Becoming Ungovernable
Alan Crocket (‘Scotland’s Simple Choice‘) sums up much of the sense of frustration that many independence supporters have with SNP policy during Sturgeon’s leadership which is being continued by Humza Yousaf. Like many others Crocket is pessimistic about the likelihood of success for current SNP policy (whatever it is today) to take Scotland forward to independence
But, let’s suppose that someone in the SNP ascends to leadership, improbable as this might seem on review of many of those close to the throne, with a bit of backbone, and endorses an ‘electoral route’ that if a majority of seats and votes are won in a General Election, this would be regarded as an instruction from the Scottish electorate to begin negotiations with London for our independence.
However, even if that is satisfied, we come up against the first problem that such a commitment would face, even if strongly supported, that Westminster, having made no commitment are under no formal obligation to respect such an outcome. What do we do if the only reaction at Westminster is “that’s nice”.
Crocket puts his faith on the consistency of Westminster. He writes that if in a “plebiscitary” election the majority of seats and votes are won by independence supporting candidates, then London would be obliged to “escape incongruity with their own prior explicit positions (as in 2014 when they accepted that Scotland would leave if Yes won the referendum, or over Northern Ireland to which they have given a continuing statutory right to choose whether to leave), and in order to respect the democratic imperative and avoid dishonouring themselves as oppressors in the councils of the world. Any attempt to shackle Scotland against the democratic will of its people would so shock the conscience, throughout the UK and elsewhere, as to be completely out of the question.”
The difficulties of Crocket’s position mount up quickly. First there would be no question of illegality within the UK, given current opinion within the UK’s Supreme Court which champions the sovereignty of the House of Commons (the English tradition) over the sovereignty of the people (the Scottish tradition), even if this is arguably inconsistent with the Act of Union. Its pretty clear that the Supreme Court considers this no more than a historical document.
Secondly, the ‘weapons’ in Crocket’s argument consist almost entirely on two things:
- That Westminster would not want to act in a fashion incompatible with earlier policy, for instance in 2014 that if Yes won Scotland would be independent. Here the sovereignty of the House of Commons rears its head again, as no earlier Parliament (eg the one sitting in 2014) can commit a subsequent one (such as the Parliament sitting when the majority of seats and votes are won). Being sovereign it would be under no obligation to treat the views of the 2014 Parliament as having any relevance. We know for instance that referenda create no legal obligations for Parliament, but are advisory only. Were it otherwise the House of Commons would not be sovereign. The people would be. Take Brexit as an example, while the UK did leave the EU, the passage of the legislation, referendum outcome notwithstanding, was by no means straightforward or easy. Or even if Scotland had voted Yes in 2014, what are the chances of Unionist MPs (Tory and/or Labour) combining to frustrate independence legislation as it went through its Parliamentary processes? My own view at the time, was that a Yes vote was not the end, but more like the end of the beginning.
- The second strand of his argument is that doing otherwise would make the UK look bad in international opinion. Yet there are other countries than the UK fighting against ‘separatist’ movements, most notably Spain, so its by no means obvious that the UK’s position would be universally condemned. Even if this were not so, we still have to pose the question, does the UK care? The British Empire was largely dismantled between 1945 and the early 1970s. One would have to think very hard of any country which secured its independence when the UK showed good grace. Think India, Kenya or Malaya. Such as Malta and Cyprus faced the same warnings we did in 2014 about poverty if they left the protection of the mother country. Indeed, in order to secure its independence, since the UK wanted a base close to the Suez Canal, Cyprus was forced to concede Akrotiti as a Sovereign Base Area. Because our American friends wanted to use them as an Indian Ocean airbase, Mauritius was forced to become independent without the Chagos Islands. Despite judgements in almost every international court you can think of, that the Islands should be returned to Mauritius, the UK remains unmoved. Indeed, on occasion, our government simply never bothers to turn up. Faslane?
While I would be much happier to think that logical consistent argumentation and debate will win our independence, I have to remember that it’s Westminster we are dealing with here. The phrase “Perfidious Albion” is used to describe the British Empire to suggest that the British were deceitful and treacherous in their dealings as an Empire. We cannot afford to forget this.
So, what do we do? It is one of the oddities of the struggle for Scottish independence that on the one hand we’re told we are a financial basket case, yet Westminster seems determined not to allow us to leave the Union, and it is this latter attitude that we have to change – ie to make them glad by campaigns of civil disobedience that Scotland is no longer part of their country. At a simple level a policy of paralysing Westminster (a reason not to have our MPs leave), extending to action outwith Parliament to interfere with normal life (think Just Stop Oil). Non-payment of Government levies (obvious one is mass non-payment of the TV licence) could be another option.
That list is not intended to be at all comprehensive. I am sure there are readers with more fertile, nefarious minds than my own who can identify a series of campaigns to so interfere with the work of government and social life that the rest of the UK will be glad to see the back of us. If we cannot persuade them to allow us to leave, might we be able to persuade them to ask us to leave?
Well said!
I don’t think England could manage without Scotlands monetary input (theft of resourses) So it will take a bit more than witholding you’re licence fee to shake them up, it would probably need to be French style but nobody wants that and they know it.
How about stop sending all exports that are not for England, direct from Scottish ports, boy that would needle them.
Does whisky really need to travel all the way to Dover before it can reach the rest of the world?
That would involve putting a container on a ship in Grangemouth sailing to Felixstowe or Rotterdam and transhipment of the container to a much bigger ship. Although I would imagine that already happens. As far as taxation goes the container is bonded until it’s final destination, but Diago pays corporation tax on their booze profits.
We need MPs who will disrupt the Westminster system so much that it starts to suit the government of the day to get rid of us.
There is already a significant number of voters in all English parties who would be happy to get rid of the vexatious Scots – and there are plenty of gimmicks in the Westminster system to allow obstructive behaviour to get in the way of business.
Unfortunately our MPs appear to have become sufficiently seduced by the Westminster system that they seem to believe they should play by the rules – I heard Ian Blackford, for example, the other day tell Radio SCotland that the privileges Ctte’s report on johnson showed that westminster systems work well. WTF?? Westminster is a democratic disaster in almost every way – how on earth can an SNP senior figure get away with praising any single part of it?
Firstly we need more votes for independence parties than unionist parties at the Westminster election. Then a long campaign of disruptive behaviour by our nationalist MPs in protest, to convince both the parties and a significant number of English voters that it really is time to kick Scotland out of the union.
I can’t see any other way – as things stand just now none of the three English parties will allow Scotland a referendum if they think we might win.
Where are they going to park Trident and accompaning personnel including Dame Jackie Baillie?
There we have it. About time someone said it.
I wish people would stop confusing an election with a ‘plebiscite’. An election isn’t a plebiscite or a ‘plebiscite’. It’s the same as calling white ‘black’.
The truth is that a political party would campaign on a single-issue manifesto (if the Greens have the same manifesto, they may as well not run). This approach usually involves independent candidates campaigning for better rubbish collection in council elections. Very ocassionally they win, especially if they are dressed as chickens, despite everyone wanting better rubbish collection. But the idea of a political party doing that is absurd. They would probably increase their chances if they all dressed as chickens. Then they could do ‘cost of living crisis/climate crisis/everything else?’: ‘Sqaaaak!’
As usual, a level-headed contribution to the debate.
As the writer indicates, Britain (and I use the term advisedly) has always behaved as nastily as possible to any colony seeking to become independent and Labour, being the British nationalist party, has been as nasty as the Tories in this regard.
Although the writer focuses, rightly, on things we in Scotland can do, we have to remember that ‘people of England have not spoken yet’. Despite many south of the border seeing ‘England’ and ‘Britain’ as synonyms and, as opinion polls tell us support the kind of nasty policies such as the two child rule and the hostile environment towards asylum seekers, there are many who are suffering, who have been suffering increasing levels of poverty under austerity and from the crumbling of public services, and who were attracted by the ideas put forward by Jeremy Corbyn
who might increasingly find their voices.
Despite all the alleged patriotism demonstrated at the Queen’s funeral and the Coronation, many in England are not gulled. Perhaps many of them will start to ‘speak’ (The by-election in Uxbridge notwithstanding!)
The author is right. Becoming Ungovernable is the way to achieve independence, as all legal routes will be blocked, however inconsistent. Now we need to focus on what those actions might be.
Well, it so happens that I now have unresolved formal complaints against just about every public body in Scotland and a few UK ones too. Whatever matter you try to raise, it is met with silence, or evasion. They are all of them subject to a bullying corporate culture and daren’t do or say anything at all. This even applies to face to face meetings with councillors and MSPs. Nothing is ever confirmed or denied. Meanwhile the Scottish Government just does as it’s told by Westminster and / or Westminster’s oligarch paymasters. It isn’t a good look. I am finding that the court of public opinion is the only effective one. But of course no-one wants to believe that.
Sadly at present there is no way any of those currently in charge will ever stand up and represent us. We need to vote them all out unless this changes. Meanwhile, perhaps taking one or two issues at a time and focussing on those might be helpful.