BEFORE YOU START:
Match the words with the right definition:
a) A person or a group that does not support seceding
from a political unit.
1. Referendum (pl. –a or -s)
2. Secede (n. secession)
b) Everybody with the right to vote are asked for
their opinion on a specific political issue. Also called
direct or popular vote. For instance, Norwegians
have twice cast their vote over membership in the
European Union.
c) To leave a political entity. For instance, Ireland left
the United Kingdom in 1922.
3. Nation
5. Franchise
d) A group of people that share an identity based
on language, territory, history, and/or culture, which
has or seeks political sovereignty and territorial
control (a term state). There are two prototypes of
the term: the German model stresses unity based
on ethnicity, while the French model stresses unity
based on ideas.
6. Separatist (n or adj.)
e) A person or a group that supports seceding from
a political unit.
7. Unionist (n. or adj.)
f ) The right to vote.
4. Union
g) In a political context: a consolidated group of
political entities that have a joint government,
to which they typically delegate the power to
negotiate international treaties and homeland
security. Some powers may remain in the hands of
the smaller entities, such as education.
Scotland towards Independence
(or: How to dissolve the United Kingdom?)
Palace of Westminster by Jim Trodel
Scottish Parliament Building
When the Scottish National Party (SNP) won an outright majority in the elections to the
Scottish Parliament in May 2011, their leader Alex Salmond announced that he would
arrange for a referendum on independence to be held within the lifetime of the new
parliament. With a majority of the Scottish electorate in his back, Salmond thought, this was
his call to make. As it turned out, however, things were a bit more complicated, and the task
of determining the correct constitutional procedure for a referendum and future Scottish
secession from the union proved to be a challenging one. This article aims to explore the
debate on constitutional issues that followed, as well as the final agreement which was
reached between the British prime minister David Cameron and Salmond in Edinburgh on 12
February 2012 – the so-called “Edinburgh Agreement”.
A frantic debate followed Salmond’s announcement. Soon, politicians, journalists and
academics started discussing the constitutional aspects of holding a referendum on
independence. The central issues involved were the question of legal authority to hold a
referendum, who could decide matters relating to the union and vote in a referendum,
would it suffice with just the one referendum and, finally, which kind of alternatives should
be presented to the voters? Let us look at all of these in detail. The question of legal authority
relates to the British state and the way it is organised, and requires a bit of explanation.
The political authority in the United Kingdom rests with the central or state-levelpolitical
institutions, which are known as Crown-in-Parliament. All authority at lower levels emanates
from London, and can be withdrawn by the central political institutions at any time.
Moreover, the UK does not have a traditional written or codified constitution. Instead, the
British political system has traditionally been based on the principle of “parliamentary
sovereignty”. In practice, this means that Parliament can pass any law on anything with
simple majority. Although the decision to grant devolution to Scotland was taken through
two referenda held in Scotland in 1997, the actual devolved institutions in Edinburgh were
set up through a regular vote in Parliament and the passing of the Government of Scotland
Act of 1998.
2
Scotland towards Independence
But what bearings does this have on the question of a referendum now? The crucial point is
that the powers of the Scottish Parliament are very clearly defined through the Government
of Scotland Act, and any question concerning the union is outside of these powers. In
strict legal terms, therefore, Edinburgh has no authority to hold a referendum on Scottish
independence. Does this mean that it isonly the British parliament, as the sovereign body
in the UK, which can decide the question of Scottish independence or not? The principle of
parliamentary sovereignty seems suggest so, but this immediately raises another concern.
The United Kingdom, as the name would suggest, is a union state. Within the union, England
dominates completely over its smaller neighbours Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in
terms of population and wealth (about 83% of the population lives in England). Furthermore,
since Britain is a democracy, this also means that the English representatives in the House of
Commons hold a very solid majority of seats indeed.
Does this mean that it is up to England, and England alone, to decide the future of the union?
Not likely. The British coalition government of Cameron for the Conservative Party and Nick
Clegg for the Liberal Democratic Party (the Lib Dems) quickly acknowledged that, as one of
the constituent parts of the union, Scotland could secede if the Scots chose to do so. More
importantly, Cameron and Clegg believed the SNP’s election performance gave the SNP a
clear democratic mandate from the Scottish electorate to test their main political objective.
All the major political parties therefore agreed that a referendum could be held, and that
it was for the Scottish electorate to decide. This, however, brought up questions about
nationality in a union state. Who would qualify as “Scottish” in this context? Would it include
English people who had lived in Scotland most of their lives, or what about Scots living in
England?
Also, what about the referendum itself? Would it suffice with just the one? The renowned
political scientist Vernon Bogdanor argued that if the Scots voted “yes” in a first referendum,
it would be necessary to hold a second vote on the terms for independence, negotiated by
the devolved Scottish and UK governments. The large number of complicated issues one had
to resolve made this necessary, Bogdanor argued. Would an independent Scotland become
a republic, or remain a monarchy with the Queen as head of state? What kind of currency
would Scotland adopt – an entirely new Scottish one, the EURO, or should Scotland retain
the Pound? And what was to be done with national assets such as military equipment and
defence installations? Many of these questions could prove challenging, others less so, but
they would all have to be decided through negotiations, and the Scots should have the
opportunity to vote on the agreement reached, Bogdanor argued.
Finally, much attention was given to the referendum question. Some were concerned about
the actual wording of the question. They believed it was important to find as neutral a phrase
as possible, since they worried that a biased wording could affect the outcome. Another
aspect was perhaps even more crucial: should there be two or more alternatives? The SNP
suggested three - full independence, no change, or further devolution within the union, socalled “devolution max.” Cameron insisted that he would accept a straight yes-or-no vote to
full independence only.
As the debate developed, these questions of constitutional procedure became mixed
up with a political struggle between separatists and unionists, where both sides were
trying to forward their political objective. Since opinion polls showed a majority against
independence, for example, the unionist side wanted to arrange the referendum as quickly
as possible, while the separatists wanted to delay in order to keep the question warm and
hopefully gain more support.
Gradually, however, and behind the scenes, negotiations were initiated between London
and Edinburgh, and resulted in an agreement signed by Cameron and Salmond in Edinburgh
3
Scotland towards Independence
on 15 October 2012. The agreement settled three central aspects of the referendum – date,
question and franchise. It was agreed that the referendum would be held in 2014, though
the exact day remains to be decided. It was also agreed that there would be a single, in-orout question. The Scottish Parliament would have the final say in determining wording of
that question, though advice would be given by the independent Electoral Commission. And
finally, an agreement was reached that the franchise would be as for Scottish Parliament and
local government elections, with the unusual modification that all 16 and 17-year-olds would
also be permitted to vote.[1]
Since then, much discussion has focussed on who won - Cameron or Salmond? But on
balance, the agreement could arguably be seen as a compromise, and thus a good example
of British democratic traditions at work. However that may be, the constitutional issues of
the referendum itself had clearly been settled, and both parties could now throw their full
efforts into the political campaign and the discussions on Scotland’s future which, of course,
remains to be decided.
Atle L. Wold
[1] The Scottish Parliamentary franchise enables British, Irish, qualifying Commonwealth citizens
and European Union citizens resident in Scotland to vote.
4
Constitution
There are two main types of constitutions:
1.
A codified or written Constitution (spelled with a capital C).
• A codified Constitution is one single document that defines the
central institutions of the state (political and other), the rights of the
citizens and other fundamental aspects of the organisation of the
state. Examples include the Norwegian Constitution and the American
Constitution. A Constitution holds a particular status and enjoys a
greater degree of protection than other laws.
2.
A non-codified constitution (spelled with a lower case c).
• A non-codified constitution is a collection of written and unwritten
practices and laws that define the political system and other central
institutions in a given state. The constitution of the United Kingdom,
for instance, rests upon a number of Acts passed by Parliament,
precedence, and international law.
By this definition, all countries, except so-called defunct states such as
Somalia, have constitutions. Non-codified constitutions may include
written laws (as in the case of the British constitution), but these laws
do not have the status and protection of Constitution.
5
Scotland towards Independence
Exercises
1. Comprehension
• Identify and describe three areas where the Scottish Nationalists and the ruling British
Cabinet disagree.
2. “The Rule of Ones”
Good writing often follows a so-called “Rule of Ones.” This applies to all levels of writing. In
short, “the Rule of Ones” refers to the principle that a text should address one topic, each
paragraph should discuss one side to the topic, and each sentence should have one main
point.
· What is the problem or issue the article addresses?
· Identify the topic sentence and supporting sentences of each paragraph. If there is no
topic sentence, write one.
3. Passive vs. Active Voice
The passive voice is used when the focus is on the action and not who or what is behind it.
Mistakes were made
passive voice
as opposed to
Phil and Trevor made several mistakes
active voice
The writer or speaker may choose to use the passive voice because he or she does not want to
blame anyone in particular, or does simply not know who to blame.
The passive voice is often used in science, politics or generally in formal settings as it creates a
sense of objectivity or impartiality.
• Read the last paragraph and find instances where the author has used the passive voice.
Rewrite them into the active voice. What effect does it have?
6