The UK government should not be pressurised into concluding negotiations to enable Scotland to become an independent state by an artificial deadline set by one party, according to a new report out today.
The UK government should not be pressurised into concluding negotiations to enable Scotland to become an independent state by an artificial deadline set by one party, according to a new report out today.
Alex Salmond has previously set March 2016 as the point at which Scotland would become independent should Scots vote for it in September.
However, in a report on the constitutional implications of the referendum, the House of Lords Constitution Committee has concluded that the UK government “should not put the interests of the rest of the UK at risk by attempting to stick to that timetable”, raising the prospect of the SNP’s proposed timetable not being met.
The Committee explained:
“The Scottish government have proposed a timetable of completing negotiations on independence by March 2016. There is no constitutional principle by which that timetable would bind the rest of the UK. The UK government should not put the interests of the rest of the UK at risk by attempting to stick to that timetable. Any negotiations should take as long as necessary; they should not be foreshortened in order to meet a deadline set by one party to the negotiations.”
Meanwhile, the committee has concluded that to avoid a conflict of interests, Scottish MPs should not be involved in the negotiations that take place between a referendum and possible independence. The Committee explains:
“We recommend that MPs representing Scottish constituencies should not be on the negotiating team for the rest of the UK. Their duty as representatives of their constituents in Scotland would conflict with the objective of that negotiating team: to secure the best arrangements for England, Northern Ireland and Wales.”
It continues:
“We conclude that MPs for Scottish constituencies should not be involved in holding the negotiators for the rest of the UK to account, nor in voting on any measure which ratifies the outcome of the negotiations. In the event of a “yes” vote, we recommend that the Government put before Parliament a proposal that would put this matter beyond doubt before the 2015 election.”
In an unsurprising move, the SNP have responded not by addressing the substance of the report but by attack the messengers instead, launching a scathing critique of the undemocratic nature of the House of Lords. The party’s leader in Westminster, Angus Robertson commented:
“The House of Lords is an undemocratic anachronism stuffed to the gunnels with over 800 peers of the realm who answer to no electors and are often there because of privilege or patronage.
“To be lectured by them about timetables and for democratic processes is something that could only happen in Westminster. It will be elected representatives who will lead Scotland’s transition to independence, not some elite club whose members can still turn up for just half an hour’s work and get a £300 daily allowance.”
The report comes as the latest poll indicates that the Yes campaign still has a mountain to climb if they are to succeed in September’s vote.
The figures, compiled by professor John Curtice of Strathclyde University, and published on the What Scotland Thinks website, compiles figures based on two polls by Survation, one by ICM, one by YouGov, one by TNS BMRB and one by Progressive Scottish Opinion, all conducted between 1 April and 12 May.
Having excluded the ‘don’t knows’, the poll finds that 57 per cent of Scots remain opposed to independence compared to 43 per cent who support it.
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
29 Responses to “UK urged not to be bullied by SNP on timetable for independence”
Michaelinlondon1234
There is a lot to be organised to become independant.
David MacGille-Mhuire
Including your grammar and spelling.
ben_cleuch
How can there be “constitutional implications” when there is no constitution?
The sooner we’re rid of an overpaid, unelected, irrelevant, and dare I say “unconstitutional” bunch of freeloaders the better.
Alec
This is the 21st Century, not the 1990s. The bulk of the HoL is now appointed, and it’s commonplace across advanced liberal democracies for appointed – rather than directly elected – individuals to form actual Cabinet positions, nevermind mere scrutiny roles such as the HoL which can be over-ruled by the HoC.
Yet you expect the HoC and 57 millions other UK inhabitants to march to your tune. Your Party stipulated the March 2016 [1] date… others have different ideas. You know, in everyone’s best interests.
I think there’s zero chance of the SNP bullying anyone post-YES. You have spent years of blamed all of Scotland’s woes on Westminster and EWNI, and you think they’d then turn on a sixpence and rush to accomodate you against their own interests: it’s headless chickens stuff.
You’d be in for a very rude awakening.
~alec
[1] If it’s a coincidence that this would be before the next Holyrood elections which you now are saying might not be SNP, I’m the Queen of Sheba.
Alec
constitution?What an asinine comment. Of course there’s a constitutional set-up… it’s just not written.
~alec