The logic of the SNP’s position in
demanding a second independence referendum is clear and irrefutable: under the
rules which govern UK elections, they won a clear – overwhelming, even –
majority of Scottish seats in last month’s elections, on a platform of calling
for a second referendum to be held this year.
I’m less convinced about the wisdom of an early referendum, to be honest,
given that the polls suggest that opinion remains finely balanced and that a
second defeat would almost certainly postpone the question for some years. Whilst it’s possible that the campaign itself
would move opinion (which clearly happened during the last referendum), it is
by no means certain. But given their
previous statements, their platform for the last election, and the outcome of
that election, they have little choice but to pursue the demand for a second
referendum as vigorously as they can.
The position of the unionists, including
both the current government and the potential new leaders of the Labour Party (who
seem to be lining up to explain why the rules governing a mandate in the UK
parliament don’t apply to the outcome in Scottish seats, where a majority of
the votes is also required, for reasons which they are unable to explain in
rational terms) is rather harder to fathom.
Accepting that a mandate exists and allowing the SNP to honour it by
holding a referendum is probably their best chance of defeating the
independence movement for some years to come; allowing themselves to be seen to
be applying different rules in Scotland than they apply to themselves, and using
a veto over whether Scotland can even ask itself the question seems almost
designed to undermine their message about a ‘union of equals’. I suspect that it’s based – in Labour’s case
particularly – on a belief that support for the SNP is an aberration, and that,
given the right leadership and policies, the Scots will eventually return to what
the unionists see as their natural political homes. It’s not wholly
inconceivable that they are correct, although after a series of successive SNP election
victories it’s looking increasingly unlikely.
I suppose, though, for leaders of parties who still believe that they
have some sort of right to expect Scots to support them, it’s a perception
which they find it hard to escape.
Paradoxically, it means that the SNP is
inevitably committed to pursuing a path which has a high risk, if it succeeds, of
significantly postponing independence, whilst the unionists are committed to
pursuing a path which is likely to persuade ever more Scots of the merits of
independence and thus lead to the break-up of the union. It has long been believed by many independentistas
that the demise of the union would ultimately be brought about by the arrogance
and intransigence of the unionists in their response to demands from Scotland
and Wales, and they seem determined to prove us correct. I almost find myself egging them on.
2 comments:
Boris Johnson has no interst in keeping Scotland within the Union, the Union has no value if it is not prized by its constituent members. All he's doing here is playing for time, England will shortly re-gain full sovereign control over its borders.
Once the Scots realise that in an independent Scotland they too will need to apply for immigrant status prior to entering England, irrespective of family connections/associations, the numbers voting any form of independence will plummet dramatically.
It's all a load of hot air, just as it is in Wales!
Obviously, I overlooked the fact that England is the centre of the universe and the chief desire of all Scots is to emigrate to England; how silly of me - how could I have got it so wrong?
Post a Comment