Philip Stephens is an FT columnist for whom I have about as much enthusiasm as I do for Simon Jenkins in the Guardian. But even those I usually and instinctively disagree with have their moments, when they reveal that an obvious truth has dawned on even the furthest flung target. Take this from Stephens' latest column:
When Scotland voted to maintain the union with England, the argument that separation would diminish both nations seemed compelling. Five years on, Nicola Sturgeon says Brexit has broken the bargain. Scotland's first minister and leader of the Scottish National party is preparing for a possible second referendum by mid-2021. Ms Sturgeon may be a touch impatient. She is also essentially right.
His argument is that there is simply no argument left for Scotland staying in the Union, and Unionist politicians' own actions make this case. His conclusion? It's this:
Small states flourish in the EU – witness the Republic of Ireland, which has junked the anti-British grievances and resentments that once defined its worldview. The break-up of the UK union would be England's great loss. But how to persuade Scotland that it still has something to gain from staying?
Bizarrely, Simon Jenkins reached a remarkably similar conclusion recently, suggesting that independence was now almost inevitable.
My suggestion is that when such people realise that the game is up for the UK then it is. It really is time to talk about what happens next. Although, given the reluctance of Westminster to address any issue of any consequence who knows how long this inevitability can be drawn out by them? The chance that Scotland might need to take some direct action to precipitate the necessary steps to secure what it wishes for seems to be high.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
If Brexit can happen as the result of a non-binding vote Scottish Independence could surely be achieved the same way. Scottish government has sufficient mandate to call an advisory referendum.
In international law Scotland does not need UK consent for a referendum – and may have to do without it
I wish this were more widely known. It needs broadcasting far and wide.
Well now, as far as I understand it, ALL referendums in the uk are non binding – they are a political thing not a legal thing. The legal thing, in the uk, of whether a referendum can be legitamitely held in Scotland without Westminster consent (refer to constitutional matters, which are Reserved, or is this in fact a devolved matter?)… (great treaty that by the way, where one ‘equal partner’ needs to have ‘consent’ from the other – remind you a bit of abusive relationship maybe? Did you know Scotland has just recently put into (criminal) law that psychological abuse can now be prosecuted – I think there will be a bit of a learning curve for our citizens, but it’s very welcome news! I digress there, sorry)… Anyway – the legal case has never been tested, so we can’t know if, legally, it’s okay or not. Politically we can have as many referendums as we like, and the section 30 order is just a political agreement (though would hold up legally, because they’ve made that agreement I expect).
Yes, by international law the referendum result should be legally recognised – but considering the attitude of the U.K. Government to international law (recently it was ruled that the UK’s annexation of the Chagos islands was illegal – Chagos citizens have been fighting for the right to return for decades – but the uk has ignored it, literally. You’ll have seen the outraged press splashing that news all over the headlines no doubt). I don’t think that route will be the most,,, conducive to an amicable split. Politically not the ideal move.
Constitutional matters in the uk are a cesspit of unknowns. I’d have said go ahead and have one (it’s just an official country wide poll after all) then ask for recognition / agreement afterwards – messy if it goes through the courts as the uk government is ‘normally’ wont to do, though – but as you say Richard it would be recognised internationally at least.
Switzerland is the place we need to look at to see how referendums are done (but then, they have a real constitution and regulations) – didn’t they just recently cancel the results of one because the voters were misinformed on the issues? Wow, imagine that ever happening in Britain.
The best route IS to have agreement from Westminster – but it needn’t be the only one. Legal and political here have to be separated, constitutional lawyers will be rubbing their grubby hands anticipating the question being put to the test. Politically, you could have swathes of people boycotting an ‘advisory’ (in inverted commas because they all are) referendum, which could throw up questions of legitimacy,,, etc. Rock and a hard place.
We need things to be amicable, I always go to England on my holidays you know, I even subscribe to English heritage, can’t have any animosity stopping my hols.