Could Scotland just declare it is an independent state?

The National

3 hours ago

Doubtless, most people had never heard of the Montevideo Convention before last week. It had previously crossed my path but I had not given it much thought in the context of the cause of Scottish independence.
However, now that it has appeared on the scene, it seems appropriate to do so. That, from my perspective, is because everything to do with economics is about power relationships. If Scotland is not a state in its own right, then the obvious question to ask is, can it have a power relationship?
With the caveat that the Montevideo Convention was only signed by states from the Americas, it suggests there are four criteria for being recognised as a state – that the proposed state should have a permanent population, a defined territory, a government, and a capacity to enter into relations with other states.
READ MORE: I am a Palestinian. Keir Starmer's recognition plan is an insult
The convention also says the political existence of a state is independent of any recognition of that status by other states. In other words, a state can declare itself to exist as a country, even if other countries do not recognise that fact.
The question to be asked in this case is, then, whether or not Scotland meets these criteria? Firstly, Scotland very obviously has a population. What is more, official data confirming the size of that population is published on a regular basis. There would appear to be no doubt that it meets this criterion.
Similarly, it would be very hard to argue that Scotland does not have a defined territory. I am aware some minor changes have taken place with regard to what part of the seabed might be Scottish, or not, in the last few decades, and this might still be up for negotiation.
But the Montevideo Convention does make clear that it is not, in any case, essential that these borders be precisely defined if there is broad consensus about where they exist, and in the case of Scotland, I have no doubt whatsoever that this is the case.
That said, it has to be recognised that those two are the easy criteria to be settled under this convention, and that the next two might be a little more contentious. So, let's deal with them. Has Scotland got a government? It would seem to me that the answer to that is indisputable. Of course it has. What else is it that sits at Holyrood?
And what else is the administration currently headed by John Swinney MSP? And why is it that he is called the First Minister of Scotland? And why else, for example, when meeting Donald Trump a week ago, was he treated as the leader of the Scottish Government?
How could it be argued that Scotland hasn't got a government when, quite clearly, such a government was created through the devolution process, and the administration based in Edinburgh has the power to control significant areas of expenditure in Scotland, with such power being denied as a result to the government in Westminster?
I have no doubt that lawyers could write lengthy books trying to argue this point either way but a simple observation of facts suggests that in practice, everyone in the UK, including the Westminster Government, recognises that there is an administration in Scotland which is properly called a government.
What is more, it alone has decision-making powers over much in Scotland, to which it is responsible for the supply of services, and by which it is held accountable. It follows, as a matter of fact, that in a plain, straightforward political sense, Scotland must be recognised as having a government.
It is important to note that when coming to that conclusion, the Montevideo Convention uses this logic when appraising such matters. It is based on political realities, and not on precise points of law.
READ MORE: SNP members set for second meeting to challenge Scottish independence plan
It is for that reason that the Montevideo Convention can say precise agreement on borders is not, for example, necessary, precisely so that legal objection for this reason can be circumvented. It does also, for this reason, say that a country might consider itself to be a state when others do not recognise it as such, again seeking to overcome legal objection on those grounds.
It does, then, require decisions on the political substance of what is going on rather than worry about the precise legal arguments that could be used when deciding on an issue. And, there can be no doubt, given the substance of this matter, that Scotland has a government.
The last question is, then, whether Scotland has the power to enter into relationships with other states in a way that only a state can? I would argue this is also the case.
There will, no doubt, be Unionists who argue Scotland as it stands is no more than a glorified council, with no power to enter into relationships with other countries. But that would be nonsense. There are numerous signs Scotland is recognised as having such relationships.
For example, it is internationally recognised for sporting purposes, and its national sports organisations are recognised as being capable of entering into international relationships.
And, before anyone argues that this is peripheral, that cannot be said precisely because the Montevideo Convention does not refer to governmental relations as such, but does refer to international relationships.
Even if, however, international government relationships have to be the focus, then Scotland very obviously has the power to enter into such relationships on its own behalf. It has a minister with responsibility for foreign affairs, and the Westminster government recognises their right to represent Scotland in the international arena.
READ MORE: St Andrews rector demands formal apology and damages from uni
So, for example, Scotland has for some time negotiated its own relationships with the EU and it is widely recognised internationally that Scotland's view on this matter differs from that of the [[Westminster]] government. In addition, it is clear that John Sweeney and Donald Trump did discuss international relationships last week, with the First Minister representing the Scottish Government and expressing an independent opinion.
Once again, whatever the legal niceties, the simple fact is the world recognises that Scotland does have the capacity to enter into such relationships. In other words, all four of the Montevideo Convention requirements for Scotland to be recognised as a state are very clearly met. I think this is incredibly important.
Saying so, I would refer readers back to the article that I wrote last week on the power of telling stories about Scotland, and the role that they have in creating a narrative about Scotland as an independent country.
What the convention is saying is that Scotland, and the people of the country, have the right to say they are a state and that they should be recognised as such, whether or not the rest of the UK, and most particularly England, likes that fact.
The Montevideo Convention does not give England the right to object. What it grants Scotland is the right to make that claim, irrespective of objections.
If there is a story to tell about Scottish independence, this is it.
The time has come for Scotland to declare itself a state, because it has the right to be recognised as such, and then it must make clear that this is the basis for its claim to have the right to be free from foreign control. How could anyone refuse?