Post by earl on Jan 21, 2008 17:50:36 GMT
THE question of Scottish independence raises big questions. What happens to the nuclear weapons? How much of the oil does Scotland get? What happens to the national debt and, as important, assets: things like the contents of museums and embassies around the world? Can Berwick Rangers continue to play in Scottish football?
An even more fundamental question is: what is the character of the UK? What is the nature of the space and place, and where does power lie? Such questions have a direct say on how any break-up would proceed.
If Scotland is to become independent what does the rest become? Does it become the UK minus Scotland – a Rest of the UK? Or does it become something else, new and unnamed? The Greater England/Lesser UK would, in the eyes of some, be the successor state to the UK – with the legal rights to continuity of membership of bodies such as the UN Security Council, the G7, EU and NATO and responsibility for the 13,000 plus treaties to which the UK is signatory.
If the rump becomes the successor state– the Rest of the UK – it will follow the example of Russia after the Soviet Union fell apart. It did so influenced by geopolitical realities such as the size of Russia in the Soviet Union, international opinion and how to deal with the issue of nuclear weapons. In such a position, only one new state is created: the Rest of the UK continues its membership of the UN Security Council, G7 and other bodies, and the whole post-war great power illusion can continue with barely a hiccup. Scotland, meanwhile, is cast into the cold, albeit briefly.
However, this view is based on the arguable position that the Treaty of Union is just another piece of parliamentary legislation, rather than being as close as the UK can get to a kind of fundamental law. The Constitution Unit's comprehensive study of the practicalities of Scottish independence argues that Scotland's position post-1707 was the same as Ireland post-1801, and that Scottish independence would have the same effect in the UK as Irish independence did in 1922. This is an astonishingly inaccurate reading of history. Scotland created a union with England in 1707, whereas Ireland was conquered. One was a marriage of equals, the other a relationship of inequality and abuse.
An equally valid perspective states that the emergence of an independent Scotland would see the creation of two new states. Chris Bowlby in a recent BBC programme said that after a break-up "what would emerge would not only be a new Scotland but also a new remainder of the UK, in search of a name and a new sense of coherence."
This would take England off into Billy Bragg land, searching for a new identity and purpose. From this perspective, Scotland was one of the basic building blocks of the United Kingdom. Without Scotland, there is no "Great Britain" and therefore no "UK".
The nature of any future break-up comes down to how you understand the character of the UK historically and the consequences this has today. If you see the Act of Union as just another piece of parliamentary legislation which continues the process of Greater England, Scotland leaving the union does not alter the glorious tradition of continuity that is England/UK. However, if you view the Treaty of Union as being as close to fundamental law as the UK can manage, Scottish independence leads inexorably to the end of the UK.
The language between Act of Union and Treaty of Union is pivotal here. Talk of an "Act" reduces it to parliamentary legislation and prioritises the English Parliament's enactment of 1707, thus, continuing English law and practice. Talk of a "Treaty" emphasises that this was the creation of two consenting states and that 1707 was the decision of two governments.
Both of these perspectives cannot be right, but the UK has from its outset contained two contradictory positions.
One has seen the UK as Greater England, the other viewing it as a union state; one stressing parliamentary sovereignty, the other popular sovereignty.
Which will prevail in any break-up process will be more about wider geo-political realities, power and status, than the finer points of legal interpretation. It seems clear that whatever the legal position Greater England/Lesser UK will use all of its influence and status in the world of realpolitik to position itself as the successor state to the UK. It is possible that the "rump" would try to bring in the US government with its concerns for "stability". The shrunken Westminster political elite post-independence would try as much as they could to keep the whole undemocratic show on the road and prevent the democratisation of England.
The UK, for all its evocation of the past and tradition, barely knows its own history. The UK is not even sure how old it is, with politicians forever talking about 1,000 years of British history. Yet, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland came into being in 1922 and only took its current configuration with the independence of the Republic of Ireland in 1948, 60 years ago. We are truly "a young country".
We need to think about these things first before they might happen. It is revealing that the British state has undertaken no substantial thinking or analysis of the consequences of Scottish independence and the potential break-up of the union. To take one specific a
rea, the British armed forces at the most senior level have not undertaken any scenario planning about what could happen to Britain's nuclear weapons situated in the Clyde. This is because Britain's top brass sees it as just too sensitive politically.
A state that does not know its own history and which is unable to think about the future is one that is based on a shaky set of foundations. We need to begin to think honestly and calmly about the potential choices and conflicts ahead, because they could shape so much of our lives from our mortgages and interest rates to the levels of our pensions, and who we threaten with weapons of mass destruction.
So far the British political classes have decided to hide their heads in the sand.
• Gerry Hassan is editor of After Blair: Politics after the New Labour Decade and was head of the Demos Scotland 2020 and Glasgow 2020 programmes.
An even more fundamental question is: what is the character of the UK? What is the nature of the space and place, and where does power lie? Such questions have a direct say on how any break-up would proceed.
If Scotland is to become independent what does the rest become? Does it become the UK minus Scotland – a Rest of the UK? Or does it become something else, new and unnamed? The Greater England/Lesser UK would, in the eyes of some, be the successor state to the UK – with the legal rights to continuity of membership of bodies such as the UN Security Council, the G7, EU and NATO and responsibility for the 13,000 plus treaties to which the UK is signatory.
If the rump becomes the successor state– the Rest of the UK – it will follow the example of Russia after the Soviet Union fell apart. It did so influenced by geopolitical realities such as the size of Russia in the Soviet Union, international opinion and how to deal with the issue of nuclear weapons. In such a position, only one new state is created: the Rest of the UK continues its membership of the UN Security Council, G7 and other bodies, and the whole post-war great power illusion can continue with barely a hiccup. Scotland, meanwhile, is cast into the cold, albeit briefly.
However, this view is based on the arguable position that the Treaty of Union is just another piece of parliamentary legislation, rather than being as close as the UK can get to a kind of fundamental law. The Constitution Unit's comprehensive study of the practicalities of Scottish independence argues that Scotland's position post-1707 was the same as Ireland post-1801, and that Scottish independence would have the same effect in the UK as Irish independence did in 1922. This is an astonishingly inaccurate reading of history. Scotland created a union with England in 1707, whereas Ireland was conquered. One was a marriage of equals, the other a relationship of inequality and abuse.
An equally valid perspective states that the emergence of an independent Scotland would see the creation of two new states. Chris Bowlby in a recent BBC programme said that after a break-up "what would emerge would not only be a new Scotland but also a new remainder of the UK, in search of a name and a new sense of coherence."
This would take England off into Billy Bragg land, searching for a new identity and purpose. From this perspective, Scotland was one of the basic building blocks of the United Kingdom. Without Scotland, there is no "Great Britain" and therefore no "UK".
The nature of any future break-up comes down to how you understand the character of the UK historically and the consequences this has today. If you see the Act of Union as just another piece of parliamentary legislation which continues the process of Greater England, Scotland leaving the union does not alter the glorious tradition of continuity that is England/UK. However, if you view the Treaty of Union as being as close to fundamental law as the UK can manage, Scottish independence leads inexorably to the end of the UK.
The language between Act of Union and Treaty of Union is pivotal here. Talk of an "Act" reduces it to parliamentary legislation and prioritises the English Parliament's enactment of 1707, thus, continuing English law and practice. Talk of a "Treaty" emphasises that this was the creation of two consenting states and that 1707 was the decision of two governments.
Both of these perspectives cannot be right, but the UK has from its outset contained two contradictory positions.
One has seen the UK as Greater England, the other viewing it as a union state; one stressing parliamentary sovereignty, the other popular sovereignty.
Which will prevail in any break-up process will be more about wider geo-political realities, power and status, than the finer points of legal interpretation. It seems clear that whatever the legal position Greater England/Lesser UK will use all of its influence and status in the world of realpolitik to position itself as the successor state to the UK. It is possible that the "rump" would try to bring in the US government with its concerns for "stability". The shrunken Westminster political elite post-independence would try as much as they could to keep the whole undemocratic show on the road and prevent the democratisation of England.
The UK, for all its evocation of the past and tradition, barely knows its own history. The UK is not even sure how old it is, with politicians forever talking about 1,000 years of British history. Yet, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland came into being in 1922 and only took its current configuration with the independence of the Republic of Ireland in 1948, 60 years ago. We are truly "a young country".
We need to think about these things first before they might happen. It is revealing that the British state has undertaken no substantial thinking or analysis of the consequences of Scottish independence and the potential break-up of the union. To take one specific a
rea, the British armed forces at the most senior level have not undertaken any scenario planning about what could happen to Britain's nuclear weapons situated in the Clyde. This is because Britain's top brass sees it as just too sensitive politically.
A state that does not know its own history and which is unable to think about the future is one that is based on a shaky set of foundations. We need to begin to think honestly and calmly about the potential choices and conflicts ahead, because they could shape so much of our lives from our mortgages and interest rates to the levels of our pensions, and who we threaten with weapons of mass destruction.
So far the British political classes have decided to hide their heads in the sand.
• Gerry Hassan is editor of After Blair: Politics after the New Labour Decade and was head of the Demos Scotland 2020 and Glasgow 2020 programmes.
) ;D ;D