This post is essentially a post I wrote in 2013 for a previous blog. I post it here as a follow up to my previous post on Common Weal’s White Paper. This included a section on Interim governance and recommended a three year period for negotiations and setting up the institutions of an independent Scotland.
As I mentioned in that post, this had not been the experience of the dozens of countries that had became independent in Europe since 1990. While it is clear that no two cases are the same, I see no reason why we cannot learn from these previous cases of moving to independence.
Of the dozens of countries in Europe that became independent in the past twenty years or so, perhaps the case most relevant for Scotland is that of the independence of the Czech Republic and Slovakia. This was a peaceful process and is often referred to as “The Velvet Divorce”. So what lessons can we learn form the Czech and Slovak experience? In preparing this post I have made use of a study on The Breakup of Czechoslovakia by Robert Young, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, 1994. The full study can be found here.
The first thing to note is that when independence did come, it all happened relatively quickly. As Young points out, “Having accepted that separation would take place, the leaders quickly established a timetable and a basic framework for the event.” Secondly, Young noted that, “Overall negotiations involved very few essential items.”
In the case of Scotland what might this look like? As regards a timetable, at the time of the 2014 referendum the Scottish government allowed around 18 months for the negotiations. This seems to have been chosen in large measure to fit in with the timetable for elections to the Scottish Parliament, which were due to be held in May 2016.
In the case of the Czech Republic and Slovakia, the negotiations took less than six months. Not to fully complete, but sufficiently to allow both countries to declare independence. Whatever timetable is agreed, I see no reason why after the next referendum we would need to plan for three years of negotiations before independence.
If there is a ‘Yes’ vote it will be in the interests of all parties, including the UK, to get the negotiations over with as soon as possible. I imagine the business and financial sectors will be pushing for a quick resolution to the negotiations. Uncertainty is bad for business we are repeatedly told. As will various outside bodies, such as the IMF, the EU and no doubt the USA. Each for their own particular reasons will not want the negotiations to drag on.
When it comes to the framework for the negotiations there will be two parts to this. This could be termed the What and the How. As regards what the negotiations will be about, according to Young, in Czechoslovakia the big issues were:
1 the military
2 succession to international treaties
3 level of post separation economic integration
6 division of assets and liabilities”
In the case of Scotland and the rest of the UK, a couple of other issues may merit specific negotiation:
1 demarcation of maritime boundary in North Sea
2 state pension
3 welfare benefits
This gives nine big issues to be negotiated. There will be other issues to resolve such as diplomatic representation and the future of broadcasting and the BBC. However these and other issues are more the stuff of political debate within an independent Scotland.
When it comes to how these issues will be resolved – the how of the negotiations – the key will be to agree on some general principles. For example in the case of Czechoslovakia two principles were agreed on early in the process. These were:
1 fixed property would be owned by the Republic in which it was located
2 movables would be divided on a per capita basis – this was agreed at 2:1 in favour of the Czech Republic.
In practice there were important exemptions to the first principle, as most of the Federal buildings and property were in Prague, the Federal capital, located in what was to become the Czech Republic. In recognition of this imbalance Slovakia received financial compensation in lieu. Something similar will probably be required here as the UK is one of the most centralized states in the world and most UK government buildings and property are located in London. The second general principle was based on population. It should not be beyond the wit of both the UK and Scottish governments to agree on something similar.
It would also be good and encouraging if the two governments could agree on some statement about the spirit in which any negotiations will be conducted. They need not look further than the Queen’s visit to the Republic of Ireland in 2011, another former part of the UK. While in Dublin the Queen had this to say about UK-Irish relations: “Together we have much to celebrate: the ties between our people, the shared values, and the economic, business and cultural links that make us so much more than just neighbours, that make us firm friends and equal partners.” It is certainly the aim of the Scottish government that Scotland and the rest of the UK remain firm friends and equal partners. Will the current UK government make such an explicit statement in regard to Scotland?