Page 131 - yearbook pdf

This is a SEO version of yearbook pdf. Click here to view full version

« Previous Page Table of Contents Next Page »
Arctic Yearbook 2012
D.1.2) and although it is usual that a Scottish representative be included in UK-EU delegations, the
Scottish government has protested its exclusion from at least one significant EU forum (Scottish
Government, 2011g). In respect of the EU, the Scottish government has proposed an amendment to
the Scotland Act to guarantee a representative of the Scottish government on UK-EU delegations on
a statutory basis (United Kingdom, 2011b) but only the Westminster Parliament has the power to
amend the primary legislation. Meanwhile, the Scottish government should rely on the general
concordat on international relations (United Kingdom, 2010: D.1) to push for full inclusion in Arctic
policy development and might even renegotiate the concordat on international relations to formalise
Scottish inclusion in FCO delegations to Arctic bodies, comparable to that enjoyed, for example, by
Scotland has not yet sought inroads into the Nordic Atlantic Cooperation group (NORA), with
whose members it shares many pressing interests: for example, living marine resource management,
search and rescue, out-migration from rural communities, and transport challenges (NORA, 2011;
OECD, 2011; NBSS, 2011). NORA is currently funded by the Nordic Council and full Scottish
participation would depend upon some arrangements by which Scotland could pay its way. The SNP
has mooted full membership in the Nordic Council for an independent Scotland, but as long as
Scotland remains an integral part of the UK, this is unimaginable (Nordic Council Membership,
2009). Neither Scotland nor any of its regions are members of the Northern Forum but if Scotland
continues to develop its northern connections, membership would be an opportunity to strengthen
ties, exchange experience and give it another route to the AC where the Northern Forum is an
observer (Heininen, 2010b). Participation in either NORA or the Northern Forum would not
threaten the careful constitutional balance of the Scotland Act.
Cooperation with the Arctic’s indigenous inhabitants is always legally desirable (ICCPR, 1966;
ICESCR, 1966; UNDRIP, 2007) but it is also economically pragmatic to integrate respect for the
rights of indigenous and other Arctic peoples. There can be no stable access if land or maritime
claims are unsettled. Thus, it is in the interests of non-Arctic states and regions with Arctic-
orientated private business ventures to clarify ownership of Arctic resources. Scotland can afford to
be more proactive in defending indigenous peoples’ rights than the UK which, although “welcoming”
the UNDRIP (2007), took the occasion to confirm its views that the rights of indigenous peoples to
self-determination are
sui generis
and do not apply to any of the minorities within the UK (United
Kingdom, 2007: 20-22). Despite an attempt to depict the Highland crofters as an “indigenous people”