I have recently returned to Scotland after 27 years working for the European Commission in Brussels. After 18 September, I plan to campaign hard for the Scottish Lib Dems, irrespective of the outcome of the independence vote.
At the moment, though, I am in something of a limbo, finding myself on the “wrong” side of the referendum debate vis-a-vis my own party. As I am half-English and half-Scots, with family in Devon, I might be expected to vote “No”, but after a lot of soul-searching, I realise that it has to be a “Yes”. There are three key reasons for this.
The first is to do with democracy. I joined the Liberals just after the February 1974 election, when Labour “won” with fewer votes than the Tories, and six million Liberal votes yielded just 14 seats. This didn’t look like democracy to me then and it still doesn’t now. I would never have imagined that 40 years on we would still be using the grotesquely unfair “First Past the Post” for Westminster.
Given the extreme distortions of our electoral system, I have never really understood why so many people see Britain as a bastion of democracy. For me, it is axiomatic that at least half the votes cast in an election must have value, in the mathematical sense, for the system is to qualify as democratic. FPTP fails this test miserably.
Now I know that the British people, including the Scots, voted against moving to AV (a system that just manages to get over the democratic threshold). But in the current context, no one is suggesting that an independent Scotland would retain FPTP. It will have a voting system in which most of the votes actually count. There is little prospect of getting the same for the UK in the foreseeable future. I like the idea of being a citizen of a real democracy.
My second reason is linked to our future in Europe. Despite its shortcomings, the EU brings together countries with similar liberal values in a world where such values are increasingly threatened. I am convinced that we are better together in Europe but there is now a real danger that the UK will cast itself adrift.
It is argued that Scotland’s future in Europe is at risk if we vote for independence. Having seen at first hand how the EU works, this strikes me as extremely unlikely. Obviously, the establishment would prefer not to have the disruption of a UK break-up, which explains some of the discouraging noises coming out of Brussels at the moment. But if there is a “Yes” vote, the political realities will kick in.
The imperative will be to ensure that the new state, covering territory already in the Union, obtains formal membership in a smooth transition. The idea that we would come behind Serbia or Albania in the queue really is nonsense. Negotiations would certainly be needed on some of the key issues and some of the discussions would not be easy. But I have no doubt that compromises would be found, as they are on so many European issues. We should remember that Scotland already adheres to the acquis – implementing the existing rules of the EU – so most of the negotiating “chapters” that apply to new accessions wouldn’t even have to be opened.
In view of this, and of the rise of UK nationalism south of the border, I am convinced that a “Yes” vote is the safer option for those of us who want to keep our country in the EU family.
My third reason is more personal. I was born in Turkey because my father, who was in the British foreign service, was working at the time in our embassy in Ankara. The fact that I was born abroad makes me a “British citizen by descent”: a lesser form of nationality that does not allow me to pass on my citizenship. I have two children born in Belgium to a Belgian mother, who therefore have no automatic right to be British.
I have never had a problem with the idea of having children who are citizens of another country (which is why I’m also relaxed about having a different nationality to my Devonian relatives). We have always been able to stand in the same immigration queues at airports with our burgundy passports indicating our common citizenship of the European Union.
My children could apply for naturalisation in due course, an extremely expensive process whose outcome is not guaranteed. If they choose not to do this then, unlike citizens of Ireland, India, Zimbabwe and Fiji, they will never be able to vote in a UK election (perhaps not such a great loss given their votes would probably be worthless!)
Under the Scottish White Paper, my children will have the right to Scottish nationality by virtue of their grandmother who was born and raised in Dundee. For me, that is the clincher.
* Simon Horner was Lib Dem candidate for North-East Scotland (European Parliament) in 1989 and 1994 and for North Tayside (Westminster) in 1992.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Have resignations led to a rethink?
High Fell leaflet watch (2)
No, Leave didn't win the Brexit referendum because of Northern working class voters
Two new Makerfield by-election polls gives Burnham 5 and 12 point leads
Paul Fox
Andrew Tampion
Geoffrey Payne
Richard Whelan
David Raw
36 Comments
“Opinion: Why I’m voting “Yes”. I have recently returned to Scotland after 27 years working for the European Commission in Brussels.”
Two sentence, taken together. They are more eloquent than anything else.
Interesting. In terms of say railways, telecommunications, Schengen, Banking and currency where is Scotland compliant withe acquis?
Simon,
Thanks for an interesting perspective. If I may, I think you’re being too glib on EU accession as Scotland doesn’t meet the acquis in important areas where the UK has opt out or has special treatment (eg VAT on children’s clothes, rebate). You also gloss over the route for accession via Art 49 which entails a minimum 24-36 month period outside the Union.
My views on these points are here:
http://www.centreforum.org/assets/pubs/scottish-independence.pdf
Oh a separate central bank, financial regulator and the rest. And here was me thinking that I was a citizen of the EU only because the UK was a member state, and if the UK left that citizenship is worthless. So if Scotland which is not an existing member state votes to leave an existing member state EU citizenship is, well irrelevant. Is it not?
“In view of this, and of the rise of UK nationalism south of the border, I am convinced that a “Yes” vote is the safer option for those of us who want to keep our country in the EU family.”
I really fail to see how a Union of nations with countries on the continent is any more safer if we are unable to keep together a Union of nation states on a small land mass in the North Sea. If two countries that have politically intertwinned for 300 years are unable to stay together, what hope for a continent that has nowhere near as close relations with each other?
New dividing lines on a map of a peaceful continent and island can’t be anything other than failure given that the needs of people in the decades ahead are global and not national.
As for you third reason, it cuts both ways. I fully recognise the injust situation the current arrangement leaves your family, but a Yes vote will rip apart my family’s identity and will force my Father to choose either be British or Scottish when he is proud to be both.
Actually the argument that Simon uses to criticise the Union and argue for independence, the awfulness of FPTP, should be held up by the Liberal Democrats as further evidence that they were right all along.
I think it is above all FPTP and the lack of representativeness of the current Westminster parliament that is tearing apart the Union more than anything.
Why as a party are we not making more of this argument? We have always said our UK democracy needed a major overhaul. Now that Westminster seems to have lost its legitimacy in more than one part of the UK, why are we not shouting this from the rooftops?
EU brings together countries with similar liberal values in a world where such values are increasingly threatened.
But still uphold the UK Frozen Pension Policy which denies UK State pensioners their rightful paid for pension uprating (indexation).
Steve Webb, the turncoat, was going to change this because it was discriminatory, irrational unfair and unjust but failed miserably when in the perfect place to do it. So much for LibDem’s and trust !
Question : Will the current frozen ex-pat Scots have their pensions increased to the level of those who get the indexation after a successful Yes vote ? Nobody is saying anything and this spells deceit for me. We don’t know is not a valid answer.
I wish you well regardless of result however it seems that your concern over UK withdrawing from the EU is paled by the simple fact Scotland at least for a period will not be in the EU
Thanks Simon for setting out your thinking on the path to a Yes vote. A path that more and more of us who are istill proud Scottish Liberal Democrats are taking.
Given the tweets emanating from Rupert Murdoch about tomorrow’s Sunday Times poll I think you are being joined on that journey to a better country by more and more fellow Scots.
“London Times will shock Britain and more with reliable new poll on Scottish independence. If right on 18 th vote everything up for grabs”
Allan, the situation where there is an extended period with Scotland outside the EU following an independence result is highly unlikely. There is no reason why the Scottish Government could not be negotiating accession to the European Union at the same time as it is negotiating withdrawal from the UK.
I would not consider it to be beyond human ingenuity to arrange an accession date that matches up fairly closely to the exit date. A 24 month wait has been mentioned. Funnily enough, other people elsewhere are saying that it’ll take that long to negotiate out the terms of the exit from the UK.
But, regardless, even if you’re all right and Scotland spends five years outside the EU, I would still say that it will be better off in the long run getting in and playing a full and constructive role in Europe its own right, than it is sat with the UK hovering perpetually around the exit.
I think Scotland would have little trouble joining the EU, though it might take more time than some would like to promise. However, if the rest of us manage to continue the slalom to nasty irrelevance that has been going on for too much of my life, there would be a small problem.
If Scotland managed to shackle itself to a currency union with a country which then stupidly voted to leave the EU, wouldn’t it be ineligible to join in its own right?
T-J
There’s every reason to expect a period outside the EU for an iScot. The issue is not just when negotiations begin or what the deal to be done actually is, but that it will take at least 18 months to ratify it *after* it’s been agreed with the member states.
And I see no interest from Brussels on commencing negotiations until the UK and iScot have an agreement.
Toby Fenwick: There is every reason not to expect a period outside the EU for an independent Scotland.
Placing obstacles to a seamless transition to separate membership of the EU would not only be extremely damaging to the image, the standing and the raison d’être of the EU both in and outside its borders.
Crucially, it would set an appalling precedent that would provide an easy opt out of the EU gambit for opportunist, populist politicians, who scent a short term advantage in evading EU agreements for a particular region.
Would the EU really keep Scotland dangling at the very time when there might well be an IN/OUT referendum in the remainder of the UK? Would the EU really scrap its fishing policies, while it needless negotiations are strung out?
Supporters of the EU will surely say that a vote for Scottish independence is a UK matter and not a vote for detachment from the EU. The EU would want to minimise any impact in the Commission, very few in he Council or the Parliament would want to indulge in self harm.
Martin,
The picture you paint is ridiculous, because anyone trying to avoid regulations whilst trying to rejoin the EU wouldn’t get in. Take a look at the legal and practical considerations and you’ll see that a period outside, the full acquis minus the CTA with the possibility of an EEA bridge is the most likely outcome.
Toby Fenwick: You appear to believe that the EU would deliver an easy route for any region to disengage from the EU and further believe that the view the EU would do no such thing is ridiculous.
I think that you are wilfully ignoring political realities. Even so and despite this latest poll I doubt the EU will have to prove you wrong.
Simon, your name can be added to the growing list of longstanding Lib Dems who are voting Yes. I have placed your forthright comments on EU accession, and Toby Fenwick’s warnings, on www,wikireferendum.com.
Scotland, if it chooses to go independent, will need perhaps 5 years to negotiate entry into the EU. This is the recent view of the President of the European Commission. Even if he’s being pessimistic and it could be achieved faster it’s exceptionally unlikely that Scotland will have continuous unbroken EU membership if it leaves the UK and on the same terms as it does as part of the UK (e.g. No need to adopt the Euro, Outside the Schengen area, UK rebate). Plus it has to be pointed out that all other EU countries (including for example Spain, who might be unwilling to “encourage” their Catalans) would have a veto on Scottish entry to the EU.
Interesting how Westminster commentators regard the UK’s EU membership as belonging to rUK – if the UK no longer exists then surely both entities will need to reapply for membership? I’m sure that would delight UKIP no end.
Linda
I very much doubt they are considered the same. The UK is a continuing entity and so I would be very surprised if there is any affect of Scotland leaving. You could say the same of the UN and any other body we are a member of. I am sure that has already been considered when we make these treaties
Scotland will be a new country – whether that is a problem or not then we will see
Stuart Moran
Actually, of course, I think you are shooting in the wind, maintaining that Scotland is “new” whereas the UK is”continuing”. There is some doubt as to whether “United Kingdom” is an appropriate description in the case of Scotland voting yes. Wales was never a kingdom, and Ireland was only a kingdom in the narrow sense that Henry VIII declared it to be “the Kingdom of Ireland”. I would be certain that the politicians on the nationalist side in Northern Ireland will challenge that description. While Scotland is still within the country it properly fulfils the description of Kingdoms uniting. For the moment both Wales and Northern Ireland are relatively quiet about any effect Scotland going it alone may have, but you can be fairly sure that they will want the process to have some effect on them. So, the title of the country will be contested, and it will therefore be a “new” entity. English arrogance simply won’t do.
Tim13,
I’m afraid Stuart is correct. Scots are voting to create a new state next week, and by definition this means that it starts life with no international memberships. It is only a statement of fact that a Yes vote is a vote to (temporarily) leave the EU, and rejoin it on something like the new terms offered to Croatia. To claim otherwise as the SNP/Yes do is either disingenuous or ignorant or both.
All the best,
Toby
Toby Fenwick, the RUK (rest of the UK) will also be a new state. Same rules applying there in your theory?
It’s pretty obvious that the people of Scotland have no right to declare the UK ended, only to leave it. The issue of what is a “successor state” and what isn’t is actually already governed by international law and follows sensible principles. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Succession_of_states. The UK (aka England, Wales, and Northern Ireland) would obviously be the successor of the current UK and inherit its memberships, treaty obligations and rights, just like Russia inherited the USSR’s seat on the UN Security Council without any serious quarrel from the rest of the world. Scotland would be a new state that would have to negotiate its relationships with the rest of the world. I’m sure there would be a prima facie willingness to enable Scottish membership of the EU and other organisations to continue as seamlessly as possible, but you can’t just assume it would keep all the privileges that the UK has won for itself over the last 40 years. Hard deals would have to be made.
As for the name, this is getting to be a seriously annoying red herring. Firstly, the name of the country now is “United Kingdom” not “United Kingdoms”. Arguably, if the most devolved part of the UK breaks away what is left will be more accurately described as a “united kingdom” than it is now. Secondly, a name is just a name. Nobody could stop East Germany from calling itself the “German Democratic Republic” just because the middle term was obviously false, or stop Eire calling itself simply “Ireland” on the grounds that its writ doesn’t run in the whole of that island — the suggestion that the UK would somehow be obliged to change its name or its flag or anything like that is nonsense. And finally, even if the UK did decide (unnecessarily) to change its name on the departure of the flag that pretty obviously wouldn’t change anything about its identity or relationships with the rest of the world. I recall a pretty problem when Upper Volta changed its name to Burkina Fasso in the 1990s (I think) because it was a member of the Security Council at the time and the chairmanship of that body rotates on the basis of alphabetical order, which was bollixed up by the name change. Nobody suggested they were a new state that would have to give up its elected seat on the SC, because nobody was that ridiculous.
Thanks Toby for that. Malcolm Todd – I haven’t mentioned the legal situation at all, I was pointing out some political reality. Countries do challenge one another on the names they call themselves – OK it usually doesn’t make much difference, unless there are political pressures within those countries themselves. The reason the term United Kingdom was used first was what you appear to be denying, ie that it was kingdoms joining together as one. The point I made was that if Scotland departs, the onle other “proper” kingdom other than England has gone, and the term UK cannot then mean what it did. You can argue “red herring” if you want – I don’t see that pointing out thoughts and reactions which will come up. It does give an opportunity to modernise and make more inclusive our structures and our flag for instance. Consider Malcolm, if you would, the struggle English teams have had with identifying a national anthem – those things will occur, and just to describe them as “seriously annoying” seems to betray a subjective view on your part.
Tim13
I don’t think there is much likelihood of anyone challenging that the UK can contine to call itself the UK if it ones – at the end of the day who would stop us?
The British system is full of historical anomalies and traditions (we still approve laws in Norman French……). This will just be on other to add to the list
On the UK being a new country – I imagine that the UK will request/require successor state status and all that entails. It could be that, like the old Czechoslovakia, that neither country will claim successor status but I find that extremely unlikely. The UK will, on precedent, be granted that by the UN- who would say no?
I assume that Scotland will be able to claim some type of successor status but in most cases such as this it seems that it will be regarded as a new country with certain inherited treaties etc. In most instances I cannot see that bing a problem – joining the UN for example
The main problem will be those organisations that are in fact private members’ clubs – ie NATO and the EU. How these would react is not really known but I do not think they would add a new member just like that. There would be a numbe rof hurdles to cross and some of those could be tricky….Schengen, Euro???
. What is clear to me is that both NATO and the EU would consider the UK as a successor state…..despite whatever UKIP says (and they will not be in Government). I do think though that it would be interesting if a Eurosceptic Tory Party won in 2015 as they could use this as an excuse for pulling out!
Whaever Salmond and the Independence supporters may say this is all critical for the success of the country, especially in the short/medium term. I have no problems with Scotland voting for independence although it would sadden me. What I would say is that I would not want the UK Government to do them too many favours to the detriment of the remaining countries. Be fair yes but we should not be guarantors for them….once they make that decision they are pretty much on their own…it is what they want isn’t it?
John Tilley
The UK would be the successor state and Scotland would be the new state. As has been explained, this means the UK retains its international rights and responsibilities and Scotland applies to join whatever it seeks to be a member of.
And if Scotland sadly votes Yes (bad all round, worse for Scotland) then the UK government should take a clear view on its interests.
Hope this helps
Toby
Toby Fenwick – just because you keep saying it doesnt make it so. We’re in uncharted territory if an EU member state breaks up – constitutionally Scotland and England are equal partners in the Union and so it is equally arguable that the Union ceases to exist when one parner leaves.
The NO side is behaving like Violet Elizabeth – ‘I’ll scweem and scweem’ if you don’t do what we say – which is proving utterly counter productive. Instead they should have indulged in a sensible examination of a post indy process – which would have challenged Salmond to fill in the blanks rather than the other way round. But the contemptable No campaign is what you get when you get the Tories funding the Glasgow Labour mafia and the shame is that the Lib Dems have graced it by their presence – condemning them to years of irrelevenace north of the border.
Greece has objected for a long time (I think absurdly and outrageously) to the country of Macedonia calling itself “Macedonia.” Apparently they’re under the impression that the use of the name necessarily implies a claim to territories of northern Greece using a similar name. This has actually caused Macedonia some serious problems.
Simon: If your children are EU citizens – your piece implies they are Belgian – they can vote in UK elections – see https://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/register_to_vote/electoral_registration_applica.aspx.
As to your “clincher”: the White Paper seems to say that if you get Scottish citizenship, by virtue of being a British citizen habitually resident in Scotland, your habitually resident children will too, if their births were registered in Scotland. Otherwise, they would have no automatic right to Scottish citizenship, just the opportunity to “register as a Scottish citizen” Registration is clearly not automatic citizenship, because it set out with different words, but it is not defined. I’d like to know what it means, because it is all that is on offer to me as a Scot born and living outside Scotland.
But, I hope it won’t come to that and that Scotland will, despite the current polls, vote emphatically “No”.
Dan Falchikov
“constitutionally Scotland and England are equal partners in the Union and so it is equally arguable that the Union ceases to exist when one parner leaves.”
Oi, Wales and Northern Ireland exist, you have no right to dismiss them. The UK is more than just England and Scotland.
Sorry Ian but you are mistaken on the UK rules. Citizens of the Commonwealth have full voting rights. EU citizens unless they are Irish or British may only vote in local and European elections, not in Westminster or Holyrood ones. My children are Belgian and will, therefore, never be allowed to vote in the latter even if they live here and pay UK taxes all their lives.
The Scottish White Paper says: “citizenship by descent will be available to those who have a parent or grandparent
who qualifies for Scottish citizenship.” The language is pretty explicit indicating a right to citizenship. Under the UK legislation, the decision is at the discretion of the Home Secretary.
Simon: Yes you are right that EU citizens cant’t vote in everything, but your article seemed to say that they could not vote at all. I did not read your words, “they will never be able to vote in a UK election” as referring only to general elections.
The line you quote from the White Paper says “available”, not a “right”, the word you use in your article. The text and table in the White Paper does not state folk like your children and me will have an automatic right to citizenship. The text says that we may apply for citizenship and that citizenship by descent will be available, not that it will be conferred automatically. The table expresses this as an undefined right to register.
I offer these comments for clarity, not to challenge what’s best for your children and I am sorry if I gave that impression. I respect your decision to vote Yes, though I don’y agree with it.
The other thing I would point out is that nothing in the White Paper is certain, as you’ll know. It depends on there being a a Yes vote and then on who wins the next Scottish election (a Yes vote would remove the SNP’s reason for existing and its supporters could go back to the Conservatives and Labour), what the circumstances are on an independence day and what the priorities are of the Scottish government at the time.
That’s why I argued in a blog yesterday that people should only vote Yes, if they can do so, for better, for worse, regardless of the policy packages being offered by the SNP and the Yes campaign, because no one can be certain of any of it and there won’t be another vote in 5 years time if Yes doesn’t turn out to your liking.
Toby Fenwick
It does not help because as Dan Falchikov says, repeating your own view does not make it correct or even help others understand why you hold to that view.
If Scotland becomes independent there will be two new countries. Scotland will be one and ‘South Britain and Northern Ireland’ for want of a better name. Will be the other.
There clearly will no longer be a United Kingdom any more because the referendum is all about not having a union of the kingdoms of Scotland and England.
There is no union of kingdoms between England and Wales, or England and Northern Ireland.
Whatever happens to the Windsor family ( whose pretend neutrality has been exposed as a sham in his referendum ) the new country which is not Scotland cannot call itself a united kingdom.
I would assume that the issue of rUK Still being UK legally would have been examined and sorted before the referendum was accepted.
Because if there was a doubt then the referendum should have included everyone in the UK since it would directly affect everyone, not just the Scots!
And I don’t think anyone in Scotland would object to us continuing to call ourselves the United kingdom.. Because if you want to be that petty, then UK can be petty back and veto entry to the EU.. (and veto from Spain is already probably the biggest risk to Scotland being fasttracked into the EU)