Nicola Sturgeon’s plan for independence, assuming that
it is genuine, involves holding an unofficial independence referendum in
October 2023, but this depends on the courts agreeing that she can do so. Even
if they do agree, such a referendum would not be like the one we had in 2014.
It might be boycotted by the Pro UK side. The SNP’s case involves it being more
or less a giant opinion poll and being merely advisory. It’s entirely unclear
what would happen if the Yes side won? But we are unlikely to get that far
anyway. The courts will probably rule against. This leaves turning the next
General Election into a de facto referendum on independence.
There has been a lot of comment saying that it is not
possible to unilaterally make a General Election a referendum. No one party can
decide what an election is about. There would be no referendum question. There
would be no referendum campaign as other parties would be debating UK wide
issues rather than Scottish independence. These arguments and others like them
are correct. But this all rather misses the point.
It is perfectly possible for a country to secede by
means of a General Election. There are lots of examples. The immediate cause of
the secession of the Confederate States of America from the Union was the
Presidential election of 1860. This was de facto referendum on independence.
Abraham Lincoln won most of the North, John C
Breckinridge won most of the South and from this followed the secession of each
state of the Confederacy.
Was this legitimate? The Confederate States argued
that they had the same right to leave the USA as the original 13 colonies had
to declare independence in 1776. The USA
disagreed and fought to prevent secession. The war initially was not about
slavery, though that was its long-term cause. The initial war aims of the Union
was merely to prevent secession.
So, if the Confederacy could obtain independence by
means of an election, so too can Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP. The British
Government even if it thought the SNP argument was illegitimate would not
attempt to prevent Scotland becoming independent by force. It might attempt to
prevent it by means of law, but if Scotland declared that such laws no longer
applied in Scotland, it would be impossible to enforce them otherwise than by
force and that is unimaginable.
Indeed, it is completely unnecessary for the SNP to
hold a de facto referendum on independence. A vote in the Scottish Parliament
would certainly be sufficient or even if the Scottish Government merely
declared that Scotland is now independent. Afterall the USA did not have a
referendum prior to saying it had left.
Countries that want to be independent do not require
referendums or elections. They merely require a leader or a movement to declare
independence and be willing to push the issue to its conclusion. Given that the
British Government under no circumstance would force Scotland to stay in the
UK, it is perfectly possible for the SNP to gain independence by means of an
election or merely by stating that it is independent.
But it is one thing to gain independence after a
legitimate referendum like the one we had in 2014. It is something else again
to achieve independence unilaterally. This is especially the case when public
opinion in Scotland is so evenly split.
When the UK voted to leave the EU, it did so according
to EU rules. We triggered Article 50. For this reason, there were negotiations
between the UK and the EU. It would not I believe have even been necessary for
there to be a referendum. The UK is a sovereign nation state and could have
merely informed the EU that it was leaving. But if the UK had not followed EU
procedures and had simply told the EU we have left, we could not have expected
any sort of deal between the EU and the UK.
Scotland is not a sovereign state, but likewise not following
the agreed procedure of leaving the UK, i.e., by means of a legal referendum
agreed by the UK Parliament, like we had in 2014, would amount to leaving
without a deal.
The UK went to great lengths to avoid a No deal
Brexit, but this would have involved us merely leaving a trading organisation
of sovereign nation states which we had been a member of for forty years or so.
A No deal Scexit would be something else again. It would mean leaving the
sovereign state of which we have been a part for the past 300 years immediately
and without negotiations.
Scotland lacks the apparatus of a sovereign nation
state. It has extensive devolved powers, but much of what is required to run a
state, such as customs and excise, income tax and benefits is at present
controlled by the British Government. An independent Scotland in a No deal
scenario would have to start these things on “day one” who is to say that “day
one” would begin the minute the SNP declared victory in its de facto
referendum.
Of course, in time there would be negotiations between
breakaway Scotland and the former UK, but the former UK would be under no
obligation to cooperate or make life easy. The SNP appear to think that winning
an unofficial referendum or a de facto referendum/General Election would lead
to negotiations and a transition period as they planned in 2014. But that
scenario depended on Scotland leaving with consent, rather than unilaterally
breaking away.
I have little doubt that if the SNP won 50% of the
vote at a General Election with a high turnout that this would lead to
independence. In time the international community would come to terms with
breakaway Scotland. But it is very difficult to predict how the former UK and
the international community would react to the precedent. It is unlikely in the
short term that Scotland would be offered membership of the EU or NATO.
But there is something that the SNP has not perhaps
thought of. The secession crisis of 1860 and 1861 changed the United States.
Prior to 1860 each state generally thought that it had the right to leave. After
1865 it was accepted that the Union was permanent. The question of whether a
state had the right to secede had been decided decisively by force of arms.
Similarly, if the SNP pushes secession to the limit by
hijacking an election and turning it into a de facto referendum, it ought to
realise that this is a battle it can only expect to fight once. It cannot
expect to turn every election into a secession crisis.
We have been debating now for about ten years. The SNP
lost the referendum in 2014. If it were to lose twice, then this must have a
consequence for the unity of the UK.
If the SNP were to win 50% of the vote, then I would
expect independence to follow, but if the SNP were to win 49.99% of the vote,
then that must count as losing forever. That would be two referendums lost and
that would be enough. No country can be threatened with continual secession.
But this I think makes the SNP strategy very risky
indeed. It must be explained carefully to Scottish voters that voting for the
SNP involves the risk of a No deal Scexit and that this will happen on the day after
the election if the SNP happens to win more than 50% of the vote. The British Government will then agree to
immediate secession, without any transition period and without any negotiations.
Under these circumstances my guess is that Scots will reject the SNP for a
second time.
The way to defeat the SNP decisively is to offer it
what it apparently wants, but under circumstances that it does not want. It is
using the strength of your opponent to defeat himself.
The UK ought not to hold Scotland against its will as
expressed by a clear majority of Scottish voters and the UK ought not to be
held together by force as the USA once was, but make absolutely clear that
Scotland would be treated by the UK and the world as an unrecognised breakaway
state that achieved secession illegitimately and Scottish voters will turn down
the offer. And that will be the end of Scottish nationalism.
