Localism 4: The End Of The United Kingdom?

Now that the question of Scottish independence has reared its head, it seems apt to once again make the case for the dispersal of power.

As per usual this blog supports referendums, particularly on constitutional issues and the devolution of decision making. This post builds on the a series of previous posts about the concept of localism, that power should be devolved to the lowest practicable level, so that decisions are taken as closely as possible to the people they affect.

A greater degree of autonomy, and a more direct link between both citizens and their representatives and between taxation and expenditure, will revitalise Scottish democracy and give local people a greater sense of control and responsibility over their lives. If the Scottish people feel that their way of life differs significantly enough from the rest of the UK and that they would be freer as an independent state, they should go for it.

* * *

There are a number of different views and interests which makes the debate and the subsequent referendum campaign crucially important. Alex Salmond, the leader of the Scottish National Party, has his eyes set on the autumn of 2014, and hopes that the rise of Scottish nationalism, spurred on by the devolution of powers from Westminister in 1998, and perhaps heightened even more by the difference in views between the Scots and the Tories with regard to the EU, will secure a YES vote. It has become evident however, that he does fear that the Scottish can be persuaded to vote NO, as poles currently suggest. The three main political parties in Westminster wish to keep the union together, and would be devastated to see the UK split up. They will campaign passionately for a NO vote. Cameron has taken a gamble and effectively responded by saying “bring it on!” He would prefer the vote to be a simple yes or no, in or out question, only for those aged 18 or over, and for it to be held as soon as possible. Salmond wishes to allow 16 and 17 year olds to participate, with the possibility of a second ‘devo-max’ option, and he is clearly not in a rush for the referendum to take place.

The Scottish economy will undoubtedly suffer as a result of the uncertainty, and the vote should indeed be taken as soon as possible. Many companies wishing to invest in Scotland will be sensitive to possible changes to Scotland’s UK and EU membership, and any possible changes to its currency, causing them to put off any major investments until they have more certainty with which to guide their decisions.

Until now, the SNP has been happy to debate about the finer points of the process, and complain about London “interference,” but the details of the separation have not yet come to the forefront of the debate. There are several serious questions which will have to be answered, and many complex issues that will be settled only after a long process of negotiation and compromise.

- Would an independent Scotland leave the Sterling Zone? Would it then create its own currency or seek to join the Euro Zone? The White Paper (The SNP’s independence manifesto) speaks about joining the Euro when the time is right. But with the Eurozone’s own problems laid bare, and the recent ‘bullying’ treatment of the smaller indebted Eurozone countries acting as a preview of life under the Brussels elite, would Scotland really consider handing over its fiscal and monetary sovereignty shortly after gaining them back from the UK? Would Scotland even feel independent at all in such a scenario? 

- Would Scotland participate in the Shenghen accord? Would there then be much greater border security at Northumberland and Cumbria?

- How much of the UK debt burden would be taken on by Scotland? All UK taxpayers contributed to the bailout of RBS, and with its colossal size, such a feat could never have been performed by Scotland alone.

- What proportion of North Sea oil reserves will remain with Scotland? In purely geographical terms it would be the vast majority of them, but the UK as a whole has worked and benefited from the offshore deposits ever since they were found. There will undoubtedly be cut-throat negotiations before a decision is reached.

The whole process is not going to be easy, and it is no wonder that David Cameron is sad to be having this debate. A more comprehensive devolution of powers, the so called ‘devo-max’ option, would presumably include full fiscal devolution and would satisfy many Scottish nationalists. This scenario would resemble somewhat of a federal model, and actually seems the most plausible outcome. After all, is it really necessary for the Scottish to have their own separate armed forces? Or their own set of embassies around the world? And be humiliated at the Olympics? Westminster rightly fears that such an option will be harder to beat, as poles strongly suggest that with a midway alternative on the table, many Scots who would say NO to independence would opt for the lighter option of more powers to Holyrood yet still remaining within the UK. A NO vote of any kind could spell the end of the SNP party. But a YES vote on the question of independence would surely be the end of the UK as we know it, and would be irreversible.

                                   


Ireland left the UK in 1922 following the Irish war of independence from 1919 to 1921, leaving six counties within the jurisdiction of the UK, which is now Northern Ireland. The Republic of Ireland received its first visit from the Queen since independence only last year.

The devolution of powers to Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales in 1998 was a big leap towards their independence. Whereas Tony Blair perhaps thought that devolution would quell the countries’ thirst for independence, it has evidently fuelled it. 

The Northern Ireland dissolution, also called the Good Friday agreement, opposed only by the DUP (democratic unionist party), was approved in referenda in Northern Ireland and tacitly in the Republic of Ireland with respect to the necessary adjustments to their constitution regarding Northern Ireland. It agreed a number of Parliamentary changes and settled a number of disputed issues. It recognised that a ‘substantial section’ of the people of Northern Ireland, and the majority of people of the island of Ireland, wished to bring about a united Ireland, but the majority of the people of Northern Ireland at the time wished to remain as part of the United Kingdom. It also recognised that any future change in the status of Northern Ireland as a part of the United Kingdom is only to be brought about by the freely exercised choice of ‘a majority of the people of Northern Ireland,’ and that the British and Irish governments are under "a binding obligation" to implement that choice. People born in Northern Ireland currently have the right to hold dual citizenship. The Act brought into existence the Northern Ireland Assembly at which elected representatives legislate over many aspects of life in Northern Ireland for matters not reserved for the UK parliament, such as defence, security, foreign policy and taxation.

The people of Wales narrowly voted through devolution in 1997 which brought about the Welsh National Assembly in 1998. Unlike the devolution accords of Northern Ireland and Scotland, where legislative powers include all but reserved UK powers, the Welsh Assembly was given a list of specific legislative competences.

The people of Scotland received a similar deal to Northern Ireland with the addition of the ability of the Scottish parliament to alter income tax by up to 3 pence in the pound. The Scottish Parliament has since had a vast majority of MPs from the SNP party, elected on the basis that they would seek independence after holding a referendum.

            


It would indeed be sad to see the UK split up, but smaller semi-autonomous jurisdictions could be just what the country needs. Giving local people the power to make their own decisions about taxation and public spending instils fiscal responsibility and the setting of laws by local residents assures their appropriate fit with the social norms of that particular region. This kind of devolution could feasibly be implemented in individual areas within the country of England. After all, Scotland has only between five and six million people, and they will manage just fine on their own just like many other small industrious nations like Norway or New Zealand. It might also be particularly good for England, as it would end the current situation of higher public spending per person in Scotland than in England. Many elements of social care such as free prescriptions, treatment for the elderly and most famously the absence of university fees for students, have led many to regard the system as unfair, as one which benefits the Scots at the expense of the English.

The current state of devolved powers for Belfast, Edinburgh and Cardiff, has set up the controversial situation in which Northern Irish, Scottish and Welsh MPs can take seats at Westminster and vote on English-only legislation, whereas the English MPs can have no say on Scottish or Welsh legislation. Until recently many believed that the non-existence of an English parliament and the increasing resentment regarding fiscal transfers and narrowly won votes in parliament possibly swung by non-English MPs, would in fact lead to the English ending the union and not the Scottish as now seems more likely.

The full devolution of fiscal powers is a compromise that suits everybody. It would satisfy the non-English peoples thirst for freedom, perhaps eliminating the nationalist parties in the process, and keep the union together. It may even reignite some support for the Conservatives north of the border. It would promote stronger fiscal accountability and could even create more tax competition between the different jurisdictions of these islands. The peoples of the UK have mixed together naturally over the generations and strong ties remain through history, trade, friendship, marriage, and indeed rivalry. A split in terms of more localised government will not reverse the organic links we all share as inhabitants of these islands.

Cameron is taking a huge gamble by rejecting the devolution-max option. The poles currently show that the UK would hold together but anything could happen between now and the referendum date. The more Westminster and the Conservatives meddle with the desires of the non-English peoples of the UK, the greater those desires will get. If the government continues to rule out the prospect of full devolution within the UK, it may not be long before the UK becomes four separate countries.

* * *

In the video below Salmond is quizzed about how the Scottish resources and debt will be divvied.