It is often assumed that calls for a second Scottish referendum are due to the fact that Scotland voted to remain in the EU but the UK is nonetheless pursuing a Brexit. Sean Swan argues that EU membership itself is not the issue. It is instead the UK government’s reaction to Scottish opposition and its treatment of Scottish democratic will since the Brexit vote that justify those calls.
It has been pointed out that not everybody in Scotland who voted ‘Yes’ to independence in 2014 voted Remain in 2016. Presumably, the point being made is that support for remaining in the EU is not, of itself, sufficient to deliver a ‘Yes’ vote in a future indyref. This is unsurprising. EU membership and Scottish independence are two distinct issues: there is nothing nationalist or unionist per se about voting either Remain or Leave. A Remain vote based on the desire to keep the UK in the EU is indistinguishable from a Remain vote cast with the intention of keeping Scotland in the EU. The issue is further muddled by the fact that both the SNP and the Conservative and Unionist party in Scotland both campaigned for a Remain vote.
The reason Brexit justifies calling a referendum on Scottish independence lies not in the fact that the Brexit referendum produced different results in England and in Scotland, but in the London government’s reaction to this fact. Scotland’s government, virtually all its MPs, and a clear majority of its people, are opposed to leaving the EU. That fact, as far as London is concerned, is irrelevant. It is there that the democratic outrage lies. It would still be a democratic outrage regardless of what the particular issue was. The point is the negation of Scotland’s democratic will, not the EU question as such.
The Prime Minister has given repeated assurances that the Irish border post-Brexit will be a ‘soft’ one. This will be difficult to achieve and Mrs May has yet to give an account of how this can be done. In fact, during the referendum campaign itself, Mrs May claimed that it would be “inconceivable” that there would be no hard border between north and south in Ireland in the event of Brexit. She is clearly not naïve in relation to the difficulties Brexit poses in this regard. Yet despite this, assurances have been given by her government that there will be no hard border after Brexit.
In contrast, no practical recognition of Scottish opposition to being dragged out of the EU on England’s coattails has been given. Theresa May could have stated that she recognised the Scottish position and would strive to respect it by seeking to make continued Scottish membership of the EU – or, at least, of the Single Market – a negotiating aim in the Brexit negotiations. Such a course appears not even to have been considered. Scotland’s own democratically expressed position on its membership of the EU is apparently irrelevant to London.
This is exactly what Scots mean when they complain that the UK is not a union of equals:
Brexit has shown us exactly where Scotland stands within the UK. It has shown us that Scotland doesn’t stand at all. It lies prostrate and face down, crushed by the boot of right-wing English nationalism. There can no longer be any doubt about where Scotland is in relation to the rest of the UK; the contempt and arrogance of a Tory Government and its hard-as-nails Brexit has shone a harsh light on the realities of the so-called United Kingdom. It’s just a veneer for a state in which Scotland counts for as much as an English local authority. The UK is not a partnership. It is not a joint project in which the four nations co-operate and collaborate – Scotland is subsumed by English political priorities, and a dying Labour Party will do nothing to help.
Wee Ginger Dug, The National, 20 January 2017
A recent opinion poll conducted for The Telegraph showed that a clear majority of British voters, 59 percent, are opposed to Scotland leaving the UK. However, 60 percent consider Brexit, a primarily English obsession, more important than the Union. A majority consider the break-up of the UK an acceptable price to pay for Brexit. What are we to make of these figures? There is, apparently, a majority in favour of the union, but not at any price; in fact, they want the Union on the cheap.
It is hard to avoid the conclusion that at least some of the support for the Union is based on a sense of ‘ownership’ of Scotland, rather than any sense of ‘national’ solidarity. Brexit is clearly English nationalism in disguise, and it will not let the Union stand between it and its object of desire if a choice must be made.
If Mrs May wants to head off Scottish nationalism, she needs to take cognisance of Scottish opposition to being dragged out of the Single Market. In short, she needs to take Scottish democracy seriously. What makes this unlikely is that to do so, she would have to risk running foul of English nationalism. Given that Scotland returns exactly one Conservative MP, and England hundreds, this is not likely to happen.
Gordon Brown, Tom Nairn’s ‘bard of Britishness’, has been preaching federalism in Scotland. He may be right, but he is not in power. Nor should it be imagined that federalism can be brought in without a revolution. It would mean rewriting the entire British constitution. Even then, it would need a referendum to legitimise it. And what would happen if Scotland – or Northern Ireland – voted ‘No’?
Enoch Powell once famously observed that there is no European demos. He may have been right, at least with relation to England. (And Powell, for all his imperial yearnings and Ulster Unionism, was fundamentally an English nationalist). We may now have reached the point where there is no longer a functioning British demos – a situation which has as much to do with English as with Scottish nationalism. If such is the case, separation is a matter of ‘when’ not ‘if’.
The economic arguments relating to Scottish independence have been rehearsed. They are largely marginal. The main relationship between the price of oil and support for independence in the last three years is that as oil prices have dropped, support for independence has risen. It is the old ‘too wee, too poor, too stupid’ argument retold. The time may soon come when Scottish voters take these arguments as seriously as English voters did in the Brexit debate. They may conclude that the assumption that Scotland cannot be independent, something that Ireland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and many other small European countries – inside and outside the EU – find boringly normal, is just a bit silly. Change may now come suddenly and fast. The wind of change is blowing through these islands.
Sean Swan is a Lecturer in the Department of Political Science at Gonzaga University.
Image credit: Public_Domain_Photography, Pixabay.
The key point is that in the Brexit move by PM May the democratic choice of Scotland wanting to remain in the EU were completely ignored. This may turn out to be a fundamental mistake which the romantic English nationalists or Brexiteers, may well come to regret. In any event there is much to be concerned about because even the contents of PM May letter for triggering Article 50 are imbued with an adolescent romanticism that has surprised me, even without being an expert in politics.
My point of contention with Brexit is that the ill-informed referendum missed out completely on the vision of the EU. Granted there are many shortcomings in the way the EU has dealt with issues such as immigration and austerity. But to abandon all for a romantic view of past English glories is a big mistake and an historic humiliation that will be recorded in history books. The pragmatism and efficient government of the UK should have been the big motivator to get the EU Commission to move along similar lines. This role is now empty and has to be covered by some other country, possibly France or Germany once their political elections are out of the equation. As the wise Hazeltine put it: Westminster surrendered the peace of Europe to Germany.
Brexit is tragic not only for the economic impact in the future but for its moral damage that has done to the UK, or Westminster. The UK Union has never been at risk as much as it is now. And yet Westminster ignored those cries. Churchill must be turning in his grave. I hope sage statemen, and there are many in Westminster, come out and articulate their voice powerfully. Immigration from Europe is a temporary “evil” that disappears once the Eastern European economies start to grow and become more equal to the Western economies. That is why the EU budget supports more those countries as beneficiaries. I think this is very laudable and part of a strategic plan that cements peace across Eastern and Western Europe and projects it towards a global superpower.
What I find incredible is that so many talk about Europe as though it was the answer to all our economic problems, I have yet to hear anyone truthfully state what all these advantages are for staying in. I’ll start by saying there are none.
Europe from a socialist perspective is an idyllic solution, but Europe in fact is a Neo-Liberal capitalist establishment which is precisely the same as here in Britain, dedicated to transferring wealth and power into the hands of the few.
It does appear to me that so many have convinced themselves that the risks to coming out are greater than staying in, while forgetting what Europe actually did to Greece, and blamed the crash on the southern states that had absolutely nothing to do with it. Greece is 3% of the European economy, all the other southern states were complying to the economic constrictions of keeping their public expenditure within the 3% of GDP guidelines, but , still had their economies destroyed by Neo-Liberal politicians who made them pay for the crisis created by German Banks. The German Banks created the disaster in Europe, and far from being financially prudent own the highest levels of debt in Europe, Deutsche Bank is again on the verge of Bankruptcy and the EU changed the rules in order to give the Banks Quantitative Easing which they deny to Greece.
What that little story tells us is that whilst innocent people living in Europe had nothing or very little to do with the crisis created by capitalism, they like us were made to pay for it whilst those same capitalists used the crisis to asset strip their states. That process is continuing here as we speak, and whilst most are engrossed in the minutia banded about as proposals, corrupt politicians on this side of the channel are using the smoke screen of debate to continue dismantling our NHS and in Germany to privatise their motorways.
The problems in Europe are exactly the same as here, what we can do here but can’t influence in Europe is that we can cut the cancer out of our society and rid ourselves of corrupt Neo-Liberal politicians.
It is the politicians that are driving the collapse in the economy and transferring public assets into the hands of the very people who created our crisis. That is what we need to focus on, and the direction of travel can not be better illustrated than the collusion between by these politicians and Multinational Corporations in setting up TTIP, and now CETA. Those pieces of unnecessary legislation would have handed total power over to large corporations and at a stroke ended democracy itself.
Poverty is a political policy that serves the interests of the few, and it really is time for academia in the world to recognise the threat to our very existence that this poses.
It really is time to start taking back our democracy, but not the way these corrupt politicians want lead us, that means recognising what a sustainable economy will look like, it means using money creation to benefit people not just to protect the financial assets of a corrupt elite.
People are the real economy, not the City of London and it really is time people understood that.
The SNP was voted in by the Scots, not the english. THEY will decide how to react to england’s choice to BREXIT. The scots voted to remain.Overwhelmingly. hose commenters here who disparage this fact are not being honest. Scotland has been bullied and taken advantage of by the south for over three hundred years. Its time to end this garbage and let the english know their hatred and contempt for the scots is no longer going to allow them to rule us.
Scottish people are no more ‘bullied’ by ‘the South’ than are people in Stoke, Sunderland or Southampton. Few English people hate or feel contempt for Scottish people, and vice versa. Why exaggerate this? Yes SNP were voted in to the Scottish Parliament, with its limited powers and jurisdiction. Scottish people also voted to remain within the UK nation state. This is how our democracy works. If it is to change, I hope it is not in response to divisive and largely baseless assertions about ‘the English’ , or as a proxy to opposition to Brexit. It is too important for that.
Good article with many pertinent points being made. We Scots would rather be seen as good neighbours with England, as opposed to being treated as a region of North Britain by successive Westminster Governments.
What I read into the independence vote of Scotland is that there was a sea change of attitudes developing, that Scots were beginning to see a future without English Conservative rule. Something they had long past relegated out of Scottish life, only to have it imposed by the rest of the UK.
Then Brown came along with his promise that the Tories would keep their promise on the Barnett formula, which after the referendum and true to form duly reneged on, left Scots to take their vengeance out on Labour at the following election.
As far as the EU is concerned and Brexit I rather suspect that Scots followed the SNP line of staying in Europe more in solidarity than actual belief. The whole Brexit issue is really just a farce, brought about by conservative politicians through expediency rather than any radical challenge of reform. Indeed I would challenge anyone to clarify what Cameron actually negotiated of any substance. Fundamentally it was just an exercise in hiding the divisions over Europe within the conservative party.
The Scots, if the truth be known, are probably just as divided over Europe as anyone else in the UK and only when people start to look for themselves will they see just how sterile this whole debate has become.
Europe offers nothing different to the policies we are suffering from here, for the very same reasons, Neo-Liberal governments. So whether we or the Scots are inside the EU or out of it we still have to get rid of Neo-Liberal politicians in order to reclaim our democracy.
If Scotland does eventually leave the United Kingdom, it would need to have it’s own independent currency, otherwise it would be tying itself unnecessarily to the very restrictions we see in the Euro. For the life of me I can’t understand why an independent Scottish government would hand power back to the very people it had released itself from. It is just totally illogical and would put Scotland in a much worse position than it is now.
I find it rather strange that London which has a greater population than Scotland also voted remain, but they are not demanding to have a veto, they are not demanding a referendum, and they are claimed to be English. Why was it that Scots living in England were denied the opportunity to vote on independence for Scotland? The whole EU result is a red herring, has Scotland voted leave in 2014 it would not be a member of the EU now and would be looking for bailouts from the IMF because the SNP had budgeted on getting monies form the eu to prop up the Scottish economy.
Not this tired old claptrap again. The line was drawn around Scotland. Those resident inside the line were allowed to vote. Those outside of it were not. This is civic nationalism. If you start allowing people to vote based on ethnic identity, this crosses the line from civic nationalism to ethnic nationalism, which is but one step away from racism, if that.
And your point about London is also complete claptrap. Let me explain, for the hard of thinking: London is a city. Scotland is a country. The UK is not a unitary state, and it never has been. Scotland and England are two countries in political union. Which is why Theresa May’s determination to ignore the Scottish result is a measure of her own ignorance and stupidity, rather than the mark of a strong prime minister.
As for the Scottish economy, it is in fine form, much like other countries of Scotland’s size. To claim Scotland is too poor is plain ignorant.
You’d have to ask Westminster why Scotland was not given the power to push a referendum beyond its borders.
Also, London seems to be looking at a quiet financial services passport but regardless, London is not a country.
Us scot’s have had our once in a generation/lifetime vote. The country voted NO in 2014. What part of that result do you fail to understand? Scotland’s democratic Will as you put it, was sorted in 2014.
The vote on brexit was a uk vote in 2016, which scotland voted to be an equal partner of.
We cannot keep having referendums because some people do not like the outcome.
I voted for the uk in 2014, but i also voted remain in 2016, i can accept the outcome.
Also the majority of scots do not want a 2nd referendum for the uk. We are part of it and the majority want it.
Why cant the likes of the snp just do what the scottish people want, and get back to the day job as the country needs its schools/hospitals etc sorted instead of petty squabling.
Alright then. Feel free to never vote in any election again. You had your chance last election, your democratic will! And the SNP have the majority of votes… thus are doing what the people want.. will of the people and all that! If the Tories could trigger an EU referendum with a mandate of 35%, then the SNP+Greens can damn well do the same with a mandate of 52ish%.
You also seem to not understand what an independence referendum is about. It’s about seeing whether Scotland wants to remain part of the UK or not. Scotland IS a country, as is wales, N Ireland and England. But as it stands only England has a say in anything as their MPs in Westminster completely utterly outnumber the devolved parliament MPs combined. And does it not concern you that the Supreme court basically said that our Scottish Parliament is a political entity and not a legal one? If Westminster wanted to, they could dissolve the Scottish Parliament at a snap of a finger. Heck the only reason we have one IS because of the EU.
Also in case you haven’t noticed, Scotland has the best NHS and Police in the UK… thanks to the *shock horror* SNP. The only squabbling is from the unionist parties who believe they should speak for the people rather than the people by denying a 2nd indyref.
The democratic outrage boot is on the other foot, and only a Scotocentric view of the world would fail to see it. Given that Cameron and the Civil service failed to make any plans at all for an ‘Out’ vote, the best part of 3 years is still precious little in which to establish exit policies, negotiate with the clumsy EU machine, reach agreements on a very wide range of issues, international bodies, etc, and have those agreements passed by the relevant bodies. It’s going to be very hard for the UK to achieve this.
Meantime, blethering from the North about independence- carrying in its train another complex set of constitutional changes, repositioning of various departments of government, etc is pie in the sky- there simply is no governmental capacity for the negotiations and legal changes that would be involved.
Yes, Scotland has demonstrated that it thinks differently from the UK, especially England, and imho, that justifies an eventual indyref2. It does not justify doing anything which interferes with the UK’s vote for Brexit.
So I suggest that the enthusiasts for Scottish independence start working out their proposals for the difficult, adult questions- what do you propose to use as a currency? What programs are you going to cut when the money is tight? How do you propose to regulate your very large financial sector? -for the next 2 or 3 years. When Brexit has happened, by all means let’s have indyref2, and if Scotland votes for independence as I hope it will, then Scotland can choose to apply to rejoin the EU, if it’s still there in its current form. Meantime, don’t get in the way of the actions needed to carry out Brexit- that would be the democratic outrage
This article is a well thought out and true perspective of the people of scotland’s position in this Kingdom. It is precisely the democratic deficit of one half of the Union that is the issue. Nothing else. Brexit only serves to highlight this. It is not identity that this is about but governance. Who is best placed to represent the people. Answer : those that live closest and share their goals and aspirations.
To me the “time factor” is important in gaining a perspective on these matters so let me try using a bus journey analogy.
In 1707 scotland and england got on the bus together. Created an empire and fought and died together. Fair enough we recognise we have a lot of shared history and a lot in common.
In 2014 scotland voted to stay on the bus and remain in the UK. In part because we wanted to be in the EU and also because of the now infamous “Vow”. Not only did we not get anything except roadsigns we find that the scottish parliament is not permanent and can be overridden by wastemonster whenever it likes. This is not what we voted for imho.
45% voting for independence should have told wastemonster that we are not happy. Deaf ears comes to mind.
2016 the english and welsh decided to get off the bus. Scotland and NI did not. We do not want to get off the bus.
We then prepared a detailed paper of options which would have meant that we would have got off the bus willingly. Wastemonster has ignored these. Deaf ears again. This is unacceptable in a democracy.
A new referendum is the only solution.
Do the people want to be independent or be subject to wastemonsters continued rule?
Now I also hear people saying we cannot have indy until after brexit because it will upset the negotiations. I agreee it will upset the english negotiations. If WM wanted to have a UK position then they need to take accou t of the devolved administrations wishes not ignore them completely.
And so brexit and indyref are inexorably combined to take place in a suitable timeframe where the people who live in scotland can decide based on the facts (though these will be muddied by the MSM). Now even if we choose indy and stay in the EU in one form or another that does not preclude the scottish parliament and english parliaments coming to a more equitable agreement on any matter they feel they should. However it will at that point be an agreement between equals. We will both be happy.
Kiss goodbye to the Union, for all the above reasons.
Repetition of the same error of the original article. There were not four ‘bodies on the bus’, t was only one- the UK. The UK is getting off the bus. Live with it. What a ‘detailed list of options’ is supposed to refer to, I have no idea. If you’re suggesting that the UK should negotiate Brexit with 27 countries, trying to achieve a sensible outcome, while simultaneously pinned by a list of demands from Remainers, well, laugh my socks off. That’s a recipe for a complete and utter fiasco. Which, possibly, is what the SNP seem to want.
If the majority of housemates in a shared house want to play rap and your taste is for metal, live with it. Or leave, but don’t stick around and wreck the sound system on party night.
Very incisive article , as a Scot what annoys me is the fact that Scotland and the Scottish people are NOT DICTATING that England and Wales cannot honour their voters wishes to exit the EU , but that the wastemonster tories who only have 1 MP in Scotland, are DICTATING that Scotland and the Scottish people must subserviently acceed to their demands to exit the EU irrespective of their citizens stated wishes . That is not how democracy works
We are constantly told that Scotland and the Scots are too wee, too poor and too stupid to run our own COUNTRY , what strikes me is the panic and terror palpably coming from wastemonster unionists , if their assertions are indeed true surely they have everything to gain with separation from this basket case.
If any fool believes that wastemonster is desperate to hold on to Scotland for altruistic reasons I have a very nice bridge for sale that I can let you have for cheap
Your confusion about ‘how democracy works’ rests on ‘their citizens’ in your first para. The UK is currently a member of the EU, and the UK electorate has decided to leave. Scots decided fairly recently to remain as part of the UK, so they are citizens of the UK, not Scotland. So your reference to ‘their citizens stated wishes’ makes no sense. UK citizens stated wishes are to Leave, and currently there is no such thing as a citizen of Scotland.
When, as a matter of legislative and governmental practicality, there is time to do so, which is not in the next two,years, Scotland should clearly be offered another referendum because of the electoral divide shown bynthe Brexit vote. Until then, live with the pros and cons of being part of the UK.
English nationalism was not a significant feature in the Brexit campaign. Scottish people voted recently to remain part of the UK. Opinion polls do not indicate support for Indyref2. The U.K. voted, democratically, for Brexit. Most English people want Scotland to remain part of the UK. Most Scottish people, according to most polls, want to remain part of the UK. These are the facts. They have been ignored here in a narrative that makes England sound like some sort of colonial dictator and Brexit voters (bear in mind that includes 38% of the vote in Scotland) as backing that to the hilt. I’ m half Scottish myself and I find the determination to view Scottish people as so different from English as reprehensible, inaccurate and premised upon an inability to accept the Brexit vote and argue from there in good faith.
@Jim Butcher
“English nationalism was not a significant feature in the Brexit campaign”.
The form English nationalism takes is Euroscepticism. English nationalism usually calls itself ‘British’ or ‘UK’. Look at the Conservatives (English, surely – how many seats have they in Scotland or NI?) or consider the more extreme forms of Euroscepticism like UKIP or the BNP and where they won seats.
“Scottish people voted recently to remain part of the UK”.
Yes, partially on the premise that doing otherwise would lead to them finding themselves outside of the EU. They also subsequently elected a Nationalist government and returned 56 (out of 59) nationalist MPS.
“Opinion polls do not indicate support for Indyref2. The U.K. voted, democratically, for Brexit. Most English people want Scotland to remain part of the UK. Most Scottish people, according to most polls, want to remain part of the UK. These are the facts”.
What the opinion poll in The Telegraph (which was either UK, or possibly, GB, wide – and thus 88% England by population) showed was that if it came to a choice between the Union or Brexit, a majority would choose Brexit. So support for Scotland remaining part of the UK is highly conditional. And if we are speaking of democracy and referenda, what’s wrong with a second Indyref given the material change in circumstances (Brexit)?
“They have been ignored here in a narrative that makes England sound like some sort of colonial dictator and Brexit voters (bear in mind that includes 38% of the vote in Scotland) as backing that to the hilt. I’ m half Scottish myself and I find the determination to view Scottish people as so different from English as reprehensible, inaccurate and premised upon an inability to accept the Brexit vote and argue from there in good faith”.
What referenda (and FPTP elections?) do is create the fiction of a single national personality “the UK voted for Brexit”, a) Well, 52% of it did. But we speak of it as if there is only one UK view on that – which is fine by the referendum logic of “majority=everybody”; b) the Brexit vote revealed a sharp difference between England and Scotland on this question, a majority Leave in England and a majority Remain in Scotland. If the “majority=everybody” logic is applied, there ARE sharp differences between England and Scotland. What I’m arguing is the logic of Brexit as it is being handled, not opposition to it. Had the UK government at least made attempting to keep some kind of relationship between Scotland a stated aim in the coming negotiations on Brexit, my case would not hold – but they haven’t (Yes, I know it would be difficult, but so is the Irish border, and the Gov has said that WILL be a priority)
“Opinion polls do not indicate support for Indyref2”
Wrong. Polling suggests the opposite. Some recent polling has been UK wide, and therefore largely irrelevant.
This is not to confuse polling with what way people will vote, where the polling has consistently remained more or less the same as in 2014 – and therefore undiminished.
The simple fact is, many feel that promises made during the last referendum, as well as events that have occurred since, with EVEL, The Smith Commission, etc, right up to Brexit, mean that some voters feel conned.
The number of people wanting a second vote on Independence is greater than it was at the start of the last campaign. You see some polls say that a majority don’t want independence and incorrectly think that means the majority don’t want a referendum.
As for making England sound like some sort of colonial dictator, that isn’t quite right. The UK Government is acting like a colonial dictator.
The essential difference between English people and Scottish people is that Scots are less subject to a hysterical London-centric press and therefore not as propaganda drenched – and being someone who has lived in both countries, I can attest to the difference.
English nationalism was a feature of the Brexit campaign. Of course it was. It was also a feature of the last general election where the Tories used the fear of an SNP/Labour alliance (strong Scottish voice) to stoke up and English nationalist vote.
The whole anti immigrant voice in Brexit is based on there being too many immigrants (foreigners). That is English nationalism. The rise of UKIP was based on anti immigration.
Most of the latest polls have shown a swing in support for independence recently. They are now around 50%. That is around 50% before we have even started campaigning. They started at around 27% last referendum and got up to 45%.
The problem you have is that there is a pro independence majority at Holyrood. They are going to vote democratically for another referendum and with support for a yes vote at around 50% of course there is strong support for another referendum.
The problem you have now is there are around 180,000 EU citizens who will not be scared into voting no this time as they now know the NO side has taken us out of the EU. Also, there will be no knew last minute vow promising federalism or devo max (a breach of purdah rules) that anyone will believe and there are loads of broken promises that everyone still remembers. EVEL and the ‘poisoned chalice’ powers over tax offered as well as the shameful way the cross party recommendations for the Scotland Act were treated by the English unionist members at Westminster will be brought up. That and the fact GERS and the supposed 15 billion deficit is being attacked by Prof Richard Murphy, Deloitte and The Fraser of Allander Institute none of which have any connection to Scottish nationalism or the SNP.
You must accept the reality that this is going to happen now. The SNP warned of this from way back in 2014. It is not as if they did not continually say this would happen in these circumstances. They said this way before Brexit even looked likely. You cannot whinge and complain that the democratically elected parties of Scotland the SNP and the Greens are going to back this. That is democracy. Being told we have no voice by May isn’t. You don’t care and try and suggest that democracy should stand still after each referendum. That is not democracy. Democracy should never stand still. Expecting a vote arrived at under completely different circumstances to stand for as long as you (as PM) decides is not democracy but totalitarianism. It is treating Scotland’s democratic system with utter contempt and very akin to a colonial (non democratic) relationship.
Well said sir !
It has always been so. Only now that people are paying attention are they beginning to notice.
One of the clearest expositions of the current situation that I’ve so far seen.
“Brexit has shown us exactly where Scotland stands within the UK. It has shown us that Scotland doesn’t stand at all. It lies prostrate and face down, crushed by the boot of right-wing English nationalism.”
Splendid rhetoric that, deserving to be quoted once again. Just the word “jack” is needed before “boot” to make it perfect. Next time I visit Scotland I hope I won’t find it crushed by a BNP boot.
As I understand it, the SNP does not regard the Brexit referendum as democratic, because it didn’t give Scottish residents a veto. Would they also regard any Scottish independence referendum as undemocratic if it doesn’t give the individual areas of Scotland (for example the Orkneys or the Scottish Borders) a veto? Or are the Borders in danger of being crushed by Nicola Sturgeon’s boot (strange idea) and dragged out of the UK against their will?
Sturgeon has repeatedly stated she has no wish to challenge England’s decision to leave the EU, so she does regard the EU referendum as democratic. However, she is entitled to act on Scotland’s decision to Remain, and she leads the Scottish government, that was elected on that very mandate – to call an independence referendum in the event Scotland is dragged out of the EU, against our will.
It was a majority decision in every of 32 local authority areas, so the Islands clearly value their EU citizenship. At some point, they will have to choose which Union they value more, UK or EU.
There is no consideration given of our majority view, so the term boot is appropriate. We are the other Kingdom in this Union, but it’s clear, we have no say, or input.
Leaving the EU is the impetus for, and exactly the right time to begin the process of, revisiting the Union between Scotland and England, as well as the distribution of power throughout the UK and Northern Ireland. There are also disparate communities within each of the constituent states who feel that their legitimate cultural and moral positions are continually bulldozed by a dictatorship of the majority. The challenge for a modern state – a challenge that has been dodged throughout the widening of the franchise from the Norman conquest onwards – is how to devise, administer and sustain a form of government that adequately serves the whole of the population within its territory, when that population does not hold to a single set of norms and aspirations. This aspect of national interest has consistently been repressed in order to concentrate on the simpler (but far from simple) objective of economic prosperity.
I think you overemphasise the community differences and ignore the individual differences. While the average Scot and the average Englishman/ woman may differ slightly, the range of ‘cultural and moral positions’ (legitimate or otherwise) within either Scotland or England is far wider than the small regional differences. The general trend, I’d suggest, over a long period is towards a more pluralistic, tolerant society with more individual choices. The trend towards bigger and bigger government, of course, results in the effect you refer to: with government responsible (on a long-term view) for more and more, individual, let alone community choices on the ever-widening government sphere of activity cannot be made.
I’d also position the widening of the franchise a bit more recently than the Norman conquest. I don’t think the robber barons did a lot for democracy for a number of centuries after that point.
I agree 100% with all that’s said in this post. I wish all my fellow scots could read these truths and not the nonesense in all the msm Tory owned/ influenced news . If they did we’d be free already!
You nailed it in one word “cheap”. This is the fundamental issue the English operate in a way seeking everything on the cheap. Cheap it all its connotations. English nationalism is now being called out by Brexit and to be found seriously wanting.