Balancing act

Scottish Labour MSP Joe Fagan rules out ever backing Indyref2, proclaims The National. There is nothing shocking about this. It’s not as if Joe Fagan has a choice in the matter. He is a member of a British establishment party. As such, supporting independence or a new referendum are not options which are available to him. The British establishment has, from its perspective, a very good reason for taking the position it does. The position which is bequeathed to Joe Fagan and every other British politician. All are bound to oppose independence and a referendum. They are bound to oppose the restoration of Scotland’s independence because without Scotland, the Britain of their conceit does not exist.

They are bound to oppose a referendum only in part because they fear they would lose. That is not as great a fear as some imagine. The fact is, they can’t really lose. Or they can lose the referendum without losing Scotland. So long as the Scottish Government remains wedded to the Section 30 process, the British know their precious Union is safe. So, why not just let it happen? Allow me to explain.

So long as the Scottish Government remains wedded to the Section 30 process, the British know their precious Union is safe.

The fear of losing Scotland is well-founded. Dissolution of the Union would be a devastating blow to England-as-Britain. The extent to which England-as-Britain is a major player on the world stage derives primarily from its most prized annexed territory. So, why not lock Scotland in using a constitutional device such as Spain uses to keep Catalonia? The British are reluctant to open that Pandora’s box. They would much rather the relationship between Scotland and England-as-Britain was not subject to scrutiny. Sara Salyers has scrutinised that relationship and concluded that it rests on very shaky ground indeed.

At the same time, the British state needs to be able to claim that there is a democratic process by which Scotland can leave the UK. The British state cannot be seen to be denying that Scotland has the right of self-determination. The Section 30 process maintains the pretence of a democratic route to independence. Were the British state to permit a Section 30 referendum and lose, the pretence would end. It would quickly become clear that independence was not going to ensue from that referendum. When it didn’t, everyone would see that the Section 30 referendum was a sham.

The Section 30 process maintains the pretence of a democratic route to independence.

England-as-Britain wants to pretend that Scotland is in a voluntary Union and that we are free to leave the UK whenever we wish. They need to show that there is an existing mechanism for leaving, without which the notion of a voluntary Union collapses. So, they don’t deny that Scotland is a nation. They don’t deny that we are entitled to a referendum. Doing either would put them in conflict with international law. What they do instead is assert the authority to control access to the means and opportunity to exercise our right of self-determination.

So long as the Scottish Government concedes that authority, England-as-Britain is safe. It’s a political balancing act. The British establishment is highly adept at such balancing acts. Were the Scottish Government to challenge that asserted authority, it would evaporate. But challenging the authority of the British state requires a boldness that is woefully lacking in Scotland’s political elite.