What sort of state would Scotland be if it were to
leave the UK? The SNP talk little about this, but there are only really three
options. Scotland could be a unitary state, a federation or a confederation. A
federation is like Germany, Australia or the USA. The USA was briefly a
confederation between 1781 and 1789. The Confederate states of America was
still more briefly a confederation between 1861 and 1865. Its brevity was in
part due to its being a confederation. The EU is arguably a confederation which
is moving towards becoming a federation. Russia and Belarus signed a treaty of
confederation in 2000, but Belarus’s sovereignty looks more theoretical than
actual 22 years later.
Realistically Scotland could either be a unitary
state, with or without devolution or it could be a federation. I have never
once read about anyone giving the parts of Scotland federal powers. Arguments
about federalism in the UK are only ever about the whole of Scotland becoming
part of a federation, so it is unlikely that the SNP would give Aberdeenshire
or Orkney a federal parliament. We might not even get devolution. But in that
case Sturgeon intends Scotland to be a unitary state within a confederation the
EU.
Sturgeon complains that “Westminster is taking a
wrecking ball to the idea of the United Kingdom as a voluntary partnership of
nations.” But the UK has never been that. The UK is and always has been a
unitary state, with parts that happen to be called countries.
It is arguable whether the Kingdom of Scotland merged
with the Kingdom of England to form the Kingdom of Great Britain voluntarily.
There was no referendum. There was barely a democracy at all. But having united
there is nothing whatsoever in what passes for the British constitution about
the Kingdom of Great Britain being a voluntary union. Kingdoms throughout
Europe merged, but the UK was never the equivalent of the Austro-Hungarian
Empire with a Scottish part and an English part. If that had been the case it
would have dissolved long ago.
Until devolution was created the UK was a classic
example of a unitary nation state ruled from the centre. We voted in General
Elections and local elections and that was it.
A political convention developed in the 1960s and
1970s when the SNP began to win a few seats that Scotland could have
independence if it wanted it. No one at the time thought there was any chance
of this happening for which reason Margaret Thatcher offered the SNP
independence if it ever won a majority of seats in Scotland.
The lesson from this is that political conventions can
change, otherwise Scotland would have become independent in 2015.
Modern Scottish nationalism however did not begin with
the SNP it began with the idea expressed frequently in the 1980s that it was
unfair that Scotland voted Labour but got Tory Governments anyway. It was this
together with the decline in Conservative support in Scotland that led to the
uneven devolution settlement in the UK which grants devolved powers to three of
the UK’s parts but not the fourth.
Once Scotland had its own Parliament it was inevitable
that it would want more devolution and then still more independence until it
became a sovereign state in its own right. This is because unlike French regions
or German federal states devolution in Scotland was portrayed by Labour as giving
power to a country, giving it back the Parliament that it lost. No wonder some
Scots wanted the independence Scotland had lost too.
The demand for secession does not affect other
countries that either have devolution or are federal states, because contrary
to Sturgeon it is rare indeed in the world for anywhere to allow a democratic
right to secession. The UK’s position on the world stage will hardly be changed
if we forbid it too. Each member of the UN Security Council would agree with us
and hardly a member of the UN General Assembly would disagree with us. This is
because all of them forbid secession in theory or in practice make it
impossible to achieve.
Federalism works well in countries like Germany and
the USA because federal powers are given equally and they each have strong
central governments as well as federal states with clearly defined powers. Federalism
is not remotely like “devo max”, which leaves the UK in control of very little
indeed, but neither is it an answer to Scottish nationalism. Federalism requires
that the parts accept that they are subordinate to the whole. You cannot have a
federation of countries, because that would be a confederation.
Devolution works well in countries like France,
because the parts do not think of themselves as countries in a union, voluntary
or not, although the process by which they were united is historically similar
to UK.
But no country in the world has a system where it is a
unitary state made up of places which think of themselves as countries each of
which has a right to leave whenever it pleases. Such a state would be
inherently unstable, it would be looser even than the EU.
Nicola Sturgeon thinks of the UK as if it were a
confederation made up of nation states. But if that were the case Scotland
would already be independent. But one of the features of confederation is that
each state is independent financially. It is this amongst other issues that
caused difficulties in the early years of the United States. It is difficult to
create a stable single currency unless there are fiscal transfers from a common
central bank, but this requires a political union that goes beyond
confederation and resolves itself either in unity or federalism.
If Sturgeon really thinks that the UK is a
confederation of independent states with the right to leave when they please,
then she cannot accept fiscal transfers from the centre. So before asking for a
second referendum she should be told to give up the Barnett formula and have
all public spending in Scotland paid for by Scottish taxes alone. When you have
done that come back and ask again.
But if Sturgeon thinks the UK is a confederation, why
does she seek independence at all, for she already has it. Either the UK is
like the EU in which case Scotland is independent, but part of a union of other
similar countries, so why is she not content with this, or the UK is either a
federal state or a unitary state. But it cannot be a federal state because devolution
only occurs in unitary states. But if the UK is a unitary state, she cannot use
its being a confederation to justify independence.
The problem with the SNP argument is that always
assumes what it is trying to prove. Sturgeon argues that the UK is a voluntary
union of nations, but this is to justify Scotland becoming independent by
assuming it already is independent.
She then complains that since 1979 Scotland has not
got the Government it voted for on 70% percent of the time. But again, this is
begging the question. If in an independent Scotland Orkney and Shetland on 70%
of the time voted for the Northern Islands National Party, would Sturgeon give
them independence?
What if the Borders voted to remain in the UK instead
of joining an independent Scotland? The SNP would argue that this doesn’t
matter because Scotland is a unitary nation state that cannot be carved up. But
the UK is equally a unitary nation state and has been for 300 years. Otherwise,
it wouldn’t have lasted a decade.
If you choose to field candidates only in Scotland you
cannot reasonably complain that you never get to form a UK Government. Arguably
it is the rise of the SNP that has made it less likely that Scotland gets the
Government it votes for.
If the Yorkshire National Party always won in
Yorkshire it could hardly complain that it never won a majority of seats at
Westminster. It would be like complaining that you never win the 400 metres
even though you only ever take part in the 100 metres.
In every democracy there are parts which sometimes
never get the Government they vote for. This is not a fault in democracy it is
a feature. The task is to persuade the majority not just to win in your area. It
could equally be the case in an independent Scotland that a part might vote
differently to the whole. If this would not justify that part seeking
independence, then neither ought it to justify Scotland seeking independence.
Whether Scotland once was an independent state or whether we think of ourselves
as still being a country has nothing to do with it. Otherwise once more you are
merely assuming what you are trying to prove.
The sort of state that Sturgeon wants Scotland to be
is an independent unitary state in the EU. The EU at present is like the United
States in its early days. It is made up of independent states, but most of them
are part of a currency union and there are signs that the EU is moving towards
fiscal union and political union.
But if Sturgeon thinks that Scotland is already part
of a confederation (the UK), a voluntary union of nation states, why does she
want to leave it in order to join another (the EU)? The UK already has a
political, fiscal and currency union. We in have what the EU would like to have.
We also have a common language, common culture and a population which is
similar.
If Sturgeon cannot bear to live in a union with
England, how is she going to bear living in union with people who are very
different from us? She might argue that the EU would be a looser union which
would allow Scotland to maintain its power and its independence. But she
already thinks the UK is a confederation, which is about as loose as you can get.
In order to think the EU will continue to be still looser than that she must hope
that the EU’s goal of ever closer union won’t succeed. Has she told them that
yet? But this is to argue that the EU will forever remain a very loose
confederation. But history shows us that confederations either split or unite
into federations.
But this is Sturgeon’s problem. What if the EU’s aim
succeeds? She thinks that Scotland is now part of a confederation, but she
wants to join a new one that is moving towards becoming a federation. But in
that case Scotland would no longer be independent, but rather become like
Vermont, New South Wales or Saxony part of a new federal state called the EU.
Scotland would be less independent according to Sturgeon’s logic than we are
now.
The UK would not prevent Scotland leaving if it were
clear the overwhelming majority wished to. That British political convention
still exists. The UK Government has not said to the SNP that you will never
have a second referendum. We are not Spain. But the referendum in 2014 did
change the convention that winning a majority in the Scottish Parliament was
sufficient for a referendum which meant David Cameron felt compelled to grant
Salmond his wish. That is no longer the case and it is why both May and Johnson
have said No, not yet even if they have not said No not ever.
But is the EU a more voluntary Union than the UK? We
learned in 2015 that it didn’t matter which way Greece voted it had to do what
the EU told it and it couldn’t practically leave the EU without wrecking its
economy. Faced with the negotiating tactics the EU employed after Brexit few
smaller countries and no Eurozone countries would manage to leave. Once
federalism is achieved departure from the EU will be as forbidden as departure
from the USA.
Within certain constraints and conventions, the UK
while being a unitary state will continue to allow a referendum on independence,
but the bar is now rather higher, precisely because a majority of Scots voted
to stay a part of a unitary state and to be British only a few years ago. The
SNP cannot overcome that majority by winning most seats at a General Election
nor by winning a majority at the Scottish Parliament. It would have to show
over a number of years that independence is the settled will of Scottish voters,
which means something like two thirds support. If it becomes obvious that
support is at that level, then I think the UK would not behave like the EU but rather
find a way to dissolve itself by mutual cooperation.
But I fear that Scotland and Wales under those circumstances
would find that life in the EU would involve rather less freedom and independence
than they have at present and goodness only knows how Northern Ireland could be
kept peaceful.
But in the end breaking up the UK might be no more practically possible than breaking up the EU or the USA. The economic and political cost to ourselves and to the West in general would be such that no matter the result of a referendum in Scotland independence would not happen and we would discover that we needed each other after all.
