HOW COULD I ACCEPT SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE?

 

For those who prefer that Scotland remains in the UK, it might seem wrong to contemplate the circumstances in which I would find myself, even if very reluctantly, accepting Scottish independence. However, hear me out, because in my explanation of just what it would take to convince me that I must accept a decision to leave the UK, there are pointers to why so many of us in Scotland are deeply troubled about the way the SNP leadership and other figures in the nationalist movement are seeking to impose their will on us.

 

I have long been uneasy with how when trying to counter the narrative of those who seek the break up of the UK, you can find your own position slipping into being just as implacable and narrow minded as those you most oppose. Over the years, the debate about Scotland’s constitutional future has drifted into being ever more divisive with the two sides of the argument so entrenched in their opinions that they find it difficult to really appreciate or understand the others’ viewpoint.

 

So, let’s try to see if, as someone who feels strongly that Scotland’s positive place in the UK is something to be cherished, I can nevertheless contemplate what the circumstances would have to be for me to accept a decision for Scotland to leave the UK.

 

Fairness

In a nutshell, I think it is all about fairness. 

 

This would mean the people of Scotland being asked a fair question about remaining in or leaving the UK. This would follow a fair explanation of the potential consequences, both good and bad, of this choice. If ‘Leave’ should secure a clearly fair majority on that basis, we should then move on to negotiating the terms of departing the UK, after which a further confirmatory referendum would be held to seek support for leaving on the agreed terms, again with a clear and fair majority required, without which we would remain in the UK. 

 

To avoid the prospect of going through such a necessarily protracted and disruptive process again and again, it would also be right to agree in advance that a fair period should go by before any reruns were to be contemplated.

 

The problem for me just now is in the way that Nicola Sturgeon and others in the nationalist movement want to go about this process, weighting matters in their favour at every step along the way. In my view they are blatantly pursuing the complete opposite of a fair approach.

 

What is the nationalist movement proposing?

 

The Question

While it has not yet been agreed that there will be another independence referendum, nevertheless the SNP has already prepared a Referendum Bill and in it has started to put pressure on the Electoral Commission to accept the same question as last time, a question that was structured to favour the Yes side of the debate, by gifting it the positive response. If this is used, then as happened last time, the nationalists would make a major play throughout any campaign about how ‘negative’ the pro-UK side of the debate were being, knowing of course, that by the very structure of the question they have been forced to argue the case for ‘No’.

 

The neutral structure of question, as was used in the EU referendum, would be to ask if people wanted to remain in or leave the UK. But the Scottish Government’s position is that it wants to use a knowingly unfair question, with a Yes or No choice. Polling experts believe this favours the Yes side, whatever the issue being considered, by a number of percentage points, which of course could be critical to the eventual outcome.

 

The Prospectus

When it comes to the Scottish Government giving the people a fair briefing on the pros and cons of independence, the precedent set ahead of the 2014 referendum does not bode well. Insiders have subsequently confirmed what many suspected at the time, namely that the SNP leadership chose to knowingly mislead people with untested assertions on critical issues like currency, exaggerated figures on oil revenues, overly optimistic timings on setting up the necessary departments and functions of state, and underestimated costs of delivering this, playing down at every turn the potential economic and social costs. All giving an unduly idealised picture of independence. 

 

This was not just a question of political spin. It actually involved a breach of the Civil Service Code in producing the Scotland’s Future document, because while civil servants are intended to support the government in delivering its ambitions, the Code is absolutely clear that civil servants are never allowed to mislead anyone. The former First Minister, and his then Deputy Nicola Sturgeon, who oversaw the preparation of the White Paper prospectus for independence, in my opinion breached the Ministerial Code as they pressured civil servants to do their bidding in seeking to mislead the people of Scotland. 

 

How can we be confident this will not be repeated in any second independence referendum? For example, will the SNP government simply assert that the EU will enable an independent Scotland to readily join the EU without any meaningful attempt to check with the EU that this will be possible? Or will it seek clarification from the EU in advance about what the likely timings, costs and conditions would be for securing membership, and critically whether that would be more on Scotland or the EU’s favoured terms? Will the SNP leadership be open, fair and honest with the people of Scotland on even this one critical issue, let alone all the numerous other equally critical consequences of independence?

 

The Majority

Over the years many have pointed out how wrong it would be to try to force through a breakup of the UK based on a simple majority of just 50% plus as little as 1 vote more than the alternate viewpoint. ‘Supermajorities’ have been proposed to action such major constitutional change, as indeed is the widely accepted practice in everything from a social club to an international conglomerate. What proportion a ‘supermajority’ might require has been quoted at everything from two thirds to three quarters. Understandably those wanting Scotland to leave the UK are very sensitive about this line of argument, feeling that it would mean the goalposts were being moved to the benefit of the pro-UK side of the debate. They would fear that higher levels of ‘supermajority’ would render independence all but unobtainable.

 

Yet, put aside for a moment what level of higher majority might be acceptable to all sides, and instead consider what is demonstrably fair and reasonable. Start from a point where the outcome of a referendum is effectively a statistical draw, but with a tiny advantage to those seeking independence. Would it be credible in these circumstances for an SNP Government to try to push on with controversial and debatable terms of leaving the UK in the knowledge that approximately half of Scots did not want it? Would the First Minister really want to go to Brussels to seek membership of the EU when those she speaks to are aware that half of all Scots want to remain in the UK? 

The answer to these questions should be clear, and so rather than asking the pro-UK side of the debate what level of majority would be reasonable, why does the Scottish Government not make its own proposal? If for example it said that a 60% threshold was required before triggering the complex process of leaving the UK, it would mean it would go into subsequent negotiations, whether with the UK government or the EU and other international bodies, safe in the knowledge that at least 6 in every 10 Scots supported Scotland leaving the UK. Put another way, if the argument for breaking up the UK is not strong enough to achieve a fair and clear majority, is it really right to seek to impose the will of one group of Scots on another?

 

The Terms

Perhaps the most difficult and controversial issue around taking a fair view of the route to Scottish independence is whether the negotiated terms and conditions of leaving the UK should be put to the people in a confirmatory referendum. This issue is arguably all the more critical if only a thin majority is achieved in the referendum triggering such negotiations. 

The SNP seemed at one point to be arguing for this very principle in regards to Brexit, but claimed it would not apply to leaving the UK because they would provide such a clear and full prospectus as they did for the 2014 referendum. Yet of course, just because a White Paper for independence is nearly 600 pages long, means little if much of its critical content is misleading, particularly regarding the likely terms and conditions of leaving the UK.  The SNP will want us to assume that the UK will bend to the SNP’s will, making separation a painless and easy process. Yet as Brexit has so clearly demonstrated, real life is likely to be much more complicated and challenging.

 

How long before a rerun?

In trying to get their vote out ahead of the 2014 referendum, the SNP leadership repeatedly referred to it being a once in a generation opportunity. Now it seems they want it to be a twice in a generation opportunity, and doubtless if things did not go their way in any second referendum they would likely soon be going for the treble. 

Yet the cost of a focus on a referendum in terms of distracting the government from its day job, the uncertainty it creates in economic terms, and the degree of social divisiveness it leads to, surely means it is fair to have a reasonable period before such an exercise is embarked on again, and to have this time period defined in advance. 

Personally, I believe there is a strong case for a minimum of a complete term of parliament without any speculation about another referendum after one has just been held. In practice this would probably require a full decade as a fair minimum gap between referendums. But again, the pro-independence side should at least propose their own answer to this issue, because what cannot be considered ‘fair’ is allowing referendums to be called again and again, as if the people are to be simply worn down until the nationalists get their way. 

 

So what is ‘fair’?

I think all of us, including Nicola Sturgeon, broadly know what is inherently fair on these matters. Yet equally, the SNP leadership have a record of trying to engineer matters to their advantage, simply ignoring what they know is the right way to proceed.

 

I believe that the leadership of the Scottish independence movement need to ensure that each of the fundamental steps in the process to achieving their ambition are clearly and demonstrably fair. Whether it is the question that is asked, the prospectus that is put before the people, the majority to be achieved, or confirmation of the actual negotiated terms for leaving the UK, and agreeing in advance a gap before any rerun referendum, only a fair approach can guarantee that all the people of Scotland properly get behind the eventual outcome of such a process. 

 

Recently Nicola Sturgeon, commenting on the latest approach of her predecessor to securing independence, said:

 

“anybody who tries to suggest that there's a shortcut to that, or that we can somehow game or trick our way to independence frankly is misleading people.” 

"It's got to be through a process that is not just legitimate, but seen to be legitimate so that it can command respect and authority at home and internationally as well."

 

I absolutely agree First Minister.

 

 

Keith Howell, April’21