Peter Flynn injects three interesting points of discussion into the independence referendum.
The independence referendum is coming, so look busy. The exact question is yet to be decided, but the basic gist is set to be as follows: do you want it, do you not want it, or are you somewhere in between?
In order to decide their answer to this question, most people will focus on economics, looking at whether people will be better off in or out of the UK. The debate will focus on oil and natural resources, the virtues of being part of the fifth largest economy in the world, the level of national debt we would end up with after separation, and whether the cost of investment would ever really be made back. This debate has been going on for years, and will likely continue until 2014.
Why not make the debate more exciting by introducing some new topics of discussion? I suggest these three, to get you started: one – would individual parts of the country have a constitutional right to break away from an independent Scotland if they so desired? Two – what would happen to the Trident nuclear submarine base at Faslane? Three – doesn’t breaking away from the UK at a time when pretty much all other countries in the world are uniting to tackle global problems not look a bit negative? A bit regressive?
The first question is actually pretty important. If the SNP deny Aberdonians the right to hold a referendum to break away from Scotland, for example, then they will be denying to others a freedom that they themselves seek from the UK Government – a right to secede. A similar problem was encountered by the Bloc Quebecois when they waffled around the issue of giving the Inuit the right to hold an independence referendum to break free from a free Quebec. Aberdeen is in great economic shape – much better than some other parts of Scotland. Why should it have to support people in Dunbarton or Kilmarnock?
The SNP are very keen to promote the idea that Scotland, when independent, would be Trident-free. It looks more likely that the rest-of-UK government would pay the Scottish Government to keep its base in Faslane, since it would probably work out more expensive to move the submarines elsewhere. An independent Scottish Government would no doubt be very tempted to accept the rest-of-UK Government’s money. So I wouldn’t necessarily believe any arguments that say an independent Scotland would have no nuclear weapons. It probably would, and they’d be English. William Wallace would be proud.
The third talking point I propose is straightforward enough: France and Germany are pushing for tight fiscal union, the EU as a whole is moving ever closer together politically, the old-fashioned state system has been comprehensively defeated by globalisation and macroeconomic trends well beyond the control of central banks, and all the while the SNP still entertain the notion of breaking away, and going it alone. Surely they are swimming against the current?
So, the next time somebody comes up to you and tries to talk about Scottish independence, try one of these new topics of discussion. They’re much more interesting than the tired old arguments about economics.
Peter Flynn
Image Credit – Ian Britton
The Breaking Point
Soaring at the Helm
In Defence of Grown-ups Reading Children’s Books
A second Nakba?
Leaving Everything Behind – Flood of Red
Beyond Dubai
‘We Long Endure’: Weird Done Well
A Life in Theatre: Fragments of Thespianism
Fred’s Emporium: More Than a Gift Shop
The Definitive A-Z of Summer According to Me
day trading: Ok, enough said. This was probably the best articl...
Walter: Thanks for finally talking about >A second Nakb...
rpg game: My grand father always used to watch YouTube comic...
Josh: Some interesting stuff....
moving companies Baltimore: There's certainly a lot to know about this issue. ...
Dear Peter Flynn,
You ask some interesting questions, which I’m happy to discuss:
“Would individual parts of the country have a constitutional right to break away from an independent Scotland if they so desired?”
Technically yes, just as parts of other countries can, but in practice it’s most unlikely to be an issue. The scenario you present is, as I’m sure you realise, reductio ad absurdum. The UK was created by the Treaty of Union (of Parliaments) in 1707 between two countries – England (which also ruled Wales and Ireland at the time) and Scotland. Scotland has remained a distinct entity throughout the duration of the Union, and the forthcoming independence referendum is being held to determine whether Scotland will reaffirm that treaty, seek to substantially renegotiate that treaty, or abrogate that treaty and thus dissolve the UK.
The UK Government has already stated that it will respect the decision of the Scottish electorate on the matter, although of course both governments are frantically politicking to achieve their desired outcomes.
If you think about it, you’ll realise that no other approach is practical. Were the UK Government to adopt your suggestion, how do you think it might regard a future referendum on EU membership if Birmingham, Manchester, Peterborough etc. were all required to make separate decisions on whether they were going to withdraw from the EU or not?
“What would happen to the Trident nuclear submarine base at Faslane?”
That would, of course, be a matter for the future Scottish government and, ultimately, for Scotland’s voters, to decide. If the SNP formed the first independent Scottish Government, I’d expect them to carry out their policy and negotiate the withdrawal of Trident. They’d probably succeed in doing so, though of course they might not. After all, it took the Icelanders a long time to get rid of the US base at Keflavik. If another party was elected, their policy would become the objective for negotiations.
I don’t understand why you attribute any special significance to this question. Governments act in what they regard as the interests of the states they govern, and the future government of an independent Scotland would be no different from any other in that regard.
“Doesn’t breaking away from the UK at a time when pretty much all other countries in the world are uniting to tackle global problems not look a bit negative? A bit regressive?”
No, and I think you are confusing two related but distinct phenomena. There has certainly been a dramatic growth in international co-operation, and in the institutions that express it, since the end of the Second World War. Scottish independence would reinforce, rather than run counter to, this welcome trend because the independence movement is overwhelmingly internationalist and co-operative in outlook.
I don’t know if you’ve ever travelled outside the present UK but you must surely realise that there are many more independent countries in the world today than there were only a few decades ago. In modern Europe, a fair number of member states of the EU are smaller than Scotland is. ‘Separatism’ is merely a unionist jibe, and certainly not the aim of any of the political parties that support Scottish independence.
Best wishes,