship?
It is likely that at least as many as would vote to remain in the UK. Perhaps
some hypocritical independence supporters would opt to remain British too. The
result would be that upwards of half of the residents in an independent Scotland
would not be Scottish citizens. This would immediately make Scotland untenable
as an independent country. No country can survive when so many citizens belong
to another state. It would give that state a claim on those places where its
citizens were in the majority. If on the other hand the SNP argued that residents
in Scotland had to be Scottish citizens, what would it do to those who refused,
drive them out?
Thus, during the independence/divorce negotiations and
transition period the British Government could organise local plebiscites. If a
majority of those who proposed to remain British citizens in any particular
region wished to remain in the former UK, they could be given that option. This
need not merely apply to those parts of Scotland that were geographically
contiguous. After all Alaska is not geographically contiguous with the rest of the
United States.
The British Government could argue that if Orkney,
Shetland, Aberdeenshire and the Borders plus anywhere else that retained a
majority of British citizens wished to remain in the UK then it should be
allowed to do so.
This would make any referendum on independence rather
interesting. Scots would not so much be voting for Scotland to be independent as
we would be voting for which parts would be partitioned and which parts would
go it alone.
In 2014 Dundee and Glasgow would have ended up as a
statelet rather like the West Bank and Gaza Strip. They might have called
themselves Scotland, but the rest of Scotland would have had a better claim to
the title.
If it were made clear, perhaps privately to the SNP
that the British Government would do all it could to undermine an independent Scotland
including partitioning it, then the SNP would be very angry indeed, but they
wouldn’t be able to do very much about it.
The key to defending the future of the UK is to make dual nationality illegal with regard to Scotland. This alone would have the consequence of making few Scots vote for independence, not least because it would make an independent Scotland untenable.
