Independence: An Overview
Scotland: some known unknowns
Professor Iain McLean, Official Fellow in Politics, Nuffield College, University of Oxford
This article is
partly based on
Professor McLean’s
recent evidence to
the Scottish Affairs
Select Committee
and the House of
Lords Constitution
Committee. A
longer version
appears in the
introduction by
Professor McLean
and Professor
Alan Alexander
to Enlightening
the Constitutional
Debate, a joint
publication
of the British
Academy and the
Royal Society of
Edinburgh.
If we vote ‘Yes’ on 18th September
2014, we do not know what we will
get, apart from the departure of
Scottish MPs from Westminster.
To borrow Donald Rumsfeld’s
useful phrase: the remaining
terms of independence are
‘known unknowns’. The Scottish
negotiators must enter discussions
with several counterparties, such as
the European Union, NATO, and the
rest of the United Kingdom (rUK).
I discuss seven of the ‘known
unknowns’.
The European Union
The Scottish Government
acknowledges that “it will be for
the EU member states… to take
forward the most appropriate
procedure under which an
independent Scotland will become
a signatory to the EU Treaties”.
Scotland wants to enter under
Article 48 of The Lisbon Treaty.
Many doubt whether that is
feasible, but if it is, the parties
would be the UK and the European
Council. Scotland would not be
a party at all. Under the more
plausible Article 49, it would be
in control of its own application.
But it would not automatically
inherit the various opt-outs and
rebates that the current UK has
secured from the EU, such as the
contributions rebate and an optout from the Schengen common
travel area. The outcome of those
would emerge from negotiations
with a counterparty (the European
Council) whose composition is
currently unknown.
NATO
The Scottish Government wants
both to join NATO and to get rid of
the Trident submarine fleet from
Faslane and the armaments store
from Coulport by 2020. I cannot say
how NATO’s Council would respond
to these two commitments. But,
as the Council acts by unanimity, I
can say that its position would be
determined by whichever member
state was both most hostile to
Scotland’s proposals and prepared
to threaten a veto.
computers would be assigned
according to their purpose rather
than their location. In most
cases, this would have the same
consequence as a split by location,
but in some cases (for example,
military equipment, or equipment
relating to UK government functions
currently carried out in Scotland) it
would not.
Rest of the United Kingdom (rUK)
Splitting liabilities could be
more controversial. In relation
to the UK’s existing stock of
government bonds on issue, HM
Treasury has stated that “the
continuing UK Government would
in all circumstances honour the
contractual terms of the debt
issued by the UK Government.
An independent Scottish state
would become responsible for a
fair and proportionate share of
the UK’s current liabilities. An
entirely separate co