The Student Room Group

If Yes is the result - getting independence through the UK Parliament may not be easy

If Thursday's referendum returns a Yes, especially if it's by a narrow margin, I don't think it's at all clear that there is an automatic path from there to independence.

The big hurdle is that the UK Parliament would have to approve it. I can't see this happening, especially under those circumstances.

Tory MPs will be dead against it.

Many Labour MPs will oppose it, probably most.

Even if Cameron and Miliband try to whip it, I think they will be defied in one of the biggest Commons rebellions for decades.

This scenario is so plausible that I can easily imagine it will be delayed until after the next general election. We would therefore have a fresh intake of Scottish MPs voting on it to terminate their own employment (implausible) and it would also turn the 2015 national general election into a referendum on independence.

Seriously, big trouble is ahead. :eek4:

Scroll to see replies

I really don't see this happening. It's one thing for MPs to rebel against the party whip but to refuse to grant the result of a referendum, and one with such international coverage and implications, is something else. As a No supporter it would disgust me as an affront to democracy and I think most others would feel the same. There would be outcries from leaders all over the globe, there would certainly be riots in Scotland. It would damage the reputation of Westminster far beyond what the expenses scandal could ever have done. If it is delayed beyond several months I do not think it beyond reason that the most fervent Yes campaigners would use it as justification for more sinister long-term violence and even terrorism. If they win the referendum then it is only a matter of time before they get it, and better sooner than later to avoid any of these things. MPs know all this.
Perhaps you're right.

If a majority of those who vote want Scotland to be independent then Scotland would become an independent country after a process of negotiations. Following the negotiations Scotland would leave the United Kingdom and become a new and separate state.

Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/topical-events/scottish-independence-referendum/about

The key word is ''negotiations''. This could mean:

- You'll be independent eventually but only after we sort out the technical details (the rules on who can enter/leave the UK/Scotland, what currency Scotland will use, the monarchy, etc etc).

- You'll be independent only if we let you become independent.

Still, I can imagine great backlash (from everyone) if Parliament rejected independence in the event of a ''yes'' vote.
Original post by Birkenhead
I really don't see this happening. It's one thing for MPs to rebel against the party whip but to refuse to grant the result of a referendum, and one with such international coverage and implications, is something else. As a No supporter it would disgust me as an affront to democracy and I think most others would feel the same. There would be outcries from leaders all over the globe, there would certainly be riots in Scotland. It would damage the reputation of Westminster far beyond what the expenses scandal could ever have done. If it is delayed beyond several months I do not think it beyond reason that the most fervent Yes campaigners would use it as justification for more sinister long-term violence and even terrorism. If they win the referendum then it is only a matter of time before they get it, and better sooner than later to avoid any of these things. MPs know all this.


International opinion is fairly against the split, particularly in the US and Europe. It's really only popular in other 'splittist' areas like Basque, Catalonia and Bavaria. Indeed, many other nations appear to be confused and dismayed that one of the most respected and admired countries in the world is apparently considering dissolving itself.

Parliament will be guided by public opinion and frankly I think there will be uproar in England when the H of C comes to consider the enabling legislation.
Salisbury Convention.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
International opinion is fairly against the split, particularly in the US and Europe. It's really only popular in other 'splittist' areas like Basque, Catalonia and Bavaria. Indeed, many other nations appear to be confused and dismayed that one of the most respected and admired countries in the world is apparently considering dissolving itself.

Parliament will be guided by public opinion and frankly I think there will be uproar in England when the H of C comes to consider the enabling legislation.


Technically it's not the "country" itself that is considering but a portion of it. :wink: Also where are those many other nations that are so confused? Post links.
Reply 6
Something which can happen is that in the UK, constitutionally, the next government cannot be forced to continue the process of legislating something which the previous government enacted.

Should Scotland become independent, the Tories would HAVE to respect the outcome. However, in the middle of negotiations there is a general election. If Labour become the incumbents, then they could completely legally cancel independence, and there would be nothing that anybody could do about that.

However, in the event of Scottish independence, it is very unlikely that labour could possibly be elected.
Original post by Birkenhead
I really don't see this happening. It's one thing for MPs to rebel against the party whip but to refuse to grant the result of a referendum, and one with such international coverage and implications, is something else. As a No supporter it would disgust me as an affront to democracy and I think most others would feel the same. There would be outcries from leaders all over the globe, there would certainly be riots in Scotland. It would damage the reputation of Westminster far beyond what the expenses scandal could ever have done. If it is delayed beyond several months I do not think it beyond reason that the most fervent Yes campaigners would use it as justification for more sinister long-term violence and even terrorism. If they win the referendum then it is only a matter of time before they get it, and better sooner than later to avoid any of these things. MPs know all this.


It would be interesting if it got out to the vote with only Scottish MPs allowed to vote on it. The SNP only have 6 seats out of 59.
Original post by CheGuava
Something which can happen is that in the UK, constitutionally, the next government cannot be forced to continue the process of legislating something which the previous government enacted.

Should Scotland become independent, the Tories would HAVE to respect the outcome. However, in the middle of negotiations there is a general election. If Labour become the incumbents, then they could completely legally cancel independence, and there would be nothing that anybody could do about that.

However, in the event of Scottish independence, it is very unlikely that labour could possibly be elected.

Why? Apart from the fact that, IIRC, they said that they would, but there is no legal necessity to respect it, after all, at best only about 8% of the UK would be voting for Scottish independence.

That aside, tbh, apart from the whole going against the whips and what the party's official stances, I can see a large number of the MPs being perfectly fine with letting Scotland go since it should be beneficial to the parts of the country that are left :smile:
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Fullofsurprises
If Thursday's referendum returns a Yes, especially if it's by a narrow margin, I don't think it's at all clear that there is an automatic path from there to independence.

The big hurdle is that the UK Parliament would have to approve it. I can't see this happening, especially under those circumstances.

Tory MPs will be dead against it.

Many Labour MPs will oppose it, probably most.

Even if Cameron and Miliband try to whip it, I think they will be defied in one of the biggest Commons rebellions for decades.

This scenario is so plausible that I can easily imagine it will be delayed until after the next general election. We would therefore have a fresh intake of Scottish MPs voting on it to terminate their own employment (implausible) and it would also turn the 2015 national general election into a referendum on independence.

Seriously, big trouble is ahead. :eek4:


I do not agree. This would be a breach of faith on a massive scale. Really only the extreme "headbanging" tendency amongst MPs would take that line; those who believe that they can do what they like but nobody else is entitled to react to their actions.

What however would be realistic is if a Labour government is elected in Scotland in 2016; there would almost certainly be a second referendum. Labour would, with some justice, treat electing a unionist party, before separation, as a repudiation of independence entitling them to put the final negotiated terms to the Scottish people.

The election of a Labour Scottish government is quite likely as Salmond's promises unravel. He will be offering Sterlingisation. I suspect he will not have EU membership but will achieve a standstill agreement with the EU over free trade. A key thing is that he will either have to concede immigration policy to an English dominated joint board or face border controls. However he will see tax revenues plummet as the cost of setting up a new country spirals out of control.
Can't see that happening to the degree that independence would be stopped. There's also every chance that Salmond with the support of even 'no' voters would declare unilateral independence forcing Westminster to accept or send in the military.
Parliament refusing the result of a free and fair democratic referendum would cause an outrage. There would certainly be riots in Scotland and possibly in the rest of the UK if that were to happen if such an affront to democracy took place in 21st century Britain.
Original post by nulli tertius
I do not agree. This would be a breach of faith on a massive scale. Really only the extreme "headbanging" tendency amongst MPs would take that line; those who believe that they can do what they like but nobody else is entitled to react to their actions.

What however would be realistic is if a Labour government is elected in Scotland in 2016; there would almost certainly be a second referendum. Labour would, with some justice, treat electing a unionist party, before separation, as a repudiation of independence entitling them to put the final negotiated terms to the Scottish people.

The election of a Labour Scottish government is quite likely as Salmond's promises unravel. He will be offering Sterlingisation. I suspect he will not have EU membership but will achieve a standstill agreement with the EU over free trade. A key thing is that he will either have to concede immigration policy to an English dominated joint board or face border controls. However he will see tax revenues plummet as the cost of setting up a new country spirals out of control.


I think my main point is that the next general election will be a referendum on the referendum.

This is unfortunately known to Scottish voters and I think that's why Yes is such high polling figures - people still think they can vote Yes as a protest vote and it will be reversed or watered down following the general election. Unfortunately, this may be true. I say 'unfortunately', because I think a serious referendum like this should be treated with the utmost seriousness and not as an opinion poll. The SNP are playing up to this of course, avoiding all serious analysis of their bland promises (because they know people aren't really taking it with full seriousness) and to a large extent treating as pseudo-independence, making it safe to express an 'independent opinion' as 'everyone knows' that nothing much will really change.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
International opinion is fairly against the split, particularly in the US and Europe. It's really only popular in other 'splittist' areas like Basque, Catalonia and Bavaria. Indeed, many other nations appear to be confused and dismayed that one of the most respected and admired countries in the world is apparently considering dissolving itself.

Parliament will be guided by public opinion and frankly I think there will be uproar in England when the H of C comes to consider the enabling legislation.


International opinion may want Scotland to stay in the union, but they are for the most part (the countries that matter most) in favour of democracy and would respect the result. They would definitely condemn Britain if the government refused the result of a free and fair democratic referendum.

Same with the British public. They may want Scotland to stay in the union but only extremists would oppose Scottish independence if a majority of Scots voted "yes".
Original post by RFowler
International opinion may want Scotland to stay in the union, but they are for the most part (the countries that matter most) in favour of democracy and would respect the result. They would definitely condemn Britain if the government refused the result of a free and fair democratic referendum.

Same with the British public. They may want Scotland to stay in the union but only extremists would oppose Scottish independence if a majority of Scots voted "yes".


I think there will be much more trouble in Parliament over this than people think is my main point. I suspect if it's Yes that there will be a big backlash of English opinion, there will be resentment and there will be defiance. I'm not sure about how this will all get channelled, but it's a good bet that for example it might boost UKIP and they end up with a fair slice of MPs after the next election. I can't imagine they would give the legislation an easy ride.

To be honest, I think the outbreak of nationalism in Scotland, if passed, would lead to a general and further degeneration of politics across other parts of Britain in the direction of anti-politics, nationalism and extremism.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
I think there will be much more trouble in Parliament over this than people think is my main point. I suspect if it's Yes that there will be a big backlash of English opinion, there will be resentment and there will be defiance. I'm not sure about how this will all get channelled, but it's a good bet that for example it might boost UKIP and they end up with a fair slice of MPs after the next election. I can't imagine they would give the legislation an easy ride.

To be honest, I think the outbreak of nationalism in Scotland, if passed, would lead to a general and further degeneration of politics across other parts of Britain in the direction of anti-politics, nationalism and extremism.


Of course there will be some trouble in parliament. The prime minister and ministers involved in negotiations would be open to a lot of criticism if they don't handle the situation well and people feel that the rest of Britain doesn't get a good deal, a bit like how a lot of euroskeptics don't trust David Cameron with his renegotiation plans.

But trouble to the extent that independence is stopped? I highly doubt it.
Reply 16
Original post by Fullofsurprises
If Thursday's referendum returns a Yes, especially if it's by a narrow margin, I don't think it's at all clear that there is an automatic path from there to independence.

The big hurdle is that the UK Parliament would have to approve it. I can't see this happening, especially under those circumstances.

Tory MPs will be dead against it.

Many Labour MPs will oppose it, probably most.

Even if Cameron and Miliband try to whip it, I think they will be defied in one of the biggest Commons rebellions for decades.

This scenario is so plausible that I can easily imagine it will be delayed until after the next general election. We would therefore have a fresh intake of Scottish MPs voting on it to terminate their own employment (implausible) and it would also turn the 2015 national general election into a referendum on independence.

Seriously, big trouble is ahead. :eek4:


I doubt many Tories would be against since it gets rid of so many Labour MPs.

I doubt all that many Labour MPs would vote against due to the vote on it.

Also blocking it causes as many problems as letting Scotland go.
Original post by Quady
I doubt many Tories would be against since it gets rid of so many Labour MPs.

I doubt all that many Labour MPs would vote against due to the vote on it.

Also blocking it causes as many problems as letting Scotland go.


A lot of Tories are still unionists, even if less so than in the past. More importantly, they will be feeling heat from English constituents, dismayed by what is happening.

However, I accept that this can go the other way too - if it's No, but it's No on the basis of gigantic giveaway promises of largesse to the Scots not granted to the English then there could be big trouble there as well. I thought Gordon Brown and Nick Clegg's promises to guarantee NHS spending will rise in Scotland sounded hollow and absurd and undeliverable. Indeed, most things Gordon Brown is saying sound ridiculous and frankly I think he's a net drag on the No campaign and I wish he would shut up and go back into hiding.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
This scenario is so plausible that I can easily imagine it will be delayed until after the next general election.


Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to assume that a bill would be presented quickly and passed (or not) before the next general election. In fact, you wouldn't expect a bill to be presented until after the negotiations have taken place. Otherwise the terms of independence couldn't be known. This will be in the next parliament.

As long as terms can be agreed (and that won't be easy, just like any divorce, and certainly won't be as quick as the SNP seems to believe) then a bill can be presented at Westminster to give effect to independence. I believe it will pass almost on the nod as long as terms can be negotiated.

A problem might lie in an English backlash against the panic-stricken pledge given last night. I have already written to my MP telling him I won't vote for the representative of any party that promises to prolong the Barnett Formula.
(edited 9 years ago)
Reply 19
Original post by Fullofsurprises
A lot of Tories are still unionists, even if less so than in the past. More importantly, they will be feeling heat from English constituents, dismayed by what is happening.

However, I accept that this can go the other way too - if it's No, but it's No on the basis of gigantic giveaway promises of largesse to the Scots not granted to the English then there could be big trouble there as well. I thought Gordon Brown and Nick Clegg's promises to guarantee NHS spending will rise in Scotland sounded hollow and absurd and undeliverable. Indeed, most things Gordon Brown is saying sound ridiculous and frankly I think he's a net drag on the No campaign and I wish he would shut up and go back into hiding.


Sure a lot are (all I suspect), but the chance to get rid of a massive number of left wing MPs would be appealing. I doubt many English would give their MP heat over it. I doubt many would want to block it if Scots vote for it.

The move to Yes has been arrested since Brown has come into the campaign.

I'm guessing you're voting No then?

Quick Reply

Latest