Banner

By Mark McNaught

The Scottish government has released ‘Scotland’s Future: from a Referendum to Independence and a Written Constitution’, which starts to put the constitutional meat on the bones concerning Scotland’s future in the event of a ‘yes’ vote in 2014.

Alistair Darling has stated that it is not within the remit of the Better Together campaign to lay out what powers might be devolved in the event of a ‘no’ vote. What is their purpose then, other than to issue predictable scare tactics and fanciful statistics forecasting economic doom?

Evidently they are uninterested in making a positive case for continued union. At least we know what we can expect.

More fundamentally, the continuing clarification of Scotland’s constitutional future in the event of a ‘yes’ vote makes the result of a ‘no’ vote increasingly uncertain, both relatively and absolutely. Recent polls of Scots reflect increasing support for independence, and an overwhelming desire to have more powers. The only certain way for Scotland to assure more powers is to vote ‘yes’.

All three of the Unionist parties at the UK level have promised more powers to be devolved if Scots vote ‘no’. The Liberal Democrats have been the most concise, having issued a detailed paper on the issue.

In theory, a ‘no’ vote could lead to the Unionist parties reaching consensus on what powers to devolve, but we do not currently observe much of this from Westminster.

How can Scots know with any certainty that any of these promises will be kept?

In the wake of a ‘no’ vote, what will be the status of the coalition government and the prospects for a Labour victory? What pressures (economic, political, and otherwise) could be brought to bear on the UK government that could render further devolution impossible? Will the Liberal Democrats be in any position to give effect to their proposed devolution of powers, or will they be utterly irrelevant?

If Scotland votes ‘no’, will the UK government take punitive measures against Scotland for having the temerity to hold a referendum? Will they renege on promises to further devolve power? Could they even take back powers preventing the Scottish government from ever again having the power to hold a referendum? Will they slash Scotland’s budget?

The archaic UK unwritten constitution continues to allow Westminster to abolish the Scottish parliament entirely and revert to direct rule, as it has done to the Stormont Parliament in Northern Ireland in the past. Although this is not on the horizon, there is nothing to prevent future UK governments from doing so.

Given the current dysfunction of the UK political system, there is simply no way of knowing what constitutional changes would follow a ‘no’ vote, for better or worse.

The only way to provide any clarity would be for the UK parliament to pass a law before the 2014 referendum stipulating exactly which powers would be devolved, and include a provision allowing Scotland to remain in the EU even if the UK votes to leave and Scots vote to remain. This law would be put into effect automatically and immediately following a ‘no’ vote.

In the absence of this improbable event, all Scots can do is guess what would follow. It is entirely conceivable that upon Scots voting ‘no’, Westminster could strip powers from Scotland, slash the budget even further, then yank Scots out of the EU against their will. The UK government can give no effective assurances to the contrary.

If the ‘yes’ campaign plays its cards right, it can throw the uncertainty argument right back at the Unionists. If the Westminster government cannot provide the most basic guarantees of Scotland’s constitutional future in the event of a ‘no’ vote, then remaining in the UK begins to seem more perilous than independence.

If Scots vote 'no', they will likely never again have such an opportunity to control their own destiny, chart their own constitutional future, and assure that future generations can live under a fair, decent, equitable, and democratic political system.


Mark McNaught is a member of the Constitutional Commission and an Associate Professor of US Civilisation at the University of Rennes 2 France. He also teaches US constitutional law at Sciences-Po Paris.

Comments  

 
# ratzo 2013-02-15 11:22
Very sharp article once again from Mark McNaught.

Westminster doesn't have to explicitly renege on any vague promises in the even of a NO vote. They merely have to put it low in the list of parliamentary priorities and the question will vanish in practical terms for years, probably for decades. It would then be very difficult to organise any kind of co-ordinated push from Scotland, as for all intents and purposes, the question has been effectively decided. Indeed Westminster looks like its constitutional energies are going to be expended on getting out of Europe for the next few years, not any further consideration of the Scottish question, which they merely find irritating and incomprehensibl e.

The return of certain powers to Westminster after a NO vote is already being planned, and the additional scenarios Mark MacNaught outlines are eminently plausible.
 
 
# exel 2013-02-15 12:39
Mark McNaught writes: “The archaic UK unwritten constitution continues to allow Westminster to abolish the Scottish parliament entirely and revert to direct rule, as it has done to the Stormont Parliament in Northern Ireland in the past. Although this is not on the horizon, there is nothing to prevent future UK governments from doing so.
Given the current dysfunction of the UK political system, there is simply no way of knowing what constitutional changes would follow a ‘no’ vote, for better or worse.”

What exactly is the difference between living in the UK with an unwritten constitution and living in Scotland with an unwritten constitution?
 
 
# cuckooshoe 2013-02-15 12:58
I downloaded the report earlier. It has 200+ pages and there are several links at the end of it, if you like your facts and figures. There are more reports to come, but this first one does give you a real sense that Scotland will be ready from day 1 of Independence.
 
 
# Jimbo 2013-02-15 14:11
The Liberals can promise all the changes they want, knowing full well it would never come to fruition.

They don't have the clout, or the backing, to see carried it through.
 
 
# Provan 2013-02-15 14:14
The link in the article takes you to "Scotland analysis:
Devolution and the implications of Scottish independence" by the UK govt. not ‘Scotland’s Future: from a Referendum to Independence and a Written Constitution’. Whilst I would like to read both the wrong link may confuse some.

Try this - scotland.gov.uk/.../...
 
 
# Diabloandco 2013-02-15 17:21
That sure confused me - it came up blankety blank!
 
 
# exel 2013-02-15 15:44
You are not kidding Provan: “ may confuse some” does not begin to describe it.
Read A Written Constitution for Scotland
Summary
Scotland should have a written constitution which reflects the values of the people of Scotland.

The preparation of a written constitution should commence after independence under the auspices of the independent Scottish Parliament.

It should be for the newly independent Parliament to devise the process and timetable for the drafting of the constitution. etc. etc.
 
 
# X_Sticks 2013-02-15 17:30
"If Scotland votes ‘no’, will the UK government take punitive measures against Scotland for having the temerity to hold a referendum? Will they renege on promises to further devolve power? Could they even take back powers preventing the Scottish government from ever again having the power to hold a referendum? Will they slash Scotland’s budget?"

All of the above and then some.

Vote NO for Scotland no more!
 
 
# gfaetheblock 2013-02-15 20:22
Is this not the negative campaigning and scaremongering that the yes campaign is supposedly against, or is only unionist scaremongering wrong?
 
 
# wee e 2013-02-16 00:03
Quoting gfaetheblock:
Is this not the negative campaigning and scaremongering that the yes campaign is supposedly against, or is only unionist scaremongering wrong?


It is not: those of us old enough to remember the 1979 referendum know that is is based on experience.

A negative outlook based on a negative experience is prudent: we voted for devolution only to have it bluntly denied to us for another 20 years.

Instead, Scotland become guinea-pig for Thatcher's no-holds-barred poll tax, the dismantlement of our industry (and junking of industrial skill and expertise) with nothing but the dole offered in its place.
 
 
# rai1869 2013-02-18 12:20
i was 11 in 1979, seems so long ago, yet so vivid, maybe i was a little young to fully understand what thatcher and her tory scum pals really were, but in a few short years i was in farmers fields at night stealing food to eat and visiting the local school with my sisters toy pram, to steal coal to help heat my dads house, i'm not proud of this, it was just the way things were, we can't let them pull the same stunts again we must fight to the last breath, for what should be ours by right, bought and sold for english gold.
 

You must be logged-in in order to post a comment.

Banner
Banner

Donate to Newsnet Scotland

Latest Comments