There may be a positive to a Scottish Yes vote for the rest of the UK. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

If Scotland votes Yes, will there be a silver lining for the rest of the UK?

 Scottish independence negotiations could give the rest of the UK something like the civic conversation that Scotland is currently enjoying.

Responding to polls showing gains for the Yes campaign in Scotland, some MPs have suggested postponing the general election to 2016 in the event of a vote for Scottish independence. In reality, there is much more scope for change – and the mischief of suggesting change – than just extending the life of this parliament by a year.

The first issue that the UK government will face, if the result is Yes, is whether to assert that it is, in terms of public international law, the “continuator state”. As such, it would retain its current international status and institutions. This is by far the most likely outcome and it is, for example, what Russia did on the break-up of the Soviet Union.

However, a large number of backbench MPs aren’t that enamoured of some of the UK’s international obligations, whether as a member state of the EU or as a signatory to the European Convention of Human Rights. Theoretically, it would be possible for the UK to throw all of these up in the air by declaring that it is going to become a new state on the secession of Scotland. It’s Brexit by the back door, shedding the influence of the Strasbourg human rights court at a stroke.

Obviously this would be an act of momentous chutzpah and it’s laden with risk – for example, the new UK might be unlikely to regain a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. In the meantime, UK financial markets will probably crash. However, it’s not inconceivable that some MPs will suggest the idea in the excitement following a Yes vote.

More seriously, there is a big question about the role of the UK government and parliament in relation to Scotland during negotiations over independence. Alistair Carmichael, the Secretary of State for Scotland, has suggested that the UK government would no longer seek to act on behalf of the Scottish people immediately following a vote for independence. The logic of this is obvious: it is hard to see how the UK government would feel legitimate making any significant decision about Scotland when independence is merely months away.

To avoid decisions for Scotland resting in limbo, one possibility, recommended by the House of Lords select committee on the constitution, is that the UK parliament quickly passes legislation to transfer further powers to Scotland. This in turn begs a further question. If all significant decisions about Scotland, other than, say, defence, are effectively devolved by the end of this year, then why should Scottish MPs still have the right to vote at Westminster? There may be an agreement that they recuse themselves from all votes and that may clear the way for the Conservatives to govern alone for the rest of this Parliament. After all, without Scottish MPs voting, they would have a majority, albeit a tiny one, even without the Liberal Democrats. Sensing that prospect, the clamour for a May 2016 general election on the Conservative benches may grow.

More than that partisan interest there is a broader argument to be made that the outcome of a negotiation with Scotland should receive some form of popular mandate from the remaining UK. All in all the more formality around the negotiation process the better. The Lords Constitution Committee has recommended that the negotiating team is set up with a mandate from the UK parliament and that it is cross-party – and perhaps even broader – in its composition. A negotiation conducted only by representatives from the UK government is not appropriate to the task in hand, the outcomes of which will echo through the ages.

Putting those to a vote in a general election might even give the rest of the UK something like the civic conversation that Scotland is enjoying during the referendum campaign. Certainly it would prompt wider questions about the distribution of political and economic power across the rest of the UK. Delaying the general election to 2016 will look like putting off an electoral reckoning for the coalition; but it might also give us something very exciting to vote on.

Emran Mian is the director of Social Market Foundation

Emran Mian is director of the Social Market Foundation

Getty
Show Hide image

Chuka Umunna: Why tolerance is not enough

Against the Trumpification of politics.

It’s still spring, yet 2016 already stands out as one of the ugliest years in modern British political history. It was fantastic to see Londoners choosing hope over fear in May, electing Sadiq Khan as our first Muslim mayor. But David Cameron, having shamelessly endorsed Zac Goldsmith’s dog-whistle campaign tactics, owes those young Muslims who have been put off politics by the slurs hurled at Khan an explanation. How does racial profiling and sectarian scaremongering fit into his One Nation vision for Britain?

Meanwhile, Boris Johnson, one of the best bets to succeed Cameron as our next prime minister, embarrassed Britain on the world stage with a racially charged allusion to Barack Obama’s Kenyan heritage. And my own party has been grappling with a swath of deeply disturbing revelations regarding the attitudes held by some on the left towards Israel and Jewish people. Sowing discord by stigmatising or scapegoating a single faith group or community is profoundly at odds with the British tradition of “tolerance”, but we can’t ignore that this year’s events are part of a rising trend of friction and factionalism.

Last year’s general election should have been a wake-up call. The political and cultural divides between people living in the north and south and urban and rural areas – as well as between working-class and metropolitan sensibilities – appear starker than ever. In May’s devolved elections, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish politics became yet more distinct – giving the impression of a kingdom coming apart at the seams. All the while, more and more voices in our national politics seek to pin the blame for the challenges facing our country on a single section of society, whether immigrants, Muslims or another group.

This trend stretches beyond our borders. From Ukip, the French Front National and Austria’s Freedom Party to Podemos in Spain and Italy’s Five Star Movement, new populist parties of the right and left are on the rise across Europe. In the United States, Bernie Sanders is tapping into the energy of Occupy Wall Street, while Donald Trump has emerged as the heir to the Tea Party: a poster boy for division and recrimination.

Trump’s rise should be a warning for us Brits. The New York Times commentator David Brooks has described his success as less indicative of the emergence of a new school of thought, or movement, and more of dissatisfaction with the status quo. Trump’s campaign has tapped into a complex cocktail of grievances, from the loss of manufacturing jobs in a globalised economy to rising inequality and raw anger felt by many white working-class Americans at demographic and cultural changes.

In the run-up to last year’s general election, as I travelled around the country, I was confronted time and time again with the reality that in the UK – just like in the US – people are afraid and angry because the world is changing in ways they fear are beyond their control. Where once they had believed that, if they worked hard, they would get ahead, too many Britons now feel that the system is rigged in favour of those born into opportunity and that those in power have abandoned them to a broken future. What it means to be British seems to have shifted around them, triggering a crisis of solidarity.

We are at a crossroads and may face nothing less than the Trumpification of British politics. In an uncertain and changing world, it is all too easy to imagine that our problems are caused by those who are different from us.

If we wish to follow the fine example set by Londoners on 5 May and choose unity and empathy over division and blame, we must accept that simply “tolerating” one another will no longer do. There is an accusation built into the very word: what you are doing is “other” or “wrong”. As Britain has become more diverse, we have come to know each other less. This makes it harder to understand how people from different walks of life feel about the big issues.

I am a Labour member because I believe, as it says on our membership cards, that, by the strength of our common endeavour, we achieve more together than we do alone. In order to develop the bonds of trust required for this to become a reality, and for our communities to flourish and our democracy to deliver for everyone, we must build a society in which people from all backgrounds actually get to know one another and lead interconnected lives. In this sense, “One Nation” – the land over which all parties seek purchase – should become more than a platitude. It should become a way of life.

Chuka Umunna is Labour MP for Streatham.

This article first appeared in the 26 May 2016 issue of the New Statesman, The Brexit odd squad