Scots wha hae

The possibility of a referendum on independence for Scotland has been a recurring theme of this blog, mainly for the purpose of making comparisons with the long-running Quebec separatist movement. (See, if you care, posts on 8 May 2011, 3 September 2009, 7 May 2008, and 16 June and 3 April 2007). After the past weekend's SNP conference in Inverness, the countdown to such a vote is definitely under way, so it's time to visit the subject again.

It's not good form to quote yourself, but parts of what I posted here back on 8 May bear repeating:

....back in the 1970s, Ottawa made no attempt to deny the PQ its right to hold an independence vote on its own terms and at a time of its own choosing. News reports suggest that David Cameron has made a similar commitment to SNP leader Alex Salmond, though not all of Cameron's Tory backbenchers are as equable about the prospect of a referendum. Some are urging Cameron to "call the SNP's bluff" by calling his own referendum on the issue in the very near future. There are two problems with this. First, Salmond isn't bluffing; he really does intend to call a referendum on independence, and thinks he can win it. Second, a Westminster-run referendum would stoke the us-against-them mentality among Scottish voters that Salmond desperately needs if he is to achieve his goal.

This is not to say that there is nothing Cameron should be doing. Canada endured two separate independence referenda in Quebec, the second of them defeated by the narrowest possible margin, before the federal government decided to take a more proactive stance. The right of the people of Quebec or of Scotland to decide their own political arrangements is hard to deny; after all, politicians in London and Ottawa have enthusiastically endorsed sovereignty movements in places as far-flung as Bosnia, Kosovo and Southern Sudan. However, the terms on which the national government would allow separation to occur -- everything from how assets would be divided to the wording of the referendum question itself -- are legitimate concerns of the national government. The government of Canada passed legislation defining its stance on these issues at the end of the last century, in the wake of the second referendum. The effect has been to remind Quebecers, in a non-confrontational way, that opting for independence would bring real costs as well as the putative benefits offered by its proponents.

....In the UK....the right to amend the constitution rests solely with the national government in Westminster. This makes it both appropriate and important for it to spell out the conditions on which it would accept a Scottish referendum vote for independence, and what its negotiating stance would be in the aftermath. The key message: you can check out any time you want, but you should clearly understand how much of the furniture we'll let you take with you.

A couple of extra points can be made, now that Alex Salmond's approach is becoming clearer. He seems to have absorbed the lessons of the two Quebec referenda in a rather surprising way. The Quebec separatists were defeated both on a "soft" sovereignty option and a straight YES/NO question. It appears that Salmond is thinking of including both the hard and soft sovereignty options in a single referendum vote. That should just about guarantee that the "no change" option wins less than half the vote, which is no doubt what Salmond will be counting on. However, it is almost certain to lead to the sort of messy outcome that is really in nobody's interest. If the Westminster government wants to compel the SNP to ask a clear question, it needs to speak up now.

The issue of "how much of the furniture we'll let you take with you" should also be clarified sooner rather than later. Alex Salmond seems to have taken note of a satirical comment many years ago by a Quebecois comedian, to the effect that what Quebecers really wanted was "a free and independent Quebec within a strong and united Canada". So he has pledged to retain the Queen as head of state, which the Scots seem to favour. (No word if this would also apply if Prince Charles takes the throne). That's probably acceptable. But what about retaining Sterling as the national currency? Right now it's unlikely that the canny Scots would want to cast their fate with the Eurozone, but it should surely be made clear that in the event that Scotland opted for independence while retaining the use of Sterling, it would forego any right to influence the policies of the Bank of England.

And then there's the issue of citizenship. In Quebec the PQ was a bit coy about this, but tried to hint that Quebecers might be able to retain their Canadian passports in the event that the Province became independent. I'm not sure that Alex Salmond has said anything about this, but the Westminster government should surely make it clear well in advance of any vote that if Scotland becomes independent, its people will lose their right to British citizenship.

This all starts to sound a bit confrontational, but in truth it's the exact opposite. The decision on independence belongs to the Scots alone, but the UK government has a perfect right to spell out some of the consequences. It's time to get started.