There are two views of democracy in Scotland. The
first view is held universally by SNP supporters and many politicians and
journalists who officially don’t support independence. This is the view that
Scotland always has the right to leave the United Kingdom and that if the SNP
and other independence supporting parties ever gain a parliamentary majority
then Scotland should have the right to a referendum on this issue whenever it
wishes. This argument is frequently framed, I believe wrongly, in terms of
self-determination. The second view is that nation states have the right to
defend their territorial integrity and that a part of a nation state does not
have the automatic right to leave even if a majority wish to do so.
The argument that parts of a nation state cannot
simply vote to leave is supported by precedent the world over both historical
and political. There are very few places in the world that have granted a part
a legal right to secede by means of a referendum. Canada is one when it granted
two referendums to Quebec. The UK is another when it granted Scotland a
referendum in 2014. There are very few other examples.
The territorial integrity argument has been undermined
in the UK not merely by Scotland being given a referendum in 2014, but also by
the Belfast Agreement which gave Northern Ireland the right to secede from the
UK if a majority both in Northern Ireland and Ireland voted for it.
If you can give one referendum on the basis of an SNP
majority at Holyrood why can you not give a second? Moreover, if people in
Northern Ireland have the right to leave the UK when they wish, why shouldn’t
Scots, Welsh or Cornish people have the same right?
But there is a problem with this argument. If Northern
Ireland united with Ireland would it have the right later to secede from
Ireland? Would Munster or Connaught have the same right? The IRA demanded Irish
unity on the basis that while it was legitimate for Ireland to secede from the
UK, it was illegitimate for Northern Ireland to secede from Ireland. But
Northern Ireland was never part of the territory of an independent nation state
now called Ireland. It was never therefore Irish territory. It just shared the
same island also called Ireland. But sharing an island doesn’t mean you share
territory. Lots of islands in the world are partitioned including Hispaniola
and Borneo. Conflating the name of an island with the name of your country does not make
the territory yours.
The IRA view was that when the whole people of Ireland
achieved independence from the UK, that whole should have made Northern Ireland
come too. But this is a territorial integrity argument. The will of the whole
Irish people trumps the will of that part that wished to remain with Britain.
Ireland had the right to remain intact even if a part didn’t want to leave the
UK. But if that argument applies to Ireland, why doesn’t it apply to British
territorial integrity, not merely about Northern Ireland, but also about
Ireland’s right to leave the UK in the first place?
The same argument applies to Scotland. The SNP would
be horrified if Scottish independence led to the partition of Scotland. But somehow,
it’s quite alright to partition Britain. Scottish nationalists would object if
parts of Scotland opted to remain in the former UK. So, the SNP argument amounts
to Scotland can secede from the UK, but the Borders must remain in Scotland
even if it did not vote for independence. Having achieved independence, the SNP would
use the territorial integrity argument to prevent any part of Scotland voting
for independence. This means that both the IRA and the SNP are using both
territorial integrity arguments and secession arguments.
But if the territorial integrity argument is
legitimate then the United Kingdom clearly ought to have the right to prevent
both Scotland and Northern Ireland from seceding. The argument against this is
to suppose that the United Kingdom is in some strange way not a country and
lacks the right to territorial integrity that an independent Scotland and a
united Ireland would have. But why?
Historically the process by which Great Britain was
formed from England (and Wales) and Scotland uniting first into a kingdom
(1603) and then politically (1707) is remarkably similar to the way in which
for instance various kingdoms in Spain became united. The political union that
formed Great Britain is no different from the political unions that formed
Italy, Germany or France.
But Italy would not grant a secession referendum to
German speakers in South Tyrol who had been united with Austria for centuries
until it was given to Italy as a prize for fighting on the Allied side in World
War One. Nobody in the EU supposes that these people have the right to
self-determination, nor to reunite with their fellow Austrians. Perhaps if they
had bombed Italy for thirty years, there would now be a Bolzano Agreement
giving both Austrian citizens and South Tyrol citizens the right to unite if
they wished it, but would Austria really wish to gain territory as a result of
terrorism and would Italy give up its right to maintain its territorial
integrity because of terrorists? After all Spain defended its territorial integrity
against ETA and defeated an illegal attempt by Catalonia to secede.
Britain could easily have defeated Irish nationalism
after the First World War in the same way that numerous other European
countries defended their territorial integrity at that time, but while we were
willing to lose nearly a million men in order to defend Belgium neutrality we
were unwilling to lose more than 261 British soldiers to defend the territorial
integrity of the United Kingdom and allowed Ireland to secede.
Let them have their independence if they want it has
been the long term British historical viewpoint. Unlike other European
countries we have not wished to hold our country together by force and it was
politically accepted here that any part of the UK would have the right to leave
if a majority wished it, in a way that is contrary to the norm in both the
United States and Europe. After all the United States used a forcible secession
argument to justify its independence and a forcible territorial integrity argument
to hold itself together in the face of secession. Most of its states were either
bought or captured from someone else, but no one thinks that Old Mexico and New
Mexico should be united even if a majority in New Mexico one day speaks Spanish.
The United States will defend its territorial integrity against all-comers both
foreign and domestic but will criticise Britain for doing the same because of a
great grandfather that left Ireland in the 1840s.
We defended Northern Ireland against IRA bombs because
we thought the people of Northern Ireland should have the choice rather than be
bombed into submission, but we never used the argument that it is our territory
and we will defend it for that reason alone.
While we went to war in 1939 to defend the territorial
integrity of Poland, we were already willing to give up our own territory.
Churchill was willing to trade Northern Ireland for peace as was Wilson as was
Blair.
Britain lost hundreds of thousands of soldiers
defending Singapore, Burma and India, but lost all these places anyway. It
would have been better to let the Japanese have them without a fight and keep
our soldiers at home. So too if we always intended to give up Northern Ireland
in the end without a fight, it would have been better to have done so in 1968
and let Ireland deal with the cost of Northern Ireland and whatever terrorism
resulted too. There is zero point fighting for what you intend to surrender.
There is a tension between the two views of democracy.
We can either view a nation state as a whole and argue that it is justified in
defending that territory and follow that logic to its endpoint, or we can view
a nation state in terms of its parts and argue that the majority in a part
outweighs the majority of the whole.
Because we are human beings, we use democracy to
justify what we want. Scottish and Irish nationalists use both views to justify
the secession of the whole of the territory that they then want to keep intact
but refusing the secession of any parts they wish to prevent leaving. They use spurious ideas about (the whole of)
Ireland and Scotland being countries while the UK supposedly is not a country
at all even though there had never been an independent nation state covering
the whole of Ireland and the kingdom of Scotland merged with the kingdom of
England in 1603. The United Kingdom on the other hand was a great power, a
founder member of the UN and IMF and sits on the Security Council. If that isn’t
enough to make you a country what is?
The United Kingdom has as much right to defend its
territorial integrity as anyone else, but we choose to allow the secession
argument, perhaps out of a British sense of fair play, perhaps because we never
quite feel as united as France, Germany or the USA. Almost uniquely in the
world we think of the parts of the UK as countries and our identities are
frequently derived from football or rugby rather than our citizenship. For this
reason, many people in England would be delighted to get rid of Northern
Ireland and Scotland in a way that would be unthinkable for someone from the
United States.
I know of no other country that complains about fiscal
transfers from one part to another in the way that we do in Britain. Fiscal union and political union in any country
requires monetary transfers, but only in Britain do we pretend that this means
one part owes another part. It isn’t English money subsidising anyone, rather it
is British money helping everyone including much of England, because we are all
British citizens.
The two views of democracy are not reconcilable. Each
can be justified at least in part. But this means that there is always the danger
that they come into conflict. Scottish nationalists may so believe that they
have the right to secede that they see the alternative argument as so
intolerable that it justifies them in taking measures that are contrary to the
alternative viewpoint of democracy.
In Northern Ireland one democratic argument, that the
whole of Ireland should have seceded came into conflict with an equally
democratic argument that Northern Ireland had the right to secede from Ireland
and remain in the UK. There was no way to reconcile this argument and so both
sides bombed and murdered each other for thirty years.
Scotland is not Ireland, but it is crucial that
Scottish nationalists and Pro UK people do not inflame the situation. Let our
argument be theoretical. Let it be a matter for keyboards rather than the
streets.
It is perfectly legitimate and democratic for the
United Kingdom to refuse an independence referendum forever. It is also
legitimate to believe that there may come a point when a second referendum
should be granted. Some people may think that point is now. But we must be
moderate about either view of democracy and not be so sure that our view is
right that it leads us into righteous anger that may lead us to taking action
that is contrary to all views of democracy.
In both Northern Ireland and in Scotland there are
different desires for the future. They cannot be reconciled. It isn’t possible
for everyone to get what they want. Ulster unionists have the right to argue
that the United Kingdom should defend its territorial integrity and that they
wish to remain British, Irish nationalists have the right to campaign for a
united Ireland, but someone has to lose. In Scotland too we cannot both be part
of the UK and independent. But in neither place can losing be made so bad that
we take the law into our own hands.
The key for both Scotland and Northern Ireland and
also for Ireland and the United Kingdom is for us to set out clearly and
objectively what would happen if Scotland or Northern Ireland should choose at
some point to leave the UK. This is why Jamie Blackett of Alliance for Unity
(who I believe understands this issue better than anyone) has been asking for a
Clarity Act. It’s only when we know the truth about what the future would be
like that that we can sensibly persuade others using political arguments about
what ought to happen. Honesty and facts ground political debate in reality and
this in itself is an antidote to extremism.
A united Ireland could not expect to have the same
relationship with Britain as it does at present. The Common Travel Area was set
up as a means of dealing with the Northern Ireland border. If there were no
border there would be no need for a Common Travel Area. Irish citizens would
have no more rights than any other EU citizens to live and work in Britain.
That would be the price.
Ireland too would have to pay the £10 billion a year
that Northern Ireland gets from the Treasury and would have to deal with any
trouble that resulted from uniting Ireland by itself. Everyone living in Northern
Ireland must consider whether change is worth the risk. If a border poll were
lost by either side by a small amount there is no reason to suppose that it
would be accepted. No one thought the
2016 referendum on the EU would be so contentious or that the result would not
be accepted and instead fought through Parliament and the courts for years. A
similarly close poll in Northern Ireland about a more contentious issue would
be dangerous indeed.
Scotland too could not expect to retain the same
rights and privileges that we have because we are British citizens. People who
want to retain those rights ought to vote against the SNP, because that is the
only way to guarantee what we have at present. You cannot expect to have the
benefits of EU membership and the benefits of UK membership. The two are
incompatible. There would be no Common Travel Area between the former UK and
Scotland.
The SNP have always presented a cakeist view of
independence, but just like Ireland, Scotland would have to pay a price.
Scotland would be treated no better nor worse than any other EU member state.
Scotland would have to pay its deficit by itself and if there were any future
trouble be it a financial crisis or a pandemic, Scotland would have to manage
on its own.
Too many Scots at present take a short-term view in
relation to a long-term issue. It matters not at all that Nicola Sturgeon is
popular, nor that she appears on television every day and appears to be a good
communicator. It matters not at all that Boris Johnson is Prime minister nor
indeed that Scotland voted to stay in the EU, but the UK as a whole voted to
leave. It doesn’t matter that England tends to vote Tory, but Scotland does not
like Tories because of Margaret Thatcher, Ravenscraig and the poll tax.
The grounds for Scottish independence are invariably
short-term political disagreement. These are the sorts of issues that are
forgotten when we look back at our shared history. Do you know how Scotland
voted in 1850? Do you care? To break up a three-hundred-year-old country
because of a referendum on the EU or because of Covid or because Boris Johnson
was elected Prime Minister is excessive. We don’t even know if the EU will
exist in ten years’ time. Few of us know who was Prime Minister was one hundred
years ago.
It is therefore necessary to look at the issue not
from the point of view of contemporary politics, but sub specie aeternitatis [under
the aspect of eternity]. Was it a good thing that Scotland and England merged
more the 300 years ago? Has it been successful both for us and for others? Will
the world be a better place one hundred years from now if the United Kingdom
ceases to exist or continues? Such questions need to be thought about carefully
and clearly and with moderation.
Scotland is not treated poorly compared to the parts
of any other nation state. We have received a great deal of support from the
British Government in the past year. Our workers have been furloughed our
businesses supported. We have nothing to complain about. But support for
independence has become vehement in a way that worries me. A second
independence referendum campaign would make Scots more divided. I dread what would happen if Scottish
nationalists overly optimistic because of opinion polls discovered that they
had lost a second referendum by less than one percent. Some would not accept
the result. Some would immediately campaign for a third referendum. Some might
try to declare independence anyway. Such a poll would therefore be almost as
dangerous as a border poll in Northern Ireland. If it were close neither side
in Scotland would accept the result. Each would want another go or would try to
overturn it in the courts. What this would do to Scotland does not bear
thinking about.
The problem with democracy is that we only really like
it when it goes our way. We have learned lately not to accept the results of
elections. The SNP didn’t accept the result in 2014 but set about immediately
to overturn it. Remain didn’t accept the result in 2016 but used every means
political and legal to overturn it.
If we are not careful at some point either in Northern
Ireland or in Scotland someone is not going to accept the result of an election
and we will all be divided enough about what it is to be democratic that we
will decide to settle the matter without ballot boxes.
It will start with marching and insults about opponents. Bitter words will be spoken and the divide between people will become wide and then the impossible will happen just like it was impossible for Trump supporters to get into the Capitol. It couldn’t happen here of course, but then it couldn’t happen there either until it did.
