Constitutional Law, Politics, United Kingdom / Great Britain

Constitutional Ties That Bind Also Gag: The United Kingdom Keeps Scotland

Conservative columnist Tamara Tabo shares her views on the recent Scotland independence vote.

By  
on

Voters in Scotland decided yesterday that they will remain a part of the United Kingdom, instead of establishing a fully independent nation. Secession, even if narrowly avoided, is no mean matter. If the U.K. now makes good on its pre-plebiscite promises, constitutional change is on its way in the form of plans to devolve more power to Scotland in exchange for the “No” vote on total independence.

Before the referendum, advocates from both sides tried to convince the Scots. Celebrities chimed in. For example, Scottish actor Brian Cox, who now lives in the United States, rallied for Scottish Independence. Cox appeared in “Braveheart,” Mel Gibson’s film about the First War of Scottish Independence. (This fact may seem irrelevant to his authority on matters related to contemporary world politics, but it got mentioned in virtually every news bit about Cox’s current stance. No word yet on what Chris Cooper, actor from Gibson’s “The Patriot,” thinks about the current state of American independence.) President Obama tweeted in favor of U.K. unity, writing, “The U.K. is an extraordinary partner for America and a force for good in an unstable world. I hope it remains strong, robust and united. -bo” (Was the omission of an Oxford comma after “robust” a hidden message, though? A silent nod to the Scots?) Ordinary Scottish citizens tried to convince their peers, with many supporters of independence feeling confident before the votes were tallied. When asked by a reporter whether he thought that many of the apparent undecided voters simply did not want to admit that they intended to vote against independence, one man replied, “Ach no. You can tell No voters straight off. They’re the ones with faces like a bulldog that’s chewed a wasp.” (Feel free to imagine this response uttered in the voice of Groundskeeper Willy.)

Seen even a couple of months ago as improbable, Scottish independence gained momentum in the weeks before the vote. British officials grew nervous. David Cameron, desperate not to go down as the British prime minister who lost Scotland for the Kingdom, pledged more and more autonomy. Brits and Scots began referring to the most extreme devolution settlement proposal as “Devo Max.” The name Devo Max sounded like a Mark Mothersbaugh revival project. The tone of Devo Max sounded like a spurned spouse offering an open relationship to straying partner. The terms of Devo Max sounded unclear. And like so many compromises over constitutional authority and political independence, Devo Max focused heavily on who gets control of the purse strings….

The demands of Scotland and the concessions of the U.K. depend heavily on the complicated economic relationship between the two. According to Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland (GERS), 8.3% of the U.K. population lives in Scotland, while 9.1% of U.K. tax revenue comes from Scotland. Scotland accounts for 9.3% of U.K. spending. Supporters of Scottish independence want to control more of the legislative process governing taxing and spending for the general welfare. But members of the three major parties in the U.K. Parliament — Liberal Democrats, Conservatives, and Labour — disagree on how far this should go.

The details of a new proposal are particularly important because Scotland will gain greater control of its tax laws in the near future, even if Scotland remains a part of the U.K., even without further promises from Westminster. In August, the Scottish Parliament passed the Revenue Scotland and Tax Powers Bill, creating Scotland’s first tax collection system in 300 years. The new law will take effect in April 2015. (“The Tax Implications of Scottish Independence or Further Devolution,” a report produced by the Institute for Chartered Accountants of Scotland, is pretty interesting reading, given that it is a report produced by tax professionals.)

The latest devolution pledge also did not specify the future of a key piece of Scotland’s economic puzzle. The Barnett formula calculates and generously adjusts the budgets of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. In effect, the Barnett formula creates public spending per head around 20% higher in Scotland than in England. Cameron’s pledge fell short of guaranteeing that Scots would retain this advantage, though it hinted strongly that the Barnett formula would remain in place.

Sponsored

As an observer, I favored independence, albeit for slightly sadistic reasons. In recent years, Scotland has become one of the most socialist parts of the U.K.. Left-leaning parties dominate the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish National Party holds 65 of 129 seats. The Labour Party, Liberal Democrats, and Greens hold 37, 5, and 2 seats, respectively. Conservatives hold only 15 seats in the Scottish Parliament. Only one conservative holds a Scottish seat in the House of Commons. Currently, Scotland’s participation in the U.K. insulates Scotland from many policy decisions. Managing more of their own taxing and spending policies would force Scots to bear the full costs of their social programs. Closer control could also mean closer scrutiny of Scottish lawmakers. Closer scrutiny could mean greater accountability. Paying its own way, directly and without British aid, would force Scotland to make tough choices. Picking up your own tab has a way of doing that. If Scots want socialism, I thought, let them have it. Then let them pay for it. I wanted Adam Smith to have his revenge on Scotland. Alas, the Scots decided to stick around to see how a devo deal might shake out.

Though even though the final proposal enticing Scots to remain in the U.K. leaves critical questions unanswered or half-answered, it seems to have worked. The United Kingdom is still united. Keeping the union might result in a more fractured whole, however. Following through on a devolution settlement with Scotland may mean that each of the pieces is a little more independent than it was before. Offering Scotland full fiscal autonomy while still affording it the generous advantage of the Barnett formula is, suffice it to say, unpopular in other parts of the U.K.. Consequently, some English and Welsh members of Parliament have begun calling for their own devolution. So, broad constitutional changes may be afoot for the United Kingdom, even without Scottish secession.

If nothing else, Scotland’s bid for independence shows how fragile constitutions can be, but also how flexible. Even centuries-old agreements are up for debate. The balance of power can tip. No constitution is immune from revision. Holding together a union of so many people, with so many disparate ideas about how government should operate, is messy stuff. And debates about lofty concepts like “independence” and “self-governance” often amount to dollars and cents. Or, in this case, pounds and pence.

Tamara Tabo is a summa cum laude graduate of the Thurgood Marshall School of Law at Texas Southern University, where she served as Editor-in-Chief of the school’s law review. After graduation, she clerked on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. She currently heads the Center for Legal Pedagogy at Texas Southern University, an institute applying cognitive science to improvements in legal education. You can reach her at tabo.atl@gmail.com.

Sponsored

Topics

, , , , ,