Scottish Elections Could Ultimately Lead to Breakup of U.K.

Ray · 03-28-2007, 11:36 AM

Quote:

* Most Emailed Articles

Scottish Elections Could Ultimately Lead to Breakup of U.K.
Billy Briggs | Bio | 28 Mar 2007
World Politics Watch Exclusive

WAKEFIELD, England -- On Thursday (March 29), the Scottish Parliament will dissolve ahead of an election scheduled for May 3, amid one of the most keenly fought campaigns in Scotland's political history. It is an election that could have far reaching consequences for the 300-year political union of Scotland and England and the future of the United Kingdom as a state.

Current polls show that the opposition Scottish National Party (SNP) is as much as six points ahead of the ruling Labour Party and within touching distance of its dream of power.

Although Tony Blair devolved power to Scotland in 1999, giving the country its own parliament and a degree of self-autonomy within the United Kingdom, the prime minister's unpopularity, mainly due to the war in Iraq, has been a major factor in an upsurge in support for the Nationalists. For Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown, favorite to replace Blair as prime minister later this year, the stakes could not be higher, as an SNP breakthrough would provide him with a looming constitutional crisis: How could he lead the U.K. if his constituency seat in Fife, Scotland, becomes part of a foreign country?

Brown has already been targeted for criticism by sections of the English media, partly as a response to a rise in English nationalism amid a backlash to Scots having their own parliament, and also over fears the Chancellor may veer the Labour Party away from the center ground and back towards its more traditional leftist stance.

Campaigning for the crucial May 3 vote is now in full swing and last weekend the political heavyweights came out swinging.

In an interview with the Scotland On Sunday newspaper, Brown, in the wake of last week's budget, when he announced a 2 percent cut in the basic rate of income tax in Britain, said he would place himself at the heart of Labour's election campaign in order to save the union. In a broadside at the SNP, Brown branded its plans as "disastrous," saying they would put the Scottish economy at risk. Labour has warned that an independent Scotland with the SNP in power would have a financial black hole that would have to be filled by taxes to the tune of £5,242 ($10,200) for every Scottish household.

Brown, who looks certain to become prime minister in the absence of any leadership challenge from within the Labour ranks, stressed he wanted to strengthen links between Scotland and England and to protect the United Kingdom. He is expected to come to the fore for Labour over the next few weeks with several keynote speeches, including one to be delivered alongside former U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan. Brown made it clear, however, that Jack McConnell, Scotland's First Minister, is leading Labour's campaign to retain power.

Prime Minister Blair may have decided to take a back seat for the remainder of the campaign, as a recent visit to Scotland proved highly embarrassing on two fronts.

Firstly, on the eve of his visit to the nation's capital Edinburgh, the SNP mounted a pre-emptive strike and released the findings of a survey conducted by YouGov. The poll said that 69 percent of Scots believed that Blair had not told the truth when making the case for the Iraq war. The survey also found that only 20 percent of people agreed that he cared about Scotland, while only 22 percent thought he had been a good prime minister. Sixty-three percent said that they felt let down by the Labour government, while 73 percent believed Blair made a mistake in taking Britain into war in Iraq.

Secondly, the prime minister's visit was overshadowed by one of Scotland's top businessmen declaring his support for the SNP. Sir George Mathewson, the man who built the Royal Bank of Scotland into the world's fifth biggest bank, accused Labour of scaremongering and creating a "fear culture" about independence. He also praised Alex Salmond, the leader of the Scottish National party, and described him as an "outstanding" candidate to lead Scotland as first minister.

Blair dismissed Mathewson's support for the SNP as absurd, while Salmond welcomed the prime minister to Scotland as "Boomerang Blair," saying his Iraq-driven unpopularity would rebound on Labour's campaign. At the weekend, a buoyant Salmond confirmed for the first time, if elected, he would give Scots a vote for independence in 2010. In an interview with the Sunday Herald newspaper Salmond said: "I'm persuaded the key argument is about the SNP building up credibility in government, which is the essential requirement to win an independence referendum. The referendum would be close to the end of the four-year term."

Salmond said that a white paper, setting out the details of independence, would be laid within the first 100 days of the next parliament. A Scottish Executive led by the SNP would then hope to pass an enabling bill to give Scots the choice of independence in a referendum held in 2010.

Salmond said: "Any talks with the civil service are private, but the wording on the ballot will be, 'The Scottish parliament should negotiate a new settlement with the British government, based on the proposals set out in the white paper, so that Scotland becomes a sovereign and independent state.' The responses would be 'Yes I agree' or 'No I disagree.'"

If Scots returned a "Yes" vote it would give the Scottish Executive the right to negotiate an independence settlement, as opposed to a straight endorsement of a separate state. Salmond stressed a separate state would involve ending the 1707 Treaty of Union, but not the 1603 Union of the Crowns.

John Curtice, professor of government at Strathclyde University in Glasgow, said that two referendums would be required for Scotland to become independent. "The SNP could get about one-third of the vote in the election, so they will have to share power. In doing so, they will have to compromise, which will require a watering down of their policies. It is inconceivable independence would be possible with one referendum. The first would only be for a mandate to negotiate independence with the U.K. government," he said.

The Nationalist's most likely coalition partners, the Liberal Democrats, are opposed to a referendum and have said previously they will not budge on the issue. But, according to the Sunday Herald, one senior LibDem said that the party might reverse its opposition if independence, and more powers for the Scottish Parliament, the latter a LibDem policy, were both on the ballot.

Central to the election is the subject of oil in the North Sea, which would be crucial to a viable independent Scottish economy. Around 36 billion barrels of oil have been extracted since production began in the North Sea in 1971, the flow reaching its peak in 1999. It is estimated that there are around 20 million barrels left, giving the oil industry a lifetime of about 30 years. This would not give an independent Scotland untold wealth, but would ensure a decent early foundation for the economy.

But how would North Sea oil be divided between Scotland and England? The existence of separate legal systems in England and Scotland means there is already a division of the North Sea into two component regions. The Continental Shelf Act 1964 and the Continental (Jurisdiction) Order 1968 split the U.K. North Sea so the area above latitude 55 degrees north is under the control of Scots law. Thus, more than 90 percent of the UK's oil wealth would come under an independent Scotland's control. However, if Scotland achieved independence, most commentators believe there would have to be negotiations between Scotland and England over oil rights, and perhaps international arbitration.

Blair's constitutional change eight years ago was supposed to help save the union and kill off nationalism in Scotland. It seems to have done the opposite, if the polls are correct. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland were all given assemblies but devolution brought a political anomaly known in the U.K. as the West Lothian Question. It was first posed in the House of Commons in 1977 by Labour MP Tam Dalyell. He said: "For how long will English constituencies and English honourable members tolerate at least 119 honourable members from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland exercising an important, and probably often decisive, effect on British politics while they themselves have no say in the same matters in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?"

Indeed, since devolution, support of Scottish MPs has resulted in bills being passed that the majority of English MPs voted against. This has led to increased support for an English Parliament and, in some political quarters, anti-Brown sentiments, partly because he is a Scot and partly because of his image.

Professor Curtice said: "Brown is viewed in England as being a dour character, shy, uptight. These can be seen as stereotypical Scottish traits. But on the other hand there is evidence that his Scottishness is not an issue. The real question is -- can he prove to be an effective prime minister?"

If the SNP gain enough seats on May 3 to lead a Scottish Executive then Brown, if he becomes prime minister, will face a hostile Scottish Parliament intent on making life as difficult as possible for him. If he fails to charm the English electorate, the consequence could ultimately be the break-up of the United Kingdom.

Billy Briggs is a freelance journalist based in the United Kingdom.
World Politics Watch | Scottish Elections Could Ultimately Lead to Breakup of U.K.

First of all, since I am not aware of the ground realities, could someone calrify as to how far is this article close to reality?

If indeed SNP, do they have support to achieve a clean sweep?

If the SNP wins and Mr Brown becomes the PM, can he rein in the SNP and its demands?

Can Scotland really become independent? Or is it an emotional will o' the wisp?

If .Scotland becomes independent, the North Sea oil becomes a bone of contention. That will lead to serious problems including armed hostilities. And if so, how will the British assets be divided amongst all who wish to become independent.

I maybe wrong, but this independence issue of various areas of the UK will create a huge buggers muddle. Any suggestions as to how it can be organised to ensure that air independent entities (when they do become, if they do) get their fair share of the assets.

If Britain splits, will the EU will 'devour' these independent entities since they will not have the same clout they have right now as one entity. Would their voice as independent entities be as powerful as the moribund Eastern Europeans?

crooks · 03-28-2007, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray

First of all, since I am not aware of the ground realities, could someone calrify as to how far is this article close to reality?

If indeed SNP, do they have support to achieve a clean sweep?

If the SNP wins and Mr Brown becomes the PM, can he rein in the SNP and its demands?

Can Scotland really become independent? Or is it an emotional will o' the wisp?

If .Scotland becomes independent, the North Sea oil becomes a bone of contention. That will lead to serious problems including armed hostilities. And if so, how will the British assets be divided amongst all who wish to become independent.

I maybe wrong, but this independence issue of various areas of the UK will create a huge buggers muddle. Any suggestions as to how it can be organised to ensure that air independent entities (when they do become, if they do) get their fair share of the assets.

If Britain splits, will the EU will 'devour' these independent entities since they will not have the same clout they have right now as one entity. Would their voice as independent entities be as powerful as the moribund Eastern Europeans?

Very much so.

The EU would'nt "devour" them up, indeed Scotland would not be guaranteed a spot in the EU.

Scotland becoming free could be a good thing, or a bad thing, it's up to them to decide whether the differences between them and the rest of the UK are as much as say Ireland and England (ie Meriting Seperation), or whether they'd be better off with a union.

ArmchairGeneral · 03-29-2007, 04:51 AM

Might be a good thing for Scotland in the long run. In the short run I'm guessing it would be utterly disastrous, which might hopefully force the Scots back to reality, and away from the welfare state Scotland seems to have become. If they wean themselves off their addiction with socialism, maybe Scotland will have a renaissance comparable to their golden age of Smith, Maxwell, and co.

03-29-2007, 04:51 AM	#3 (permalink)
ArmchairGeneral Devil's Advocate *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 05-03-06 Location: The boonies of NC, USA. Posts: 2,742 Country:	Might be a good thing for Scotland in the long run. In the short run I'm guessing it would be utterly disastrous, which might hopefully force the Scots back to reality, and away from the welfare state Scotland seems to have become. If they wean themselves off their addiction with socialism, maybe Scotland will have a renaissance comparable to their golden age of Smith, Maxwell, and co. __________________ "Apocalyptic thought is curiously pleasurable." -Theodore Dalrymple

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
The Causes & Consequences of Strategic Failure in Afghanistan & Iraq	lulldapull	The War in Iraq	35	05-20-2008 03:48 AM

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)