If Scotland says ‘No’ What next for the Union?

Authors: , , ,

This publication examines the implications of a ‘No’ vote for the UK constitution. It concludes that a ‘no’ vote would not mean ‘no change’, and that it was very likely that unionist parties would adopt proposals for more devolution. It examined the possible consequences for Scotland and for the Union as a whole.

To produce this paper,  The Constitution Society brought together three leading think tanks from across the political spectrum to explore these questions and propose some possible answers.

With contributions from Professor Michael Keating, Magnus Linklater, Jim Gallagher and Philip Blond, this collaboration with CentreForum, the Fabian Society and ResPublica set the scene for the post-referendum debate.

The report attracted a packed audience down in Brighton at Labour Conference with a panel made up of Margaret Curran MP (Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland), Owen Smith MP (Shadow Secretary of State for Wales), James Hallwood (The Constitution Society), Sarah Boyack MSP and Marcus Roberts from the Fabian Society chairing.

Finally at Conservative Party conference we were joined by Jacob Rees-Mogg MP, Rt Hon David Mundell MP, Nat le Roux (The Constitution Society), Phillip Blond (ResPublica) with Alan Cochrane (Scottish Telegraph) in the chair.

This publication presents the personal views of the author and not those of The Constitution Society, which publishes it as a contribution to debate on this important subject.