Tory peer attempts to partition Scotland
This blog doesn't share the eagerness of much of the centre-left to either abolish the House of Lords or make it an elected body. Politicians pandering to the public's most primitive prejudices in pursuit of power are responsible for much of the atrocious state of British democracy, and while we're uneasy with the exercise of mostly-unearned privilege, the Lords were responsible for obstructing some of Tony Blair's worst attacks on civil liberties, and have been the only voice speaking up against the coalition's brutal welfare "reforms". We're not so sure we trust them less than MPs, who regularly stand for election promising one thing then do the precise opposite in government.
There's also nothing exclusive to the Lords about ham-fisted attempts to insert ludicrous amendments into new bills. But it so happens that the most recent example has come from that direction. Conservative hereditary peer the Earl Of Caithness (who owes his position to ancestors over 600 years ago) has put forward a series of extraordinary alterations to the unloved Scotland Bill, currently making its weary way towards a likely rejection by the Scottish Parliament. They're unlikely to be passed, but even the attempt reveals a great deal about the mindset of Scottish Unionists.
The bill can be seen here, and we've highlighted the relevant passages in the screenshot below.
The good Lord is endeavouring firstly to ensure that if Scotland votes Yes in the referendum, it will not be allowed to actually withdraw from the Union unless a second, UK-wide, referendum is held and also results in a Yes vote. Quite aside from the fact that any such open breach of the UN Charter on self-determination would turn the UK into an outlaw state and possibly start a civil war, it's hard to imagine the rest of the UK voting to force a Scotland which had chosen independence to remain in the Union.
(Also, since the Treaty was explicitly between Scotland and England, it's difficult to see what business it would be of Wales and Northern Ireland's at all.)
More interesting, though, is the quite astonishingly transparent attempt to break Scotland up for parts should it choose independence. Orkney, Shetland and Rockall are of course by far the most strategically significant parts of Scottish territory, for various reasons. The Earl's desire to subject the first two – and only them – to what would in effect be their own mini-referenda is, to say the least, a difficult one to justify in any rational or democratic way. Why not Edinburgh? Why not Glasgow? Why not Auchtermuchty? Why, come to that, not Newcastle or Carlisle or Liverpool?
Surely if we're asking individual parts of the country whether they want to be part of an independent Scotland or not, in a sort of bizarre constitutional pick'n'mix irrespective of geographical location, we shouldn't restrict it to what's currently considered Scottish? Liverpool might well prefer taking its chances with the SNP rather than entrust itself to the tender mercies of the Tories. If Orkney gets special dispensation just because it happens to be wealthy from oil, why shouldn't Aberdeen or Buncefield? And why should Orkney's only choices be Scotland or the UK? Shouldn't it also get to vote about whether it goes back to Norway?
Even in the senile-old-colonel environment of the Lords, the flat-out stealing of Rockall (which is uninhabited, and therefore unable to express a preference) is even more bonkers. The Rockall Act of 1972 proclaimed the island to be part of Inverness-shire. The notion that the UK can simply help itself to any part of Scotland it feels like if nobody lives there harks back to the days of the Wild West, when the first person to stick a flag into a piece of ground could claim it as their own. Would Inverness itself be safe? We could probably wave goodbye to all of the prettier parts of the Highlands, with any scattered crofters swiftly dispersed by a new round of Clearances.
The Earl's amendment is obviously laughable. But the fact that it should even have been proposed with a straight face exposes the regard in which the Scottish people are held by the UK establishment. We hope they remember that come autumn 2014.
The noble Lord is being rather hard on Orkney and Shetland I feel. This paper – link to ejil.org (at p. 100) – briefly considers what the precedents are under international law if Orkney and Shetland remain with the UK. And as for Rockall, the UK claim is based on Rockall being within the 200 mile EEZ limit. It's not clear what the the basis of an rUK claim to Rockall might be.
I'm not aware of anything that says England can then help itself to areas of Scotland after the parliament treaty is dissolved.
And why didn't "Malky" put down Caithness as being part of his fantasy England state?
I can't see any possible claim to Rockall from England, Wales or Northern Ireland. If Malkie thinks that "we want to keep it and we're bigger than they are" will get him anywhere, I think he needs to check his delusions in at Black Rod's Entrance.
Come to that, who's "we" in this context? He sits in the House of Lords as Earl of Caithness. Claims to be chief of Clan Sinclair. He uses this position to try to deprive Scotland ot her right to unilateral secession, and if she should secede anyway, to deprive her of territory and assets.
With "representation" like this, who needs enemies?
<i>I can't see any possible claim to Rockall from England, Wales or Northern Ireland.</i>
Well since the Republic of Ireland has a territorial claim to Rockhall, surely Northern Ireland would have one by proxy, in the eyes of Irish nationalists anyway.
International law already deals with this,in the division of a union each country shall return to the borders as were prior to the union.So how crazy are these people who seek to make laws?
The reason they are going after Shetland is because the biggest oil and gas developments since the 70's are going up there as we speak. It's BP who are developing the field and they only develop massive fields.
They tried the same thing years ago last time independance came up a generayion ago. A documentary covered some of their attempts to encourage seperatist movements for parts of Scotland from Scotland itself while at the same time stopping nationalist movements on the mainland. A failsafe. Same as the border change after oil was found.
Speaking as an Orcadian, I can't really see people there being that enamoured with the idea. Given the fact that the ferries are counted as lifeline services, and are subsidised to the tune of tens of millions, the government might not be that up for it either.
Amazing how much they care about certain parts of Scotland…but only during independance movements and only ever with the context of oil or gas hanging over it.
They already changed the East sea borders to help themselves to several thousand square miles of Scottish waters in the late 90s, thanks to the collaborators in chief up here. If anything we should be readjusting the borders to include the parts they've been stealing from us, like the aforementioned waters and the land border around Berwick. None of this was ever properly ceded to English, it was only Scottish territory administrated by them post-union at various points. It was never handed to them as their own.
Can Davie Cameron get a question for Castle Greyskull to be part of Engalnd? And Celtic to be an Irish theme park? This could be the best referendum ever
I see this was back last year. Did that amendment actually go through?
If they’re serious about Orkney and Shetland staying “part of the UK” in the event of a Yes vote, they ought to spell out exactly what this would mean for people living there. Given there is no UK legal system, health system or education system, what ones would the people there be living under? If the’re no longer part of Scotland, but run from Westmisnter, presumably they’ll have to adopt English law and become part of the English NHS (now aka Virgin, Secro et al).
This should surely be properly spelled out before the referendum by Westminster, as well as properly costed. For example, how much would Serco charge for the air ambulance emergency service to the nearest NHS England facility?
Gotta love the unelected hereditary peers and their views on democracy.
This is a campaign ad on its own.
This is what the Tories want to do, They want Lerwick and the oil, so it must be worth something after all!
Can you imagine what else these unelected people will do if we are silly enough to vote NO and believe they care about us?
A real FEAR campaign. Be afraid of Tories , be very afraid!
There will be no mo more House of Lords rule from hereditary peers when Scotland is independent. Let’s watch the Yes Together lot justify the benefits of unelected peers telling Scotland what is best for them.
Thank goodness for everyone who cares about Scotland and its people we can have these people, (pic) rather than these people(pic of ermine robed Etonians…).
Indy has to be better than posh rich families telling you what is good for you for generations surely?