OPINIONS

Federalism in Scotland, and American lessons for Britain

	Winston Shi Senior Staff Writer

By: Winston Shi | Senior Staff Writer

How do you deal with a political party that doesn’t even want to be in office?

That’s the question that British politicians are asking themselves in the ramp-up to the 2015 UK election. Less than a year ago, the Scottish National Party (SNP) masterminded the 2014 Scottish independence referendum and nearly pulled Scotland out of the United Kingdom. They failed, but now they’re surging in support and will likely take at least 45 of Scotland’s 49 parliamentary seats. Moreover, it looks like neither the ruling Conservative Party nor its Labour opponents will secure enough seats in Parliament to form a government on their own. We may well see an actively secessionist political faction holding the balance of power in the United Kingdom, America’s most famous ally and the fifth-largest economy in the world.

People thought that the Scottish independence question had been shelved for the foreseeable future. But the referendum does not change the existing tensions in British politics. Without reforms that entrench federalism and local autonomy in the UK, it seems almost inevitable that the issue will come up again. Will the independence movement survive the referendum, and if it does, how can an SNP bloc that retains its desire for independence function responsibly in a government that it ultimately wants to leave?

***

Even though one referendum has failed, it’s hard to imagine that the drive for independence will completely disappear. Scottish disaffection with the Union will be a key force in British politics for years. If 45 percent of Californians voted to leave the Union, Americans would be panicking. How much alienation must Scots feel if 45 percent of them voted last year to leave? Yes, 45 percent is not a majority, and so Scotland stayed in the Union. But it is an absolutely massive minority. British politicians need to ask why Scotland came so close to seceding in the first place.

Will the SNP try to call a second referendum, now that it may soon be able to force Labour to its knees? The time is not right. Oil-rich Scotland’s economic case for independence has been severely hurt by the recent collapse in energy prices – a race to the bottom that would have torn an “£18 billion black hole” in the Scottish budget. A drive for a second referendum would make the party look like it was chasing shadows. And further demands, especially when a legitimate vote has already been taken, would definitely hurt the SNP’s image south of the border. The center-left SNP has ruled out any coalition with the Conservatives, but regardless, we don’t know if unionist voters in the social-democratic Labour Party would respond positively to their elected representatives working with secessionists, even politically similar ones. They know that if the SNP gets its way, any political alliance would be temporary at best.

So for now the SNP is in a strange position: unable to enact its signature proposal (independence), yet at the same time wielders of an imminent and massive power in a government it technically wants no part of. That sounds like a gilt-edged opportunity for the SNP to redefine itself: to turn from independence, become a long-term force in Parliament, and work to further Scottish interests while acknowledging the primacy of the UK. Yet it’s equally clear that the SNP isn’t going to quit.

***

The independence movement is not going away. It has been delayed, to be sure: SNP party boss Nicola Sturgeon has now coupled her continued demands for independence with a call for increased autonomy, as long as Scotland remains within the existing UK political framework. But ultimately these aims are at cross-purposes. The SNP loves to talk about how it’s going to influence politics in Westminster, but it has to ask whether it should work with the all-UK parties or ignore them altogether. And it’s doubtful whether the SNP can or should even want to accomplish the former.

Yes, the federalism that Sturgeon seeks may cause Scotland’s economy to diverge from that of the United Kingdom as a whole. (It is a curious but understandable concession to politics that the SNP nevertheless wants to stay wedded to the British pound, which would force Scotland to accept the financial hegemony of the Bank of England.) And the greater the divergence, the easier a political split would probably be.

However, the United States, Canada, India and many other countries have found that federalism actually works wonders in convincing people from different regions to live under the same overall banner. Limited self-government is important, and the UK will still survive if Scotland assumes more authority and power in areas that concern only Scotland. The central government (or in the the aforementioned countries’ cases, the federal government) doesn’t need to control every aspect of people’s political lives.

Federalism and devolution may give moderates in the SNP a reason to rethink independence and return to the unionist fold. What if the UK allowed Scotland to vote on whether to keep Trident-equipped nuclear submarines in Scottish ports? Pollsters can argue about the exact numbers, but many Scots aren’t too happy about the current arrangement. So if the subs move elsewhere, that’s one fewer reason to leave the UK. Replicate that effect for all sorts of other divisive issues, and you erode away much of the SNP base. Consequently, devolution could be the undoing of the SNP as a major force in British politics, as long as independence remains the primary reason why the SNP exists.

***

I asked at the beginning of this column, “How can an SNP bloc that retains its desire for independence function responsibly in a government that it ultimately wants to leave?” Perhaps “responsibly” is the wrong word, but if you believe that parties in a government should try to make that government more effective, the SNP may end up disappointing you. Effective government from Westminster that better responds to Scottish concerns can only undermine the independence movement that the SNP claims to champion.

The best thing that could possibly happen to the SNP right now is if it made demands for political devolution – something that Westminster actually offered in the run-up to the referendum – only for these demands to be rejected. A failure to enact meaningful reforms would add to the independence movement by strengthening the conviction that the political interests of Scotland and the rest of the UK are irreconcilable.

Gridlock and political instability — the almost inevitable result of the vote-by-vote support that the SNP plans to offer a Labour minority government — will further tarnish Parliament in Scots’ eyes. Consequently, it is in the interest of the SNP to accentuate divisive issues and make demands that it knows will never be accepted. But the SNP still needs the UK to play into Sturgeon’s hands, rejecting federalism and, in doing so, breaking what is generally viewed as a very visible political promise. And the UK will likely opt to head in a more rational direction.

Contact Winston Shi at wshi94 ‘at’ stanford.edu.

About Winston Shi

Winston Shi is an opinions and sports columnist and senior staff writer for The Stanford Daily, and was the Managing Editor of Opinions for Volume 245 (February-June 2014). He also sits on The Daily's Editorial Board. He is an coterminal BA/MA student in his senior year from Thousand Oaks, California, studying America's history and foreign policy. In his free time, he likes to read, travel and write about himself in the third person. Contact him at wshi94@stanford.edu.

Sittyton

The article probably makes sense when viewing the UK through a telescope from the USA. But a trip to Scotland would give you a different perspective. Sturgeon and the SNP (and other parties in Scotland: Labour, Conservative Greens, Liberal Democrats, Scottish Socialist Party) have years of experience in making minority government work in Holyrood, the Scottish parliament. Unlike the USA Scotland does not have a two party system and does have Proportional Representation. So for example although Scotland has only one Conservative MP at Westminster there are 15 Conservative MSPs (Members of the Scottish Parliament) at Holyrood. So the SNP can teach Westminster a thing or two about making minority government effective. Secondly it is not, as your article suggests and as the Conservatives love to say, in the SNP’s interests to undermine the effectiveness of Westminster during the forthcoming term. Rather it is in their interest to be seen to be doing a great job in encouraging policies that are seen to benefit all of the UK, not just Scotland. That way their stock will continue to rise in Scotland as the party that is the most competent. Westminster has shown that it cannot vote for its own diminution of powers – the lack of progress in scrapping the anachronistic House of Lords is an example. So the SNP knows that independence is likely to become more rather than less attractive over time, just as it has done in the last few years. Last point: moving the Trident submarines from Faslane to a new base is relatively straightforward; moving the warheads ‘safe’ storage from Coulport to any other location would be prohibitively expensive and take years to accomplish. The SNP would like to see them gone, full stop, not relocated. So would many Labour MP’s.
William Ohara

as an active snp party member,i have to say you have no idea what you are talking about and we know exactly what we are doing the tail is doing to wag the dog for a change its called democracy suck it up
Ricky Henderson

I echo everything that Sittyton has said but I would like to add a couple of points. Your article states that Westminster offered full political devolution in the run up to the Referendum – this is not true. What we were offered were more, but limited powers for the Scottish Parliament, to be implemented within weeks of the Referendum. This was a sweetener for those swaying between voting Yes or No. What we actually got was the setting up of the Smith Commission which had the remit of examining which powers could be devolved to Holyrood but which would need to be debated by Parliament before any powers were devolved. However, as we are now 7 months after the Referendum, not one single extra power has been devolved – the Smith Commission has been put on the back burner by Westminster until after the General Election. It is partly this failed promise that has resulted in the huge surge in support for the SNP, alongside the fact that Labour, who have traditionally always got the majority of Scottish votes, have fundamentally let the country down time and time again.
My second point would be that during the negotiations for the actual questions to be on the Referendum ballot paper, the SNP leader of the time, Alex Salmond wanted to include an option for further devolution to Holyrood. It was David Cameron who denied this request, stating that it had to be an ‘all or nothing’ ballot. It was only in the two weeks before the Referendum, when the Unionist parties panicked at the thought that us Yessers might actually win, that any of their leaders bothered to come to Scotland and make the offer of further devolution of powers. In short, they lied then and they are trying to demonise us now.
Scotnat

‘Federalism and devolution may give moderates in the SNP a reason to rethink independence and return to the unionist fold.’
‘return to the unionist fold.’ – You must be joking, we were never in it to begin with. And by the way there were basically two groups of thought in the SNP about how to achieve Scottish Independence – the fundamentalists and the gradualists. There is now, and has been for some time, a much greater unity than ever before about how to achieve Scottish Independence.
Proposals for the further devolution of powers are significantly less than even the proposals made by the Smith commission. The following is a link to an article, ‘Power retained’, about the proposals in the Scotland Bill 2015 – http://wingsoverscotland.com/power-retained/
The author of this article in ‘The Stanford Daily’ apparently majors in history. There are posts on my blog, THE ‘SANITIZATION’ OF SCOTTISH HISTORY, titled ‘Scottish Independence is Restoration NOT Secession’ – http://follonblogs.blogspot.co.uk/
Michael Follon