As the Scottish independence referendum draws closer the outcome is hard to predict. Both Westminster politicians and the wider public are asking what – in practical terms – would happen if the Scots were to vote Yes. Robert Hazell offers a 10-point overview of what the road to independence might look like.
The timetable
1. Scotland will not immediately become independent. On the SNP’s proposed timetable, it would take 18 months for Scotland to achieve independence, in March 2016, just in time for the next elections to the Scottish Parliament in May 2016. In that 18 month period there will need to be intensive negotiations on all the issues listed in point 5 below, and more.
2. This 18 month timetable ignores two potential difficulties. The first is the UK general election in May 2015. That will require a pause in the negotiations of at least two months while the UK team of negotiators campaign in the Westminster election. A change of government in the UK will result in new negotiating teams, who will need time to get up to speed.
3. The second difficulty is the need for legislation. There might be a need for paving legislation at the start of the negotiations. Legislation will also be needed at the conclusion to grant Scotland independence on the terms which have been agreed. On many issues Alex Salmond wants a partnership or sharing arrangement with the UK (sterling being the most notable example). That will need to be given effect in legislation, along with the division of all the main assets and liabilities of the UK state. The legislation will be big and complex, and some of it will be controversial. There may need to be several bills rather than one omnibus bill. The legislation is likely to take a year or more to be passed by Westminster. For comparison, the Scotland Act 1998 took 11 months to pass, but in very favourable circumstances and with a huge government majority.
4. It will be debilitating for the UK government as well as the Scottish government to allow the negotiations to drag on. But even with good faith and all due speed on both sides it is likely to take at least 30-36 months before Scotland becomes independent. A more realistic timetable might be as follows:
Main issues in the negotiations
5. The big issues have all surfaced in the referendum campaign:
- Scotland’s currency: the pound backed by the Bank of England; the pound but without support from the Bank of England (‘sterlingisation’); the euro; or an independent currency?
- Scotland’s membership of the EU, NATO and other international organisations: will the UK support swift accession by Scotland to all these bodies?
- Division of the national debt: likely to be on a per capita basis
- Division of North Sea oil: divided by extending the English/Scottish border out into the North Sea, giving Scotland roughly 90 per cent of known reserves
- Defence, and the future of the nuclear submarine bases on the Clyde. In the short term there is likely to be a leasing arrangement, enabling the UK to retain the bases for 10-20 years.
6. But there will be myriad of other issues, covering every government department, from macro-economic management, taxation and financial regulation to foreign policy, defence and national security, immigration, policing, transport, health, environment, agriculture, fisheries, education, research, welfare and social security, public sector pensions … the list is enormous. When Czechoslovakia split into the Czech Republic and Slovakia it required 30 Treaties and some 2000 legal agreements to give effect to the separation, and they were still negotiating about some issues ten years later. At the start of the negotiations the two teams will need to agree which issues need to be decided before Scotland becomes independent, and which can be left until later. They will also need to decide in what order to discuss the main issues, and to draw up a timetabled agenda.
How will the negotiations be conducted?
7. There will need to be sectoral negotiating teams covering each subject area: finance, defence, foreign policy etc. These will be similar to the ministerial and official teams which the UK sends to negotiate on different policies in Brussels. Each team will be led by a Minister, and there will need to be a ‘top team’ of ministers co-ordinating the whole and driving the negotiations forward. The UK team and the Scottish team will report back to their respective Cabinets, and there will need to be regular reports to both parliaments. Because of this regular reporting, the negotiations will not be kept secret for long. There will be intense interest from the markets in certain issues, for example Scotland’s future currency, and those issues may need to be negotiated first.
Political complications
8. There are many political complications surrounding the negotiations. The first is the political mood in the rest of the UK, which may influence whether the negotiations are conducted in a spirit of good will and generosity, or bitterness and anger. How will the rest of the UK, particularly England, react to Scotland’s decision to break up the Union? They may go through the classic feelings experienced by some couples going through divorce: hurt, rejection, bitterness, anger and mean spiritedness. If that mean-spiritedness finds political expression, it may put pressure on the UK negotiators to drive a hard bargain with Scotland. And the question of whether to be mean or generous towards Scotland may become an issue in the UK general election, with UKIP the most likely contender as an English nationalist party.
9. The second political difficulty faces the Labour party. In the current Parliament Labour have 41 Scottish MPs. If there is a hung parliament in 2015 and they have similar numbers of Scottish MPs, they will depend on those MPs to form a government. But the Scottish MPs will depart when Scotland becomes independent: half way through the Parliament, on the timetable sketched out above. If the government then ceases to command confidence in the House of Commons, an alternative government must be formed within 14 days, or fresh elections held.
10. A third political difficulty concerns the status of Scottish MPs in the Westminster Parliament. Can MPs representing Scottish seats be part of the UK’s negotiating team? For example, can Danny Alexander, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, be a leading member of the finance team? And when the independence legislation is going through the Westminster Parliament, should Scottish MPs be allowed to vote on the legislation? Those are issues which must be resolved early on, in a paving bill or resolution of the House of Commons.
Robert Hazell is Professor of British Politics and Government & Director of the Constitution Unit.
The Constitution Unit Blog 
Pingback: The Scottish Independence Referendum
I can see no reason why there cannot be a negotiating team who then present to parliament who then take the proposals through the leglislative process thus ensuring the legal aspects are covered. What I am proposing is that the “executive” part of this process should be at least cross party if not encompassing the wider community. What we desperately want to avoid is party politics creeping into the negotations.
Since the politicians will reap the reward or pay the price of the success or otherwise of the negotiations, the teams will necessarily be political and governmental. After all, why would the UK give up the huge advantage of the Whitehall apparatus for some collection of worthies. As in a divorce the abandoned party will hire a razor sharp lawyer. Hell hath no fury….
Pingback: Scotland: the Signal, the Noise and the Future | opendatastudy
Great idea. I look forward to hearing Alex Salmond has accepted the promise of the captain of the England cricket team and the CEO of Sainsbury’s about a timetable for removing Trident and sharing out the various UK embassies in South America. In the meantime we’re stuck with the legislators doing the negotiating because we’re talking about creating legally-binding agreements here, mostly affecting government-run matters.
He’s assuming it will be down to legislators to hammer out the deal because, as he said, the many detailed agreements will all need directly or indirectly to be legally-binding and backed by legislation. Last time I checked the “great and good” talk a good game but lacks the means to enshrine agreements in law. I don’t see the Scots, for example, accepting the words of the Archbish of Canterbury and a couple of corporate CEOs about the basis of the asset carve-up or the status of Trident. It’ll all need hard legislation enforcible in court if necessary.
Pingback: Four Parliamentary quirks to watch out for if Scotland votes ‘Yes’
But why restrict the negotiating teams to the polity? This is not a “political” issue this affects the widest of constituencies should both sides not be represented by the great and the good, captains of industry, community and religious leaders? This would be larger than parliamentary politics and should not be left to the politicians.
Another issue, related to the last few points above, is that at what point (if any) does the process cease being an SNP-versus-UK-parties process, and become, instead, an “all Scottish parties” versus “all rUK parties” process? Up until now the UK parties have been on the opposite side to the separatist ones – which is largely the SNP. But if Scotland voted for indepence, all the Scottish parts of the UK parties could have a claim to be on the Scottish negotiating team. Can the SNP claim the sole right to nogiate based on them being the Scottish government? Would they have to claim the lesser right to lead negotiations but as part of an SNP-dominated cross-party coalition (including unionists)? Or would they have to have accept being just one of many players – perhaps with respresentation more in propotion to their support, making them a minority (albeit a big one) on the negotiating team?
You seem to be assuming that it will be down to the incumbent governments at Westminster and Holyrood to negotiate the settlement; would you not expect cross party negotiating teams as this is a matter for all people both now and in the future? If this is the case could we see teams made up of captains of industry, the great and the good, community and religious leaders, ex politicians and leaders, trade union leaders?