Scotland can leave the Union, but only one route is viable
His 'practical and workable plan' to achieve independence is to 'provoke a constitutional crisis' by demanding, on the strength of a majority of seats at Holyrood, that London permits an indyref, and on refusal of that by seeking 'international support', having stated a manifesto intention to declare independence on the basis of 'parliamentary democracy' (ie a majority of seats).
Unfortunately, that is neither practical nor workable. There is no authoritative forum from which to obtain international support anyway, and the only likely response from abroad to a Scotland pleading for help after having failed to win a majority vote, and having sent only nine of Scotland's 57 MPs as even nominal supporters of independence to the Union parliament, is derision.
READ MORE: Scotland 'absorbed into England' by Acts of Union, says legal expert
The one and only actually existing way for the people of Scotland to express an effective choice on whether the country should be independent is by means of a General Election made into a plebiscite by the appropriate manifesto. This is because the only other way, a referendum, is legally beyond Holyrood and London persistently refuses to allow one (a refusal, incidentally, which would bar London from complaining about the plebiscitary General Election, if it was minded to do so).
Mr Howie offers three reasons to disparage this.
1) 'Any independence supporter who votes for a Unionist party is counted as a No voter.'
That's because he is a No voter.
2) 'There is very little likelihood of a 50% Yes vote.'
We'll see. If it should turn out that Scotland does not want independence, so be it. But a plebiscitary election is more akin to a referendum than a normal election. It will be down to campaigning, but for years now, one half of Scotland has consistently polled for independence.
3) 'The UK Government will not accept a Yes result.'
READ MORE: UK anti-terrorism tsar in Scottish independence 'meddling' claim
London has no choice. The legal effect of a General Election is the filling of seats. A head-count majority in a Union General Election would put an indy MP in virtually every Scottish seat, with a fully democratic mandate to take Scotland out of the Union. Those are Scotland's highest representatives, the modern equivalent of the body which took Scotland into it in the first place. London has always affirmed that Scotland can leave if it no longer consents to union, which merely states the actual legal and constitutional position, namely that there is no barrier to Scotland leaving if its people so wish.
If there was any such barrier, London could never have made the Edinburgh Agreement, which it did by mere signature of the PM. And in the case of Northern Ireland, the UK has actually declared in legislation that the province can leave. Any suggestion that London can hold Scotland captive against its wishes is so preposterous and so monstrous as to be entirely unconscionable, and that is the view that London would also adopt if, but only if, Scotland ever actually made the decision.
(A plebiscitary election at Holyrood can only be a dry run, so long as there is a minority of indy MPs on the Scottish seats at Westminster, but there might perhaps be some small hope that success even at Holyrood would bring London to the table.)
The way forward is clear and simple, using the existing set-up, requiring no extra-legal steps, foreign intervention, or crisis. Our problem at the moment is that our only effective mechanism, the SNP, refuses to do the business, and as long as that applies, we are sunk.
Ian Roberts
via email
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
2 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Starmer's time will be up if he fails to address two crucial issues
Labour's by-election win wasn't a shock: it was a lottery. Davy Russell was, of course, elected under the first-past-the-post system, which works perfectly well when there are only two main candidates. But that's no longer the case and hasn't been for a long time. Westminster MPs are elected in the same way and our current Labour government has the benefit of a massive majority from only 34% of the vote on the second lowest turnout in almost 100 years. The Electoral Reform Society calculated that 28.8 million people voted and 27.5 million eligible to vote did not: almost the same amount. That in effect, is a 17% endorsement for Labour and certainly not representative. John Milne ("For many, politics isn't working") hits the nail on the head when he writes that 'politics in our country is not working for a significant element of our population' and warns of 'the inequalities and injustices in our society and economy'. UK politics isn't working, firstly, because the UK electoral system is so unrepresentative and, secondly, because of the widening gap between the wealthy and poor of our society that our politicians seem unable or. more likely, unwilling to correct. I should be a natural Labour supporter but the party led by Sir Keir Starmer and Anas Sarwar bears little resemblance to its founding principles. Evidently, many others feel the same and are turning to Reform UK in protest and, possibly, in the vain hope that its offer of change will work. Keir Starmer could fix the first problem by changing our undemocratic voting system. But if he continues to bury his head in the sand against the wishes of the majority of his party members, he might as well start writing his political obituary now. David Bruce, Troon. Read more letters: Why Labour should focus on the SNP Dr Gerald Edwards (letter, June 7) is mistaken that Reform were 'the real winners' and not Labour. who turned round a huge SNP majority and succeeded despite Reform splitting the vote. The winner is my old friend, Davy Russell, who heads off to Holyrood having fought a highly old-fashioned and much-derided campaign. He faced the public and convinced them that he could be trusted. He also made various so-called expert political commentators look very foolish. It was a disaster for the SNP by any measure, particularly since they marched into the count, chests out and totally confident of victory. It was a humiliation for the First Minister but Dr Edwards is correct to say that it was a very good result for Reform. However one major point is that both Unionist parties jointly polled over double the SNP vote. This was a very significant rejection of the SNP and their failures of the last 18 years. I've had various letters in the Herald forecasting the rise of Reform and the mistake of ridiculing them and disparaging Mr Farage. That won't help, and will only encourage people who are disillusioned to vote for them. Labour needs to focus on defeating SNP in Scotland and let Reform do their worst – best not to give them credibility. On a personal level I've known Davy for many years and can only pray that more genuine local candidates are pushed forward by Labour to ensure we can gain power at the Scottish elections next year. John Gilligan, Ayr. SNP's urgent priorities now The lesson from the Hamilton by-election result for the SNP is to let Labour and the Tories fight it out with Reform UK to represent the dwindling number of myopically indoctrinated supporters of the Union. The SNP must also focus on the critical argument that only independence can bring about a radical 'change in direction' for the UK through the constitutional change necessary to seriously address the fundamental problems confronting "broken Brexit Britain". The lesson for John Swinney is that it is now urgent that he arouse the passion and vigour for independence quietly dormant within him, or step aside, at least from the leadership of the SNP, and support an individual who can inspiringly lead the country to independence before the end of this decade. A majority of MSPs supporting independence in the next Scottish election must represent a mandate for the Scottish Parliament to hold a binding constitutional referendum which, if denied by the UK government, must legitimately underpin making the next General Election a 'de facto referendum' on independence. A majority of votes at the Scottish election must represent a mandate to commence independence negotiations should the UK government fail, over a maximum period of one year, to pass legislation enabling the Scottish Parliament to hold constitutional referenda. Manifestos of the SNP and the other independence parties should state both these commitments and the necessary actions that will follow should a resultant mandate be met with continued undemocratic intransigence by the UK government. Further procrastination by the UK government on implementing the democratically expressed wishes of the people of Scotland must not be accepted. To paraphrase the currently popular words of the Roman general, Vegetius, if you want true democracy, prepare to fight cynical totalitarianism. Stan Grodynski, Longniddry, East Lothian. No rest for the Hamilton voters I think it was Harold Wilson who said that a week is a long time in politics. He of course was right – and what a week we have seen in Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse. First, we had the First Minister of Scotland claiming that only the SNP can beat Reform and stating that Labour cannot win here. Then we had Reform and Nigel Farage having to defend a campaign video condemned by rivals as 'blatantly racist', followed by Farage accusing Sarwar of introducing sectarianism into Scottish politics. Meanwhile, the voters who deliver the final verdict get on with their lives, thinking 'what have we done to deserve all of this?' The final verdict was delivered by the people who rejected Farage and Reform, rejected Swinney and the SNP and plumped for the local hero Davy Russell and Scottish Labour. I have to give huge credit to Anas Sarwar for his dignified response to Farage and Reform and his noble response to the SNP, which cosied up to Reform by attempting to give them credibility by describing the election as a two-horse race between them. The residents of Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse will be relieved that it is only a week that is a long time in politics as they get back to a bit of normality – forgetting it starts all over again in the first week of May 2026. Willie Young, Aberdeen. Time for Swinney to jack it in In his interview on BBC Scotland's The Sunday Show, John Swinney was still touchingly clinging to the independence panacea, citing polls claiming 54% support. That doesn't stack up with the Hamilton result. On a turnout of 44% the SNP got 30% of the votes – that's only 14% of the total electorate. Applying these numbers to the 4.3m voters of Scotland, their 2014 Indyref total of 1.6m votes plummets by one million to around 600,000. Come on John, you know it's over, so why not publicly announce you've jacked it in? Then Holyrood 2026 can be about which party has the best policies and candidates to halt the nosedive in our health, education, worklessness, Net Zero and public services. Allan Sutherland, Stonehaven. Sarwar was embarrassing Martin Geissler acquitted himself well in his Sunday Show interview with Labour's Anas Sarwar. But that is more than could be said for Sarwar, who was unsatisfactory. He rattled off criticisms of the SNP (not all of them undeserved) but when it came to defending Labour's record in office, its policies and its U-turns he spoke very quickly and without much in the way of conviction. Asked how Labour could put more money into people's pockets, he outlined, in the space of a few seconds, various measures but declined to elaborate and then quickly detoured into the NHS, Swinney and Farage. Geissler tried to pin him down but Sarwar didn't seem to listen to the questions that a hard-pressed electorate deserves serious responses to. Were I a Labour voter I would be embarrassed by Sarwar's painfully thin and cliched answers. S. McArthur, Glasgow.
Scotsman
3 hours ago
- Scotsman
The signs from Labour are more welfare cuts in Spending Review
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer (centre), Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar (right) and Ed Miliband, Energy Security and Net Zero Secretary (left), during a visit to St Fergus Gas Terminal, a clean power facility in AberdeenshirePicture: Jeff J Mitchell/PA Wire This week's UK Spending Review presents a stark choice: a continuation of Westminster austerity or a long-overdue shift toward investment in people, services and the economy. Sign up to our daily newsletter Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to Edinburgh News, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... So far, signs from the Labour Government suggest more of the same cuts that have already failed families for over a decade. As always, it is the most vulnerable in our society who will pay the price. With household bills high and public services already stretched, now is the time for serious, compassionate action. Yet Labour has refused to rule out real-terms cuts to affordable housing, police recruitment, and local government funding. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad At the same time, the UK Government is pressing ahead with damaging welfare reforms – including proposed cuts to disability benefits, the continuation of the two-child benefit cap, and delays to anti-poverty action like the long-promised child poverty taskforce. All of this risks worsening the cost-of-living crisis and driving already struggling families into deeper hardship, especially in communities already hit hardest by past austerity measures. The SNP has laid out a clear and achievable alternative. The Chancellor must fully reverse planned welfare cuts, protect public services and unlock investment in clean energy and economic growth. In particular, Labour must finally deliver full and immediate funding for Scotland's Acorn carbon capture project – a vital climate initiative that has faced years of Westminster delay. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The UK Government must also fully cover the cost of its increase to employer National Insurance, which threatens to drain frontline budgets in areas like health, social care and education. Scotland is already delivering targeted, effective support – and the evidence speaks for itself. According to new House of Commons Library research, nearly two million families across the UK would be lifted out of poverty if Labour adopted SNP policies: a UK-wide rollout of the Scottish Child Payment, scrapping the two-child cap, and ending the bedroom tax. Under the SNP, Scotland is the only part of the UK where child poverty is falling. The Scottish Child Payment alone delivers £27.15 per eligible child per week – a direct boost to family incomes that is helping to turn the tide on child poverty across our communities. By contrast, the UK Government's own impact assessment shows that proposed cuts to disability benefits could push a further 250,000 people – including 50,000 children – into poverty. Families affected stand to lose £4500 a year on average. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad And despite repeated calls from campaigners, Labour MPs have failed to back even basic reforms, like abolishing the two-child limit, voting against it in the House of Commons just last year – a decision that remains indefensible in the face of rising need. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has made clear that, without new revenue, the UK Government's current fiscal rules mean public spending will fall in real terms across most departments. That includes justice, local government and housing – all critical areas already under severe strain. If the Chancellor refuses to invest and clings to outdated austerity thinking, the consequences will be felt in every community across the UK for years to come. In Scotland, the SNP is focused on lifting people out of poverty and building a fairer, greener, more resilient economy. But we cannot shield families indefinitely from the consequences of Westminster choices. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Labour must use this Spending Review to deliver the funding and flexibility Scotland needs – not double down on the failed cuts that brought us here in the first place. MSP for Edinburgh Central and Constitution, External Affairs and Culture Secretary
The Herald Scotland
3 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Call for watchdogs to be scrapped to curb Scottish Water execs pay
They are saying that having three bodies with regulatory oversight of the industry is wasteful and means there is a lack of responsibility and suggest there should be only one. They say restructuring will allow the same level of scrutiny with clearer lines of accountability and less expense. Andrew Thomson, GMB Scotland's representative rep at Scottish Water, has said that the current set-up has encouraged creeping privatisation at the company and led to workers being scapegoated for executive failures. The branch has been supported by the union in calls for ministers to implement strict conditions around public sector executive pay and bonuses through its Public Sector Pay Strategy – extending this to the quangos, commissions and regulatory bodies. The issue surrounds a complex web of three separate regulators operating to oversee operations at Scottish Water - the Water Industry Commission for Scotland (WICS) which examines finances, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) which oversees pollution issues and the Drinking Water Quality Regulator for Scotland which investigates safety. WICS, which the branch says is "a disgrace" has been at the centre of a scandal over what watchdog Audit Scotland described as inappropriate public spending, including: a £77,000 Harvard Business School course for a senior executive, lavish spending on meals, with some exceeding £200 per head and £100 gift vouchers for staff, surpassing the £75 limit for gifts. SEPA was told by watchdog Environmental Standards Scotland (ESS) in September, last year, to improve monitoring after finding that pollution of Scotland's rivers and beaches was far more widespread than realised because ministers have failed to take the problem seriously. The union has been concerned that ten days of strikes in a bitter pay dispute is to cost nearly £3m in bringing in extra staff as part of a contingency plan. It comes amidst a row over Mr Plant receiving a 50% rise in the existing pay package - despite public sector pay rules saying he should expect to have a 10% cut. Alex Plant (Image: Supplied) The £483,000 remuneration for Alex Plant over just ten months of 2023/24 is nearly £100,000 more than the outgoing chief executive Douglas Millican, received in his last full year before taking flexible retirement which resulted in a cut in salary and reduced pension benefits. The Scottish Government's public sector pay policy has since 2010 included an "expectation" that the remuneration of a new chief executive appointment will be at least 10% lower than that of the outgoing officer. MSPs raised their concerns in the Scottish Parliament after The Herald further revealed that executives of the nation's state-owned water supplier saw bonuses hiked by over a third in one year - taking a five-year total to nearly £1.6m despite public sector pay rules suspending the payments. Read more by Martin Williams: It has told users: "We will do all we can to ensure customers do not experience any disruption to their water supplies and that treatment of the country's waste water continues as usual, despite the planned industrial action. Union members on the picket line (Image: Andrew Milligan) While Scottish Water has remained included on the list of public sector organisations that should conform with the pay policy, the Scottish Government say that they are exempt. Mr Thomson has taken the calls for changes to GMB Scotland's Congress saying that regulation of the water industry "is required to ensure drinking water is safe and accessible, and that wastewater is dealt with responsibly to protect human life, environmental health and our waterways". He says that excessive regulatory demands from the three agencies has created a "blame culture within Scottish Water where workers – not management – are held to account for organisational failures and that "this motivates management to place excessive responsibilities and pressures on the performance of the workforce affecting health and morale". He said that an "excessive number of regulatory bodies, overbearing [Scottish Water] board governance and a lack of transparency have created a top-heavy system of patronage and a culture of elitism where undisclosed contracts and bonuses are given to executives while the pay of Scottish Water workers lags far behind the private sector leading to the increased threat of industrial action". SEPA (Image: Archive) The branch says a full review of regulatory bodies is required in relation to Scottish Water with an aim to consolidate responsibilities and reduce costs. GMB Scotland said the long-running and ongoing industrial action at Scottish Water only underlined the need for root and branch reform. Mr Thomson said: "It is time government which is ultimately the main regulator, concentrated on cutting preposterous costs at the high end; hold management to account and stop allowing the victimisation of workers for wasteful regulation failures. "Prosecute the bosses and protect the workers." A 10-day ballot of workers on a revised pay offer delivered to unions by Scottish Water will start on Wednesday but Claire Greer, GMB Scotland organiser, said disruptive and expensive strikes could have been averted months ago if executives had seriously engaged with the workforce. She said: 'There has now been a series of different disputes at this company all marked by the same failure of management to negotiate with clarity or urgency. A Scottish Water protest'That not only suggests systemic problems at an executive level but a failure to provide effective and proper oversight by the board and independent watchdogs. 'Scotland was meant to be different to the rest of UK with Scottish Water being structured to ensure the people of Scotland retained ownership and control. 'That means nothing unless there is rigorous and independent oversight of management by board members and expert and respected regulators. 'That is clearly not happening and a complicated and needlessly expensive system of oversight must be rebuilt for the benefit of all Scots. A Scottish Government spokesman said: 'We remain committed to a water industry model where Scottish Water is publicly owned, commercially run and independently regulated. "Ministers have set out their policy in relation to public sector pay. It is a matter for Scottish Water and its unions to agree a settlement within the constraints of that policy and affordability. " A Scottish Water spokesperson said: "After the latest talks with the Joint Trade Unions on Friday, we made an improved pay offer that would see average wages increase by more than 7% over two years. This included a minimum increase of £2,825 over the period. 'In addition, we also proposed a number of other enhancements including improved stand-by payments and carers' leave. 'This is a very strong and progressive offer that balances the interests of our people and customers' and we asked the Joint Trade Unions to ballot their members on the new proposal. So we are glad they are doing so and hope members vote to accept our offer. 'It is in everyone's interests that the current dispute is resolved so that our people can get the pay increases they deserve and return to delivering an essential service to the people of Scotland.' WICS declined to comment.
