Introduction
A frequent gripe of the air castle end of indy is that the SNP have deliberately failed to use readily available levers to litigate independence. Bloggers like Barrhead Boy believe strongly that there are legal shortcuts to independence that bypass Westminster, referendums and the constraints of the Scotland Act. Their frustration is that the SNP has so far failed to follow their "expert" advice, leading to claims that SNP MSPs are stuffing their pension funds and sailing their luxury yachts in the Caribbean instead of doing anything useful. The latest Barrhead Boy post, "Our Independence, Our Rules", is a classic example of the genre.
The Argument
Barrhead Boy sets out an argument that Scotland is formally a colony and recognised as such by the United Nations. This recognition means that the process of decolonisation, as specified by the UN and applied in the 1960s, may be applied to Scotland in 2021. He points out that a key feature of the decolonisation process was a referendum franchise that favoured the colonised over the colonisers. Many, many words are then devoted to the example of New Caledonia, a French overseas territory, which recently had an independence referendum. Most of the words are lifted from the wik entry on the referendum and concern the franchise rules that favour native Kanaks over more recent inhabitants.
Why has Barrhead Boy set out this argument? Well, he is concerned that an independence referendum cannot be won for as long as English-born residents of Scotland are allowed to vote and quotes some statistics about an overwhelming No vote among this cohort. His argument is that Scotland should use its unique status as a formally recognised colony to engineer a referendum franchise that favours "indigenous" Scots (whatever that means), more likely to vote Yes, over "New" Scots, more likely to vote No. The franchise should be extended to anyone born in Scotland, anyone with Scottish parentage and the "global Scottish diaspora". The franchise should exclude anyone who does not have a long history of unbroken Scottish residence. He doesn't set out a time limit but the Noumea Accord, which governed the New Caledonia referendum, specified 20 years of residence.
If I was Barrhead Boy I wouldn't have picked out New Caledonia as an example because it voted to maintain its status as a French overseas colony. Why would anyone adopt a losing strategy? To be honest, this doesn't matter because his argument is a fiction built on a string of falsehoods.
The Reality
There are three problems with Barrhead Boy's argument. The first is legal and factual, while the second is political and moral. The third problem is the practicality of registering people who live outside the UK and who have never had any interaction with any UK authorities.
The Legal And Factual Fantasy
The UN does not recognise Scotland as a colony. A key characteristic of colonisation is the denial of representation. Last time I looked Scotland had 59 MPs and 129 MSPs. It is not a colony.
New Caledonia has formal recognition as a Non Self Governing Territory. It has this status because it is a territory whose people have not yet attained a full measure of self-government. This status comes with a defined set of rights to self-determination. These rights do not apply to Scotland because it is not a Non Self Governing Territory.
Any legal comparison of Scotland with a French overseas territory falls at the first hurdle because Scotland is not an oveseas territory, isn't a NSGT, and isn't a colony. There are good reasons why the SNP have not persued this path. The principle reason is that it is a fantasy built on multiple falsehoods, misunderstandings and misrepresentations.
The Moral Hole
The purpose of holding a referendum is to measure the consent of the people most affected by its outcome. It is a very strange kind of referendum that attempts to engineer the franchise to include people completely unaffected by constitutional change while excluding the people most affected by it. Like every other Scot, I have cousins in Canada. I think they have each visted Scotland just once back in the mid 1980s. In Barrhead Boy's view, they should have a vote on independence, while my Irish and English friends back in Glasgow and Edinburgh should be barred from participation. Government by consent is an important principle. It is, in fact, a founding principle of the independence movement. Barrhead Boy conventiently forgets this when it suits him.
Barrhead Boy uses decolonisation as a justification for engineering the franchise. Decolonisation, after all, ought to favour the colonised over the colonisers. However, if the referendum is to favour the colonised over the colonisers then it follows that anyone denied the vote is a coloniser and those given the vote are the colonised. This is an unwelcome division. Are the shop assistants at the Polish shop colonisers? What about my English and Irish friends back in Glasgow? Are they colonisers? What about their friends? Are they colonisers? Anyone learning a foreign language at night class? Yeah, your teacher is probably a coloniser scum. Next time you're at a Greek restaurant do remind the waiters that they are agents of colonial oppression. Without a legal justification built on very real colonisation, all this does is divide society along cultural and ethnic lines. It is a deliberate rejection of multi-culturalism, exactly as promoted by Farage. Terms like "navitism" and "blood and soil nationalism" spring to mind.
Impractical Delusions
How would returning officers begin registering the "global Scottish diaspora" so that they can participate in a referendum? Let's use the example of my Canadian cousins. They have never had a UK address and, given that they have only visited Scotland as children, have limited interest in Scottish affairs. They are also not UK citizens and have no footprint in any admin department of the UK. Despite this, it is now the job of returning officers in Glasgow to ensure that my Canadian cousins are made aware that they can register to vote. Assuming this hurdle is overcome, my Canadian cousins would need to prove their Scottishness by providing a raft of documentation. They would need to prove that their parents were born in Scotland and that the parents they claim are actually their parents. How exactly would a Scottish returning officer verify the integrity of a Canadian or Venezuelan or Iranian birth certificate? It is delusional to imagine this could ever work in a way that could be considered fair.
Conclusion
Barrhead Boy wishes to engineer a Yes outcome by meddling with the franchise. He argues that the legal basis for this is set out in the UN's decolinisation process. In doing so, he necessarily divides the residents of Scotland into two groups, colonisers and colonised. His argument, however, is built on a category error and a specious comparison. Scotland is not a colony and never has been. It is also not a Non Self Governing Territory. If the processes of decolonisation cannot be applied to Scotland, then there is no justification for engineering the franchise in this way. In the absence of any legal or moral justification, we are left with a form of Faragist nativism that divides the residents of Scotland. Is this what indy is about nowadays?
