NEW proposals to require the UK Government to hold indyref2 could call time on “constitutional ping-pong” between Unionists and the independence movement, according to a leading academic.
A report by former Scottish Labour leader Kezia Dugdale and former Yes Scotland strategist Stephen Noon has called for a Northern Ireland-style deal for Scotland on the constitutional issue.
Their proposal would put a duty on the Scottish Secretary to call a second referendum if the independence side was seen as likely to win.
It has proven controversial and the authors admit their plans “could please nobody”.
But Professor Murray Leith of the University of the West of Scotland and head of its Centre for Migration, Diaspora, Citizenship and Identity thinks the proposal could be the basis for a true “union of consent” between Scotland and the rest of the UK.
He told the Sunday National: “It is extremely unclear exactly when Scotland could get another referendum because that relies on 100% agreement of the Westminster government.”
Professor Leith said Scotland found itself stuck in a “grey area” constitutionally and the mechanism put forward by Dugdale and Noon (below) could provide a path forward.
He said: “If the Union is a union of consent, there needs to be a process where the people can withdraw that consent. There is a system that exists for Northern Ireland and therefore that should be the basis for Scotland.
“What I think this report is attempting to do and what it recognises is that we’re in this grey area where a Scottish Government that wants a referendum can ask for it and be told, ‘no, now is not the time’.
“The answer to that is, of course, ‘Well, when will the time be?’"
READ MORE: Give UK Government new indyref powers to break stalemate, major report says
Professor Leith added: “And what this report lays out is a premise where the time is set. The time will be when the Secretary of State for Scotland thinks that there is evidence to illustrate that [independence] has a successful chance, just as we have agreed with Northern Ireland.
“In other words, this would be an agreed path, so it would remove the constitutional question from the table. What we’ve got now is constitutional ping-pong.”
Modelling Scotland’s constitutional arrangements with the UK Government on its relationship with Northern Ireland may prove controversial.
Northern Ireland’s exit mechanism – in this case to rejoin the rest of Ireland – is enshrined in the Good Friday Agreement, which ended around 30 years of bloody civil war in the province, something which has not been seen in modern Scottish history.
The region has also suffered for extended periods in the recent past of major breakdowns in its governance.
Parties have repeatedly pulled out of the power-sharing arrangements which provide the basis for the executive.
Most recently, Northern Ireland was left without a devolved government for around two years because of Unionist fury over post-Brexit trading agreements they argued drove a wedge between the province and the rest of the UK.
Professor Leith said that Northern Ireland was “treated as somewhat singularly different than the rest of the United Kingdom” and said it would be wrong to compare the situations there with that in Scotland.
And he said that while it was unclear whether Labour would go for the proposal, their predecessors would have asked why they should “hand away more power”.
He added: “That was certainly the attitude of the previous government. Not only did they say that but they also talked about pulling back powers and bypassing devolution by having funds they could grant to local areas without having any reference to the devolved bodies, which clearly violates the principles of devolution if not the actual written elements.”
While the proposals have been met with derision among parts of the pro-Yes grassroots, the reaction from political parties has been more muted.
The SNP, Scotland’s largest pro-independence party, has so far not commented public on the report, which was published by Glasgow University’s Centre for Public Policy.
The Greens have said formalising the role of the Scottish Secretary on the constitutional question would be “entrenching” power in Westminster, meanwhile, Alba said it would be “completely at odds” for Scotland to not get the same treatment as Northern Ireland.
In an interview with the Holyrood Sources podcase, Dugdale (above) argued: “I know the people of the SNP will read this, see the bit about the Secretary of State for Scotland and come to the conclusion that is some sort of governor's charter, that they won't wait for a Secretary of State to tell them when they can have an independence referendum.
“That's not what this is. It's about mandating that government minister to listen to the mood of the nation and move for a referendum at that point. Equally, there's going to be stuff in this that Labour will hate me for advocating. I've got very little doubt in my mind about that.”
A UK Government spokesperson said: “We have reset the relationship between the UK and Scottish Government, ensuring that Scottish people and their communities are now rightly back at the beating heart of our missions to deliver for working people.
“People want their two governments working side by side – delivering higher growth, safer streets, cleaner energy, and greater opportunities – and that is our full focus.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel