No such thing as independence

So now a post on something not really Jersey related but something that’s quite interesting going on.

Today the Prime Minister of the UK and the First Minister of Scotland signed an agreement laying out the foundations for the 2014 referendum on Scottish independence. It’s confirmed that 16 year olds will be allowed to vote, and that the only question on the ballet will be that of independence (no question on further devolution). (The full thing can be read here)

The question of “independence” comes up a lot in various different contexts. Whether it’s Senator Bailhaches covert campaign for Jersey’s independence from the UK, the SNPs campaign for Scotland’s independence from the UK or UKIPs campaign for independence from the European Union.

I've been thinking about it quite a lot because I was contacted by someone from BBC Scotland the other day who wanted to ask me about what impact lowering the voting age in Jersey had, considering it was about to be done in Scotland. I might be interviewed for a program on that subject, but it's not confirmed yet.

Being a socialist and a democrat, you'd expect me to be against any sort of nationalism and in favour of self determination. I've expressed views on the Falkland Islands before, as well as my pretty strong views on Israel-Palestine. But the answer to any question of self determination doesn't always answer with independence. A people can, and in my opinion should, choose to be part of greater unions.

The world is getting smaller, we need fewer countries, not more. The world needs more co-operation and less competition.

There are obviously all the questions to ask about things like identity etc, which are important, but I'm more concerned about the practical implications.



On Scotland

The question of independence for Scotland is an utterly futile one. On such a small island as Great Britain, and with the context of the EU, frankly, there is no such thing as real independence for Scotland.

If Scotland were independent, it would have 3 paths it could go down. Independence away from the EU, independence in the EU with the Pound as its currency, or independence in the EU with the Euro.

All three of these have problems.

The first option, to be outside of the EU, isn't really feasible. For a start, look how Iceland turned out. Their economy completely crashed and now they are begging for EU membership. But Scotland could model itself on Norway which is a part of the European Free Trade Area and is doing quite well for itself. But the problem there is that that position requires a huge democratic deficit. To be a part of the EFTA, you still have to be subject to all EU directives and regulations, but because you aren't actually a part of the EU, you don’t have a seat at the table, helping decide what those rules are. You even have to make a contribution to the costs of running the EU! For Norway, that actually amounts to more than some of the countries that are actually a part of the EU.

But the stated preferred position from the Scottish Government is that Scotland would remain in the EU (the key word there is “remain”, rather than, “apply to stay in”) with Sterling. Of course you then have to ask yourself why being in a union with England is not acceptable on the island, but it is on the continent...

The Scottish government believes that an independent Scotland would automatically remain a part of the EU, though they have refused to publish their evidence for this, and there is plenty of evidence to the contrary.

If Scotland leaves the UK, it is doing just that, leaving the UK. It isn't ending the UK. The UK will carry on; just it will be without Scotland. It will be the United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The well established international legal precedent is that when a part of a country secedes, it is effectively starting over fresh, whereas the country it left carries on with all of its legal obligations. When the Soviet Union split up, Russia took over its seat in the UN and the Security Council, and adopted all of the USSR’s treaties and diplomatic relations with all other countries. It was the countries like Georgia and Armenia that had to apply for new UN membership and set up their own embassies etc. The same happened to South Sudan quite recently.

It would be no different for Scotland. Scotland would have to seek to get its own signature on all the treaties it wanted to, but all of those would be subject to negotiation.

Now, whether Scotland had to apply to be a member of the EU is in a way irrelevant, because if it did, there is virtually no doubt that it would be accepted. It’s already implemented all EU legislation and, by virtue of having been a part of the UK for so long, it is at the required standards to join. The question that then arises is what conditions would there be?

The UK currently has many opt-outs from various treaty clauses that is has managed to negotiate. Things like not being compelled to join the Euro or join the Schengen Zone. The Schengen Zone is the area of Europe in which there are no border controls or need to present a passport. The UK has its own “Common Travel Area” with the Republic of Ireland and the crown dependencies, but it doesn't extend to the rest of Europe.

The problem Scotland has is that it will not inherit the UK's opt-outs, it will have to negotiate its own. A country of 5 million people will have far less bargaining power at the negotiating table than a country of 70 million has. Any country that joins Europe is required to eventually join both the Euro and the Schengen Zone. Both of these will be completely unacceptable to the Scottish people. Firstly because the Euro is in a bit of a mess at the moment that joining it now seems like too much of a risk to take. But it is also impossible to be a part of both the CTA and Schengen. If Scotland had no border controls with the rest of Europe, as well as none with the UK and Ireland, Scotland would become the point at which illegal immigrants used as their route into the UK. That would be completely unacceptable to the UK government and it would mean building border controls would have to be built between Scotland and England.

The island is too small for a partition like that, it would cause a huge amount of aggravation for ordinary people in both countries, given the massive business and also family ties the people have.

But then comes the final hurdle. Regardless of whether Scotland accepts the terms of ascension as they are, or by some miracle they manage to negotiate some exemptions, there will have to be a unanimous approval by the rest of the member states for Scotland to join, and one of those countries that will need to approve will be the UK. If the UK (or any other country for that matter) says no, it can’t join. End of. And as the Prime Minister has shown, he isn't afraid to jeopardise our countries relationship with Europe by using that veto if he thinks it’s in the UK's interests.

So if Scotland wants to join the EU, it will have to be extra nice to the UK. As it stands, the Scottish government position is that an independent Scotland would not inherit the UK’s debt, it would maintain control over all of the North Sea oil, the UK's nuclear weapons would be kicked out of Scotland (which also has implications for Scotland’s stated position of remaining in NATO), it would keep the Scottish army facilities and the Scottish banks that were bailed out by the UK government will remain the UK governments problem. The UK government won’t want to accept any of these.

I've already said that Scotland will have issues joining the Euro, but there are equally issues using the Pound. For a start, Scotland will have no say over what interest rates the Bank of England sets. At the moment, the Bank of England will take into account the economy of the whole UK when deciding the rates, but if Scotland isn't a part of that country, then it has no duty to consider them. So the current legitimate complaint from the Scots that interest rates are unfair on Scotland, will actually become worse if Scotland becomes independent.

An independent Scotland would be completely free to do whatever it likes with its taxes. I foresee two possible outcomes from this. If the people of Scotland didn’t see the SNP as being redundant after independence, and kept them on in government, they’d be likely to smartly realise if they lowered taxes, they could encourage wealthy people and businesses to come from England to Scotland. The rest of the UK won’t like this, and it will cause tension. The other possibility is that the SNP will become history and Scotland will become perpetually ruled by a more left wing Scottish Labour party who will do the opposite and raise taxes, meaning anyone worth anything will just leave to the rest of the UK (which will be perpetually ruled by Tories who will lower taxes).

Either way it is a race to the bottom that will mean both countries lose out on tax revenues.

Does the Scottish government really think that the UK would be happy to let them proceed with tax policies that they saw as being detrimental? Especially when the SNP says that an independent Scotland would want to keep using the Pound. As the Eurozone has showed us, a monetary union does not work unless there is a degree of fiscal co-ordination. If Scotland wants to use the Pound, it will have to have a fiscal pact or treaty with the UK, and as the greater power, it will be the UK calling the shots, and it will specifically bar Scotland from doing things, like lowering corporation tax, that it thought would harm the UK economy.

So at the end of it all, you have to ask yourself the question, what on Earth would Scotland benefit from by becoming independent? They wouldn't gain influence, they’d lose it, and they’d still have to concede a hell of a lot to the UK government and follow their rules. Some “independence”, huh?



But what this whole saga does is put a massive question mark over Britain's entire constitution and just what hell is exactly going on. When different parts of Britain and different sections of the population are pulling in various different directions and making different decisions constitutionally, you can end up with a country that is in disarray in how it is governed because of its inconsistencies.

Some in Britain are proud that we have an unwritten constitution, though in parliament virtually everyone concedes that the UK should be working towards writing one. The whole way the UK is governed needs to be re-examined, and looked at in the context of the whole country, and not just in the contexts of its constituent parts.

Scotland is likely to reject independence, but after the vote it is sure to get more powers for its parliament. The Welsh Assembly has indicated it wants to upgrade to a parliament. Then there’s Northern Ireland where no one is quite sure exactly what is going on. And England doesn't have any of its own institutions at all.

The problem with devolution is that it requires another level of politicians and any politician with any talent isn't going to want to waste them time in a devolved parliament, they'd rather be in national government. If Charles Kennedy led the Scottish Lib Dems, he would probably easily win government and become First Minister because he’s a very good politician. I'd guess Jim Murphey from Labour could do the same. But neither of these people have any interest, because their talents can serve far more people at the national level. Whereas the nationalists only care about their areas so don't bother as much with the UK parliament, which means they are destined to do better in the devolved parliaments.

When England has no assembly, a lot of resentment is caused by things like the West Lothian question where MPs from the other parts of Britain are able to vote (sometimes decisively) on issues that only affect England. You had the perverse situation where Scottish Lib Dem MPs were going on programs like Question Time justifying the rise in tuition fees, knowing perfectly well that they would go home to their constituencies that weekend and not have to justify it to their own constituents who weren't affected by it.

There’s talk of different ways to solve it, from creating an English Parliament, to just legislating to prevent non-English MPs voting on English matters, or just having the English MPs meet monthly to vote on English matters etc.

The problem is that none of these get to the real point, which is that there is inconsistency across the UK that needs to be addressed. There needs to be a debate on what the future of the country as a whole is.

My suggestion is this - The United Kingdom should be reconstituted into a Federal Republic. The national parliament should retain responsibility for pan-Britain affairs, defence, foreign relations, some taxes etc, but everything else should be decided in the local parliaments. But England shouldn't have a single parliament because it's too big and too diverse. It should be split into regions that make sense geo-politically and culturally. So there'd be parliaments for the North-East, South-West etc but also London could be it's own region. Each region would therefore have it's own First Ministers (they could also have directly elected presidents, if that was something desired).

That would be the most democratic, the fairest and most consistent way to run the UK. I've made my views on the monarchy clear enough, hence why I've said it should be a Republic, but that doesn't necessarily mean the Queen couldn't remain in some sort of ceremonial role alongside an executive president.


On Europe

Last week came the controversial news that the European Union had won the Nobel Peace Prize.

I've said on this blog before that I believe patriotism is the final refuge of a scoundrel, and I don’t believe in being proud of where you are from simply because you happened to have accidentally been born there, but I have to confess that upon hearing that the EU had won this award, I actually did feel pride.

The Nobel Peace Prize has always been something I've had a bit of disdain for because of how many completely undeserving recipients it has. From Barack Obama, several Israeli Prime Ministers, the Dalai Lama, etc, it just seems a bit of a laughing stock. But here I felt an institution that actually deserved the recognition was being given it, especially at a time when it is so important for people to remember why the European Union was formed in the first place.

I went to Paris a few months ago and spent some time in Les Invalides, the military museum, where I noticed this sign that initially confused me –





You'll notice the dates for the two world wars aren't what we generally perceive them to be. Most people would say that the First World War started in 1914. But when I thought about it some more I remembered that the French have a different perspective on these sorts of things than us in the Anglosphere have.

Forty four years before the First World War was another devastating war between Germany and France that Britain had not been involved in. It ended with a humiliating French loss and having to surrender a significant amount of territory to Germany. The resentment was one thing that led to the tension that led to the First World War and also the French desire to force harsher terms on Germany in the Treaty of Versailles. Then came the devastation of the Second World War.

For hundreds of years, Europe had constantly been at war with itself, hundreds of millions of lives were lost, and it always set back progression. But today, such a situation is completely unthinkable.

France and Germany, two of the most powerful countries in the world, going to war is just a ridiculous idea now, even though for centuries it was something that happened every 5 minutes. Whereas, for the decades after the Second World War, it was entirely feasible that America and the Soviet Union could go to war. A completely different situation.

The ultimate tool to prevent war is business. When America and the Soviet Union started co-operating more, the tensions reduced and both nations realised that there was nothing to gain from war. The same was true for Germany and France, though they realised it much sooner.

The creation of the European Coal and Steel Community (the precursor to the European Economic Community) was such a simple, yet genius idea. It brought joint control over their coal and steel resources, and thus made it physically impossible for the countries to wage a war with each other, because they were legally bound to co-operate on their resources for waging war!

I've always said that if America wanted to reduce tension with Russia and China, it should invite them both to join NATO!

Then from the ECSC it developed into EEC, the EC and now the EU, further intertwining the countries of Europe so they are so economically connected with each other that war between then is just impossible.

But all this isn't to say that Britain would instantly be at war with our European neighbours if we left the EU, but it does show that the EU and further integration is plainly the future and by not being at the forefront of it, the UK will be sidelined, so independence from Europe doesn't offer us anything.

There is all sorts of pathetic misinformation about the European Union that goes around in the right-wing press in Britain. As much as we may moan about the media in Jersey and it's constant inability to present things accurately, we should always remember that the UK national papers are often capable of the same level of incompetence. But as usual, it is bloggers that hold them to account and help get the truth out. My favourite source for finding information on the European Union is this great blog - http://www.jcm.org.uk/blog/

The fact is, the EU is nowhere near as bad as people make it out to be. It isn't that undemocratic (especially when compared with the UK system of government), it doesn't take away our sovereignty and it is good value for money.

Britain at the forefront of Europe would make the whole continent more prosperous and more peaceful. Independence is just built on petty nationalism that can only cause harm in the long run.


On Jersey

Do I even need to make the case?

Cheers,

Sam