The debate on Scottish independence is heating up: within
the last few weeks we’ve gone from emotional appeals to keep Scotland in the UK
to declarations that if Scotland leaves the UK it will lose the pound and EU
membership. Commission President Barroso made a surprisingly strong intervention
into the debate on the Andrew Marr Show, saying that it would be “difficult, if
not impossible” for Scotland to be accepted back into the EU.
Although there are some interesting arguments on the legal
obligations of the Member States in this area, and the assertion is disputed, it probably will be difficult
politically for Scotland to re-join the Union. Still, an agreed referendum on
independence is different from a unilateral declaration of independence (which
is Spain’s real fear), and it shouldn’t be “impossible” for Scotland to gain
membership. The 2016 deadline of the Scottish National Party is another story:
Scotland may be up-to-date on EU law, but the negotiations would probably drag
on.
What’s strange about the debate is that there’s little
discussion about the UK union as a whole. (As noted in The Guardian, 100 years ago the situation was different). The polls
on independence may be narrowing, but a vote against is still the likely
outcome. But even if Scotland stays in the UK, further devolution of powers is
on the cards. Without a debate on how the UK should be run – whether there
should be devolution to England or the English regions, and if power should be
devolved more equally with the central government holding on to limited and
clear powers – there is a sense of drift. If devolution is just about the
nations and regions claiming opt outs from the central government, rather than
part of a broader discussion about how the UK should be run, then the direction
of the political narrative is towards exit: maybe not today, but perhaps
tomorrow.
No comments:
Post a Comment