I expect a serious no nonsense approach to Scottish independence

I don’t know about you but I expect a serious, no nonsense approach to Scottish independence. One that deals with facts, frameworks, objectives and timelines not political slogans, soundbites and social media reposts. Below is a quick analysis (I don’t claim that it is complete) of what a coalition of independence supporting parties and independent candidates need. It’s based upon practical steps required rather than political or emotional persuasion.

Baseline assumptions

For a coalition to claim seriousness and credibility after a 50%+1 electoral mandate for independence negotiations to begin several assumptions would be implicit:

• The mandate is political brought on by a democratic vote of 50%+1 of all voters at one election, it is not automatically a mandate in law but is the democratic expression of the will of the Scottish people who have the right to decide how they are governed.

• Independence would still require negotiations with the UK Government and international recognition, perhaps both happening alongside each other or one after the other.

• The post-vote period would be scrutinised intensely by courts, markets, civil service institutions, foreign governments, and the public.

Preparations therefore are about building state capacity, legality, and credibility, not symbolism, slogans and who gets paid what.

Before the vote

Before the Vote a coherent and binding framework must be set up between the participating parties and independent candidates including decision making procedures both pre-vote and post-vote including:

• An internal dispute resolution mechanism between coalition members should be established
• Equality of voice within defined decision making procedures of the coalition, one independent candidate has the same ability to have their voice heard as a party with thousands of members. In the case of a defacto referendum candidates are after all the ones Scots will see campaigning in their area
• A clear and agreed interpretation of what “50%+1 of the vote” means and what event(s) it triggers
• An agreed sequencing of steps to deal with any arising matter after the vote, for instance seeking negotiations first, legislation second, unilateral steps last (if required).
• A provisional negotiation team whose members are not just politicians but experienced negotiators, experts in the fields of international and Scottish law business, politics, economics, defence, intelligence, community work and any other field deemed suitable.

Without a robust framework and a path for the road ahead for all to keep to, minor disagreements could lead to fragmentation and a loss of credibility which will be essential to maintain before and after any independence vote.

An internationally legally Defensible way forward is required, legal opinions must be commissioned and publicly shared even if the full text temporarily remains confidential on subjects such as:

• The constitutional basis for a vote on Scottish independence
• Subsequent negotiations, (How does one start that anyway?)
• Risks of (internal or international) judicial review at any moment in the process.
• A clear position on whether independence is pursued on a basis of negotiation only or if unilateral steps are triggered if certain thresholds are met (or not met)?
• Upon a successful yes vote independence should not be treated by the coalition as “the ideal outcome” but as an event that is happening based upon the democratically expressed political will of the Scottish people.

Without breaching current law a coalition for Scottish independence must assess which government functions would need immediate (day one) replication by detailing where Scotland is currently reliant upon UK wide institutions. They must commission contingency planning work on central banking, revenue collection and borrowing capacity, defence, health, borders, Diplomacy and more. Each replicated institution will need offices, computers, phones, managers, staff, salaries, expenses. Having a whip round the day before you send an envoy to the UN is going to go down well with the international community.

It’s important to state here that we must not be seen by either the British or the international community to be doing anything other than contingency planning within current legal competencies. However we must not leave anything to be improvised at the last minute.

Any political coalition must pre-engage with the international community, independent States are a matter of international recognition and treaties, our representatives must begin to forge connections in other countries and key neighbouring States, networking to build relationships with other county’s officials both formally and informally to build rapport. Scottish independence must become a talked about topic in international politics even if it is just politicians having informal chats with each other. The key message to them all should be that any transition will be orderly and any existing obligations will still be respected. Treaty rollover mechanics must be discussed and planned for. We need legislation ready to be put before our parliamentarians. The absence of this kind of work internationally would be interpreted externally as a lack of seriousness on the part of those in the coalition and effect their recognition of Scotland.

Ahead of any vote a coalition must be expected to have :

• Independent fiscal assessments.
• Transparent acknowledgments of trade-offs that we may be willing to make with the UK.
• Rough estimates of transition costs.
• Acknowledgement of areas of uncertainty (Scotland has never peacefully left Westminster rule there may be things neither side realises needs tackling).
• A stable narrative aimed at investors, pension funds and credit reference agencies.

An optimistic political speech on the resources of Scotland plugging any shortfall just won’t cut it, markets do not like uncertainty, potentially pushing up costs of borrowing and decreasing investment in a fledgling independent State.

After the vote

Any coalition must be ready to negotiate the moment the 50%+1 threshold is met, even if votes are still getting counted someone must be picking up the phone, sending the email or knocking on the door and so the negotiating team must have at the ready a draft negotiating framework covering amongst other things:

• Assets and liabilities,
• Borders
• Citizenship
• Defence
• Internal security
• Currency options
• Institutional handovers

As previously mentioned the negotiating team must have senior figures with credibility in their fields. Most will be unknown to the public but should be approached beforehand to secure their participation. In the run up to the vote they must have been given the time and resources to create preplanned scenarios for UK government co-operation, delays, conditional participation or outright refusal to participate at all in negotiations. 

At this point we must remember that Scottish independence does not require UK consent in advance but it does require a realistic, planned approach to gaining that agreement.

What do Scots need to know?

For ordinary Scots what needs to be crystal clear is just what they are voting for in explicit, no nonsense language. They must know:

• What their majority vote will authorises immediately, and what that vote will authorise at different times during the independence process.
• What is not covered by this vote (EU membership, keeping the Monarchy).
• They must be clear on the fact that the vote they are politically empowers the coalition to pursue the negotiated ending of Scotland’s participation in the UK”.
• Honest time lines must be given, the whole process will take years
• It will be a bumpy process

In short

If a coalition claims that a 50%+1 vote triggers an independence process, then before that vote it would reasonably be expected to have:

• Legal clarity

• Negotiation capacity

• Institutional contingency planning

• International and market credibility

• Internal discipline

Without those in place ahead of time, the claim of being “serious about independence” is a claim that would not withstand scrutiny from voters or international observers.