Terms of the divorce

Tweet

Whilst the laws and unwritten constitution of the UK clearly support the view that Scottish (and the same applies to Wales) Independence is a matter which the UK Parliament would have to ‘allow’, I’ve never been in any doubt that the decision belongs to – and will be taken by – the people of Scotland.  Ultimately, ‘sovereignty’ can never be withheld from a people who wish to reclaim it, no matter what any law may say.  (I suppose that the use of military force might provide an exception to that, in the short term at least; but it’s not a realistic option in the UK context.)

Some have tried to compare independence to a divorce, arguing that that makes it a matter for both (or even all) parties.  It’s not a wholly unfair comparison; but those using that argument should bear in mind that whilst the terms of any divorce are indeed a matter for negotiation – or even acrimonious argument – the fact of the divorce can be decided by one partner acting alone.

Clearly, those opposed to independence have every right to seek to persuade the people of Scotland that divorce is a bad idea.  They even have a right to be awkward and petty about the terms of the divorce, although I’m not sure that it would be the wisest thing for them to do.  But arguing about the right to a divorce is an irrelevance; it’s missing the point.

If we start from the premise – as I do – that ‘sovereignty’ belongs to all of us, individually and collectively, rather then being bestowed miraculously on the head of state, then it follows that we can change the way that we choose to exercise that sovereignty.  We can choose how much to share or pool at community level, at national level, or at international level; and we can change those decisions as and when we like. 

It’s a very different model from that under which the laws and constitution – and those who enjoy power under them – currently operate; but those laws and constitution only operate as they do with the consent of the governed, even if we don’t always realise that.  (Perhaps if we did realise it more often, the governed might withhold consent more often as well.)

Thus far, I suspect that most nationalists would agree with what I’ve said, even if ‘unionists’ (perhaps ‘constitutionalists’ would be a better term here) might disagree.  How far do we take it though – because I’d go a lot further.

Part of my difficulty is that I find it hard to define a ‘nation’ in terms that are not, in the final analysis, based on subjective self-identity, which also means that I reject the idea that people can have one and only one ‘nationality’ in an exclusive and neatly packaged way.  For me, Wales is a nation because sufficiently large numbers of Welsh people believe it to be so.  For sure, place of birth, history, territory, descent, community, family and language all come into the process of arriving at that self-identity, but nobody can have that self-identity forced upon them.

It follows from that that I’d challenge the idea that ‘sovereignty’ is something which can only be exercised at a ‘national’ level.  What if the people of Ynys Môn (I pick on them because of their neat island status – I could equally have picked on the ‘down-belows’ of Pembrokeshire, or even the inhabitants of Upper Cwmsgwt) were to decide that they wanted to exercise full sovereignty – independence for Ynys Môn?

I can think of lots of reasons why it might not be the brightest idea ever, but I cannot think of any reason why anyone else should be able to refuse it, if it was what the people wanted.  And that has surely to be the driver for what power we individually and collectively cede to which institutions at the different levels – the will of the people.  If sovereignty truly belongs to the people, there can be no argument against them exercising it at whatever level they choose.

There is another side to sovereignty though, and that’s about accepting the consequences.  The relationships between sovereign states can only be decided bilaterally or multilaterally; not unilaterally.  It’s back to the question about the terms of the divorce.  Scotland, Wales – even Ynys Môn – can become independent if they wish, but there are consequences to that.

To date, those consequences have often been discussed in axiomatic terms.  For as long as it was little more than a theoretical possibility, it’s been possible to make sweeping statements about the economic consequences with little solid basis in fact.  The developing situation in Scotland will inevitably shed more light on the detail, and lead to more rigorous challenge of some of the underlying assumptions and high level numbers which have been thrown around – on both sides.

That can only be a good thing.  I remain as convinced that ‘small is beautiful’, and that the advantages of exercising more power locally outweigh the disadvantages, as I was in the 1970s.  The trend to increasing globalisation since then has only served to reinforce that view.  Welsh self determination is a step along that route rather than an end in itself, but it has often felt as though devolution has diverted attention from consideration of that step.  The debate in Scotland brings it very much back into focus; we need to have the courage to follow where they lead, not continue to hold back.