Trying to figure out WTF is going on Alan Crocket is correct to point out the folly of putting Westminster at the centre of the constitutional issue. In persistently deferring to the parliament of England-as-Britain, the independence movement not only creates a barrier to Scotland's cause, it creates a barrier which is by definition insurmountable. It must be so given that the requirement conjured out of muddled thinking is the consent and cooperation of those who cannot consent and will not cooperate. What Alan Crocket does, however, is not to remove Westminster from a central role in Scotland's constitutional issue, but to devise a novel way of putting it there. He does this when he gives the key role in the process to politicians who have been elected to serve at Westminster. The only mandate an MP can have is a mandate to represent the interests of their constituents in the parliament of England-as-Britain. The only legitimate political authority MPs can theoretically wield is that which is exercised through the parliament to which they have been elected. As we know, it is impossible for MPs from constituencies in Scotland to exercise the authority of Westminster absent the consent and cooperation of MPs from constituencies in England. Let's consider some of the other problems with Alan Crocket's cunning plan. Firstly, it postpones action on the constitutional issue until the next UK general election. The date of that election may be as distant as August 15 2029 - more than four years hence. Not at all the sense of urgency our predicament demands. Then Alan stipulates that the mandate he wants the group of Scottish MPs to claim derives from those MPs having collectively won a majority of the votes cast in Scotland on the basis of a manifesto commitment to take Scotland out of the Union. But no party or politician is even talking about the possibility of a manifesto commitment such as Alan envisages. His cunning plan doesn't even acknowledge far less resolve the all too real barrier of lack of political will among Scotland's nominally pro-independence politicians and parties. Let's suppose he could somehow generate this political will out of the materials at his disposal. To keep things simple, let's suppose he has persuaded one party to make this manifesto commitment. (The possibility that there might be more than one party winning seats would be an added complication.) Alan Crocket's plan then requires that this party win a decisive majority of seats and more than half the votes. That is a very considerable barrier. And on that Alan himself has created. We must now imagine that these obstacle have been surmounted. We now have a group formed by a majority of Scotland's MPs all elected on a manifesto commitment to end the Union and collectively having won over 50% of the total votes cast. It is time to ask that perennial question, what next? What does this group of MPs do? What can it do? Which begs the question, what is the mechanism which will formally end the Union? And how does this group of MPs invoke that mechanism? The usual mechanism would be an Act of parliament. Alternatively, there might be a declaration by a body acting in a quasi-parliamentary capacity. As noted earlier, our group of Scottish MPs can only exercise legitimate political authority through the parliament to which they have been elected. Being elected to the governing committee of the local golf club affords one no authority over the local tennis club. The MPs in question have been elected to the parliament of England-as-Britain. It is only through this parliament that they can exercise legitimate political authority. I think we can safely assume that they will not be able to enact legislation in Westminster ending the Union. So, all that's left is for them to act in a quasi-parliamentary manner. To act as if they are the national parliament of Scotland, despite the fact that they have not been elected as such. The next problem with Alan Crocket's cunning plan should now be evident. Scotland already has a parliament. Moreover, it has a parliament with a greater claim to democratic legitimacy than Westminster and therefor a vastly greater claim to democratic legitimacy than a relatively tiny subset of MPs. Are we to assume that just because the Scottish Parliament has been content to allow Westminster to usurp the authority it derives from the mandate afforded it by Scotland's sovereign people, that it will meekly submit to having this authority usurped by our group of MPs? This does not seem to me to be a safe assumption. Whereas previously we had two bodies either claiming or possessing the basis of a claim to speak and act for Scotland's people, Alan's cunning plan gifts us a third. This third body is claiming superiority to both Westminster and Holyrood. Obviously, I would not contest the first of these claims. I anticipate, however, that both would be strenuously contested by whatever means may be available. It is unlikely that I have covered all the problematic aspects of Alan Crocket's proposal. But I hope I have given a flavour. I hope, too, that the solution is plain to see. Instead of trying to establish a group of Westminster MPs as the de facto parliament of Scotland having the authority to end the Union, use the parliament we already have. Make the 2026 Scottish Parliament election a plebiscite on the question of Holyrood asserting legislative competence in matters relating to the constitution. Do this by having all (nominally) pro-independence parties adopt the Manifesto for Independence. Assuming a favourable result, the Scottish Parliament thereby has a mandate to dissolve the Union subject to a confirmatory referendum. You're currently a free subscriber to Peter A Bell. For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment