2021 could well see the emergence of a major standoff
over the question of Scotland's independence.
While the Scottish Government has vowed to hold a new vote on statehood,
the British Government looks determined to resist this.
This raises the question of whether Scotland could - or should -
press on with a new referendum regardless.
[MUSIC]
Hello and welcome to the channel.
If you're new, my name is James Ker-Lindsay and here I provide
informed analysis on international relations, conflict and statehood.
If there's one constant theme of this channel, it's that the
international system is stacked against territories and peoples seeking independence.
Countries fiercely guard their territorial integrity
and have constructed a system of rules that make obtaining independence
extremely difficult except in cases of colonialism or military occupation.
The international community tends to take a firm line that territories can only become independent
with the express permission of what we call the 'parent state'.
But what happens when the parent state refuses to grant permission for independence,
as is usually the case?
Sometimes, a group will opt to take up arms to fight for independence.
Very rarely this may succeed.
More often than not, the movement will be militarily defeated or
eventually forced to accept some form of autonomy.
In other cases, a territory will seek to follow a democratic route to statehood.
But what if this political route to statehood is also blocked?
Can a territory opt to vote on independence regardless?
While the answer would usually be 'no' - whether for legal,
political or practical reasons - things aren't always as simple and as straightforward as that.
Looking ahead, Scotland could well be an excellent case in point.
As I'll show, the possibility that it may now be lining up to hold an
independence referendum against the wishes of the British Government throws up some
interesting and important questions about referendums and independence.
Scotland lies in the northern part of the British Isles.
At around 30,000 square miles - or almost 80 000 square kilometers - as an independent
state it would in fact be the 115th largest of the 193 members of the United Nations,
between the United Arab Emirates and the Czech Republic.
Its population currently stands at five and a half million,
which would put it at 117th place - at roughly the same size as Finland and Slovakia.
Scotland first emerged as a kingdom in the 9th century
and enjoyed a long existence as an independent country.
However, at the start of the 17th century it began a process that
would eventually see it unite with its southern neighbour, England.
The first step towards this came in 1603 when, following the death of Queen Elizabeth I,
King James VI of Scotland assumed the English throne - thus bringing together the two crowns.
A century later, in 1706, the two countries agreed a treaty establishing a political union.
This was separately formalised by the parliaments of England and Scotland
and on 1 May 1707, Great Britain came into existence under a new, single parliament.
For the next 300 years, this constitutional settlement continued.
However, this all changed in 1997.
A referendum on autonomy saw Scottish voters support the establishment of a
permanent Scottish parliament and Scottish administration.
The following year, the British Parliament passed the Scotland Act.
This law outlined the powers of the new Scottish government.
Importantly, it also identified a number of so-called
reserved matters that fell beyond the authority of the new institutions.
These included foreign affairs,
defence and key constitutional issues, including the union of the kingdoms of England and Scotland.
Crucially though, Section 30 of the Act permitted competence to be extended
over any of these areas according to specific constitutional terms.
This became significant when, in May 2011, the Scottish National Party, the SNP,
won 69 of the 129 seats in the Scottish parliament.
Having campaigned on a platform of holding a referendum on independence,
it now pressed the case for a vote.
In October 2012 the British and Scottish Governments reached an agreement paving
the way for the Scottish parliament to pass the necessary legislation on a referendum
on Scottish independence according to the terms of section 30 of the Scotland Act.
A little under two years later, on 18 September 2014, the people of Scotland
went to the polls in what was widely billed as a once-in-a-generation vote on independence.
Although the campaign centred on a number of themes, Scotland's continued membership
with the European Union became a key issue of debate, with those lined up against independence
arguing that if Scotland left the United Kingdom it would have to reapply to join
the eu - and that countries such as Spain would make rejoining extremely difficult.
While this was disputed by those in favour of independence,
in the end the voters of Scotland chose to remain a part of the UK.
On a turnout of 85 percent of Scotland's 4.2 million registered voters,
44.7 percent voted in favour of independence against 55.3 percent against.
Under normal circumstances that might have settled the matter for the foreseeable future.
However, this all changed less than two years later when, on 23 June 2016,
the United Kingdom held a referendum on continued membership of the European Union.
While the UK as a whole voted to leave by 52
to 48 percent, an overwhelming 62 percent of Scottish voters opted to remain in the EU.
But even though Scotland had voted against independence,
in part because of fears that it would lose its place in the European Union, on 31 January 2020,
Scotland was nevertheless forced to leave the EU with the rest of the United Kingdom.
This Brexit vote fundamentally changed Scotland's
political circumstances and led to calls for a new vote on independence.
Following the British general election in December 2019, which saw the Scottish
National Party win 48 of Scotland's 59 seats in the British Parliament, Nicola Sturgeon,
the First Minister of Scotland wrote to the British Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, calling
for the necessary powers to hold a new referendum to be transferred to the Scottish parliament.
The following month, Johnson rejected the call for another vote - repeating the argument that
the 2014 referendum was meant to have been a "once in a generation" decision.
Since then, the Scottish National Party has continued its campaign for a new vote,
pledging that if it wins the next elections the Scottish Parliament, due to be held in May 2021,
it will use this as a mandate to call for another referendum.
Meanwhile, in January 2020, the Scottish Parliament passed a law
setting out the legislative framework for future referendums in Scotland.
This would suggest that Scotland could be on a collision course with the British Government
over another vote.
But will it actually happen?
Obviously, it depends on the outcome of May's election.
As things stand, the SNP looks to be on course for a resounding victory.
If this happens, then this will inevitably form
the central plank of the case for a new referendum.
And it will certainly make a very powerful statement.
At that stage, the British Government may well decide to relent and agree to another vote.
There would certainly be a clear democratic mandate for another referendum.
But this seems unlikely.
With polling now showing sustained support for independence in Scotland,
and given the deep unhappiness about Brexit,
there's a very real possibility that the result would be a vote for statehood.
At a very personal level, this would be a major blow for Prime Minister Johnson.
Clearly not wanting to go down in history as the leader who
lost Scotland, he seems determined to stand firm against another referendum.
Indeed, at the start of January 2021,
he even suggested that 40 years would be a suitable time frame for a new vote.
In other words, some time after 2050.
Of course, this has prompted a strong backlash in Scotland.
Many view the idea of having to get permission for another vote as an affront to their right
of self-determination, especially as their right to vote on independence
has already been recognised in the past.
This has raised the prospect that Scotland could press on with a vote anyway, which in
turn prompts the question of the legality of a referendum held under such circumstances.
Here opinion is actually divided.
While many would view this as a clear violation of the Scotland Act, others disagree.
As referendums are purely consultative in the United Kingdom,
and would not therefore require the Scottish Government to enact steps leading to independence,
it could be said that the vote would not formally contravene the terms of the Scotland Act.
If nothing else, this interesting ambiguity
makes it all but certain that a legal battle would arise if a new referendum was called.
But in many ways it's not the question of whether Scotland can hold another vote,
but whether it should.
The key question that needs to be asked is what would be the
point of holding a referendum against the wishes of the British Government?
If it's to force London to relent, then it seems unlikely to work.
If the British Government has already refused to accept a vote,
then why would it accept the outcome of that vote?
That leaves the question of what would happen next.
Of course, Scotland could just hold the vote and leave it at that.
There's no doubt that it would be an important indicator of public feeling.
But that would be it.
Critics would then paint it as an extremely expensive and ultimately pointless opinion poll.
The other alternative would be to use the vote as the basis to declare independence.
While there are certainly those who would support this idea,
this is in fact the one path that Scotland would need to avoid at all costs.
A perfect example of just how disastrous this option would be
can be readily seen from the case of Catalonia.
In late 2017, it too held a referendum against the wishes of the central government.
Then, having boxed itself in, it followed it up with the unilateral declaration of independence.
This turned out to have utterly disastrous consequences.
Not only was the new state wholly unrecognised by the international community,
it led to the reimposition of direct rule by the Spanish Government
and the eventual imprisonment of many of Catalonia's leaders.
Of course, no one is suggesting that any of this would necessarily happen in Scotland.
However, there's no doubt that pressing ahead with the declaration of independence
would be the worst possible course of action.
While there may be a considerable degree of private sympathy for an independent Scotland
around the world, the international community fundamentally opposes unilateral secession.
Like Catalonia, Scotland would almost certainly go wholly unrecognised on the international stage.
Meanwhile, any prospect of UN membership would be blocked by the United Kingdom - a
veto wielding permanent member of the UN Security Council.
Finally, hopes of rejoining the European Union - a key cause for independence - would certainly be
blocked by Spain, and perhaps other countries; all the more so given its experience with Catalonia.
2021 will see the question of Scotland's independence
return to prominence in British politics.
Having been forced to leave the European Union against its will,
many in Scotland believe that the fundamental basis of the 2014
vote has been rendered invalid and that they have a right to another referendum.
Moreover, if the SNP win in the Scottish elections, as is expected, there'll be
little doubt that there will be a clear moral and political case for a new vote.
The question is if and how such a vote should actually happen.
Assuming the British Government doesn't relent on its current opposition to a new vote,
any decision to press ahead will certainly lead to a major legal
and political battle between Edinburgh and London.
More to the point, if it does push on with the referendum,
the Scottish Government will need to be very clear about what the purposes of such a vote would be.
If it's to put pressure on the British Government, that's one thing.
But what happens if London holds firm.
While there may be those who believe that this would create a mandate for
a unilateral declaration of independence,
this would be a disastrous outcome that would inevitably leave Scotland
isolated on the world stage and could well set back actual independence for many years to come.
So, whatever happens, the pro-independence movement
will need to think very carefully about their strategy in the months ahead.
I hope you found that interesting.
Do let me know your thoughts in the comments below.
And here are some more videos you might like.
And don't forget to Like,
Subscribe and turn on notifications bell to be alerted when I upload new videos.
I post new ones every Friday.
Thanks so much for watching and see you in the next video.