I can’t really see how there can be another referendum
on anything in the UK. What would be the point? But the problem with holding
referendums has been demonstrated lately not merely by losers trying to block
the result in Parliament and through the courts, but perhaps more importantly
by it becoming ever clearer that the nature of the question asked dramatically
changes the answer given.
If Scots are asked “Should Scotland be an independent
country?” we get one result. If they are asked should Scotland remain in the UK
or leave the UK, we get another. It’s quite clear that campaigning for Yes
gives independence supporters an advantage. It is for this reason that the
Electoral Commission did not allow a Yes/No question for the referendum on
Brexit. The precedent is clear. But why should asking what on the surface are
similar questions result in widely differing results? After all the result
would be the same if Scotland left the UK as if we became an independent
country.
There is however confusion in the minds of many
independence supporters. When they are asked “Should Scotland be an independent
country?” many of them think we already are. The use of “be” in the question
rather than “become” plays on this.
When I point out to independence supporters that
Scotland is to the UK as Saxony is to Germany I am met with incomprehension and
frequently fury. I sometimes wonder if this is because independence supporters
are unaware that Saxony was independent as recently as 1866. Are they equally
unaware that nearly all European nation states are made up of parts which
formerly were independent as indeed were the various parts of Scotland?
Historically Scotland’s position as part of the UK is no different to
Burgundy’s being a part of France, so why should pointing out something that is
self-evidently true lead to such fury?
The difference is that people living in places that
used to be independent in Italy, Germany or France do not generally think of
themselves as living in a different country from their fellow citizens. It is
correct to call Scotland a country, but it is anomalous. How many
non-independent countries can you name?
Scotland has many of the things that typically go
along with being an independent nation state. We have our own bank notes.
France doesn’t. We frequently play international sport. We think that people from England live in a
different country to us and that there is a border between us. No wonder many
Scots answer the question “Should Scotland be an independent country?” by
replying, of course, because we already are.
For the past centuries Scotland has maintained an
independent identity, but many Scots also have been happy for us to be a part
of the UK. What they want therefore is for Scotland to be both independent and
to remain part of the UK. This is why
when I point out to a Scottish nationalist that Scotland isn’t really
independent, but is rather similar to Saxony, I am met with fury. Yet
perversely this same person wants Scotland to become independent. You cannot
logically become what you already are.
But none of us is entirely rational. We do live in a different country to others
in the UK, but neither England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland are sovereign
nation states, though they are frequently called nations. The UK like Germany,
France and nearly all the other countries in the world is part of the UN, it is
a member of NATO and a contributor to the IMF. Scotland isn’t. The UK has diplomatic
relations with other countries, Scotland doesn’t. The UK is a country in every
language of the world except that spoken by some Scots. Most languages and most
countries use a different word for their non-independent parts. But we don’t.
There is an ambiguity about Scotland that has allowed
us in some ways to think of ourselves as separate even independent, but in
other ways to think of ourselves as part of a whole. This is why different
questions get different answers.
A similar ambiguity applies to the EU. Can member
states both be in the EU and maintain their independence? The issue here is
what will happen to the EU as “ever closer union” reaches its τέλος [telos, or
goal]. Will the EU become a sovereign nation state like the USA or indeed the
UK. Will the parts of the EU while still being called countries really become
the equivalent of Saxony or dare, I say Scotland? Some EU supporters try to
argue that a United States of Europe could never happen. But it already has
many of the characteristics of an independent country. It has its own currency.
Its own president. Soon it will have its own army. The EU now is much more
united than the United States was in 1859, and arguably more united than the
Second Reich was between 1871 and 1918.
Scottish nationalists who want to remain in the EU
obviously think that independence is compatible with EU membership, why then do
they think that it is incompatible with UK membership? EU law would supersede
the laws of an independent Scotland and what an independent Scottish Parliament
wanted would depend in part on the agreement of the EU. But if you are happy
with that, why are you not happy with a similar arrangement with the UK?
If the EU were modelled on the USA, I would have been
happy to remain a member state. I think the USA has the advantage of a common
language and identity, but perhaps the EU could develop these over time. It’s
the lack of genuine democracy in the EU that makes leaving essential.
But in what respect does Scotland’s membership of the
UK lack democracy? We vote for MPs who have just the same power as every other
MP. Not only that we vote for MSPs who have the power to control huge areas of
Scottish life. We cannot of course veto what the majority in the UK want, but
we would have to go along with the majority in most cases as part of the EU. In
any democracy including an independent Scotland the parts may be outvoted by
the whole, but this is not a fault in democracy, it is rather the main feature
of any democracy. But anyway, why should Scots be happy to accept the majority
view in EU wide elections, but unhappy to do so in UK wide elections? This
makes no sense as we have far more in common with other people in the UK than
we do with almost anyone in the EU.
Independence supporters had the advantage of
campaigning for Yes, but they also had the advantage of campaigning for
something that most of us think of in a positive way. When a child leaves
school and goes to university he becomes an adult. He gains his independence.
The same is the case when someone gets his first job or goes on holiday without
his parents for the first time. Independence in all our lives is a positive
concept. It is dreadful when an older person loses his independence.
There is therefore an intrinsic bias in asking people
if they want independence. But let’s look further at the case of someone going
to university. That person wants independence, but does he also want to lose
his family? If independence meant destroying his family would he take it, or
rather would he do everything to protect and defend his family.
If Scotland left the UK, the UK would cease to exist.
It could hardly be called united when it was in fact disunited. But does one
member of a family have the right to destroy the whole, without that whole also
having a say. We each as individuals want to be able to live independent lives,
but we take into account the wishes of our family.
I believe that many Scots want us to be both
independent and part of the UK. We need therefore to clearly define what is
compatible with this and what is not. Only in this way would it be possible to
ask a fair question and perhaps come up with a solution that satisfies those
Scots who voted Yes and those who voted No.
It is necessary to recognise the sovereignty of each part
of the UK and indeed each part of Scotland. Each voter is sovereign. But we all
share this sovereignty. As individuals
we should be as independent as possible but recognise that there are limits to
our independence. A family depends on a husband and a wife promising to be
faithful. They have a responsibility to look after their children. The children
have duty to their family even when they become independent adults and create
their own family.
The UK needs stability. No family can survive constant
threats that the husband or wife will depart. We don’t need anybody else’s
model or constitution. But we do need to find a way to reflect the reality of
what living here means.
Scottish international rugby players may belt out
flower of Scotland and are clearly willing to fight for Scotland, but many if
not most voted for Scotland to remain a part of the UK. Andy Murray plays his heart out for Britain
but voted to leave. Each of these people have a mixture of feelings about
Scotland and the UK. They both want Scotland to be independent and part of the
UK. We want to remain part of the family while being able to metaphorically go
to university and get a job. We want to be grown up.
Somehow Pro UK Scots and independence supporters need
to work together. If we satisfy only one half of our country in a winner takes
all battle, we will always be divided. The referendum of 2014 did not bring
unity, just more division. It would be no different if there were to be a
second referendum. Whatever the result, the loser would try to annul it. Better
by far if we could find what would satisfy some of the wishes of both sides. Better
for both sides to gain something than to lose everything. Don’t we want somehow
to be both independent and a part of the UK? Like the Trinity this is not
easily comprehensible. One God in three persons or in our case four. It may
even involve a contradiction, but unity in diversity is the only way to bring
harmony back to Scotland.
