A second referendum on Scottish independence from the Union which is the United Kingdom remains the demand of Nicola Sturgeon and the Scottish National Party, and Boris Johnson’s negative reply remains constant. However, pressures on the continuation of the Union and its potential fragility grow rather than diminish as the Covid-19(CV) pandemic continues to provide opportunity for division. Although Welsh independence is not yet a major talking-point, with the Brexit consequences starting to play out, certain forces seek to make into a real issue the possibility of Northern Ireland combining once again with the Republic. The potential for 4 nations taking 4 separate paths, exercising in the case of the smaller three their devolved powers, has been illustrated through their independent approaches to health, travel and education, and lockdowns as a whole, in tackling CV. Point- scoring through greater caution or relaxation is evident. Westminster is an easy target as it has taken the line most of the time to avoid a slanging debate with the other Parliaments. But the different approaches have done little for cohesion and unification.
The focus is on Scotland and Holyrood elections in May when the SNP is expected to gain a majority, with weak performances by Scottish Labour and Conservatives. It is argued that such a clear majority would embolden the SNP and affirm its case for another referendum as the will of the Scottish people. Cutting the cord with England is the driver behind all policy for the SNP.
DO ENOUGH SCOTS PEOPLE WISH INDEPENDENCE AND WHY?
Recent opinion polls seem to report that there is a growing support for independence among the Scottish people. The few percent majority for the Union seems perhaps to have turned around the opposite way. But there is no certainty that, on an actual vote, independence would be the outcome. Recent elections in the UK and the world generally have confounded opinion polls, rendering them unreliable. Indeed, particularly if those many Scots who live in the rest of the UK and not in Scotland itself were given a vote, what would the outcome be? Could it also be that those consulted in the polls may refrain from any opinion but independence for fear of reprisal? It is said for example that, on the question of Brexit, many in say the City of London who favoured Brexit kept their views to themselves, for fear of ostracization? There are unknowns which make a referendum risky, which is why reinforcement by a further swing in the Holyrood elections may be treated as significant.
The popularity of the SNP seems to survive the rational analysis of their apparently poor performance in governing so far. Scottish education achievement worsens each year, their drug dependence deepens, their life expectancy is not the best, and their overall economic performance is poor, dependent heavily on the more successful England. Brexit is an emotive line of the SNP to justify a new referendum. The Scots people wanted to stay in the EU and so Brexit is portrayable as another example of Westminster riding roughshod over Scotland, though rather it was the majority of UK voters who did that. More than anything else the media and commentators suggest that, ever since Margaret Thatcher, the Scots have felt that Westminster cares little for Scotland. Personal aversion to Boris Johnson is fomented and may be real. Perhaps the Westminster Conservatives are considered as only really concerned with feathering the nests of the Home Counties and rural England, and that brushes off on Scottish Tories – yet Ruth Davidson seemed to be making inroads before she stood down. Labour seems to be regarded as a forgotten force in Scotland. It seems to be more raw emotion which drives the people towards the SNP and independence rather than rational thought. The nationalist Nicola Sturgeon has better PR than any other UK politician, which is interesting when nationalism, for example if for England, is generally regarded with some disdain in the media. And yet in the pandemic there is growing recognition that the vaccine programme and its success are down to the UK as a whole and may not have been possible in an independent Scotland. The SNP want Scotland to be part of the EU, but the attraction of the EU and the potency of its bonds and values in pandemic fallout may be adversely affected. Also, Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP are tainted with impropriety in connection with the investigation into Alex Salmond’s historic alleged inappropriate behaviour. It is possible that the SNP and the independence star will be suffering consequential damage among “undecided” voters at least. How all these things may be weighed in the balance when a referendum is considered is hard to say.
THE WAY FORWARD
There is an assumption that Scotland leaving the UK would be disastrous for the remaining nations. Given that the four nations of the Union have been married for 300 years and for much of that time, if not all, the UK has been by many standards one of the most successful nations on the planet, that assumption is worth holding. Before it breaks up should there not be sensible efforts to debate the pros and cons? Perhaps some time needs to be bought.
Some commentators suggest that there are three options: first a second referendum, second more devolved powers to Holyrood, and third a vigorous defence of the benefits of the Union. The possibility of a federal UK has been mooted but is considered to be unworkable when England representing 85% of the populace would be so dominant. If federalism involved regions of England being treated as separate that may solve the dominance issue but is there appetite for that? It would be a massive undertaking to first get consensus and then to implement.
Gordon Brown has suggested a Commission to review how the UK is governed. The Tory manifesto has a commitment to a “Constitution, Democracy and Rights Commission”. For any meaningful debate, to discover the views of the disparate people of England as well as the smaller nations will be essential. The time any Commission would take may be too long for the SNP who are champing for a referendum. There remains too an undercurrent of dissatisfaction with the fact that Scottish MPs sit at Westminster deciding English affairs, and yet there is a separate Scottish only Parliament deciding many Scottish affairs. Should there be an English House, so that each nation has its own government, and then a UK parliament deciding multinational matters like defence and Treasury matters? If so, what happens to the House of Lords? Some form of Commission is perhaps the only answer?
However, would perhaps the best argument that pro-Unionists can make lie in the behaviour of people and UKGOV at Westminster, in particular Boris Johnson. Action which evidences a commitment to levelling up, including Scotland as well as deprived parts of England; which demonstrates that a post-Brexit UK can succeed, is a champion to counter climate change and pro- environment; which challenges and reduces extreme inequality; which proves that the UK as a combined 4 nations will serve them all better than an independent alternative, all of these have the best chance of swaying those Scots who are not extreme in their longing for a rid of the English. A UK track record which keeps its promises, and which is demonstrably superior to an SNP one may build trust and cut some ice in the end.
Boris Johnson simply saying “no” without behavioural evidence is most unlikely to stave off an independence rally for long. On the other hand, perhaps a case needs to be made as to why a less than 4 nation UK can thrive very well and be a presence for global good, with perhaps even greater prosperity than with 4, and so Scotland’s departure is not necessarily a bad thing.
These are times when all change is possible, and maybe 300 years is long enough, and there is no need to cling to all institutional traditions. A three-nation UK would be free to use its considerable resources for its own benefit. If the Scots really want to fend for themselves, perhaps that wish should be respected.
