IT’S the question which keeps getting asked, with some even postulating that the ideal window may now be in the past, and although only one individual can provide a set date, the ideal answer, with a little forethought, is clear.
Before we can get to timing there are other items which must be addressed; surprisingly they’re what few seem curious about: what type of referendum will we have, and what will the question or questions be?
What’s posed to the electorate will be complex to resolve, and it would seem – due to the lack of media interest over this – it is something that many assume will be largely identical to last time, while common sense says it should not be.
That’s because we know the previous question failed.
That failure may not have been due to the question itself, though it’s often been said “Scots want independence, just don’t call it that”. Polls do seem to bear out that statement. We want the powers, so why vote no?
Who knows how much the verbiage contributed, but one thing we do know, above all else, is that in a search for concise brevity the last time around, the question ignored a thousand years of independent Scots history. In 2014 folk were asked to essentially create a new country, with nothing referencing that it had ever existed before. That can be a daunting thought for many. A few additional words focused around the verb “restoration” might have softened the brutality of the decision for many who eventually voted No.
With that primary question resolved, we must decide if the referendum is to be one single question, or multiple, as in 1997. A five-year government of national unity? A constitution? Ongoing EU membership?
No matter what is finally chosen, the elephant in the room is Brexit. In an ideal world, we need to know what it will finally entail, and where to wring our best independent advantage. We will be approaching year end before that clarity arrives.
Then there is the type of referendum. With it extremely likely that Theresa May will continue with “Now is not the time”, we should expect “consultative” – yet with the ironclad precedent of the Brexit disaster, constitutionally it’s now defensible that “consultative” and “binding” are simply two words for the same thing. This may even work in Scotland’s favour – had the Brexit vote been presented as “binding”, how many votes might have gone the other way?
With the underpinning questions resolved, then the date broadly sets itself. It will be the optimum time. It should not wait until we are no longer part of the EU. With the leave date set for March 29 2019, and clarity expected before Christmas 2018, with required lead times after any announcement, it effectively places the indy2 vote in March 2019, for it is appropriate to allow EU nationals the vote. They live here, they should be enfranchised.
That timing could prove a fortuitous masterstroke, for the best time to advance on a foe, even an electoral one, is when their focus is elsewhere. In the first quarter of 2019, Westminster will certainly not want troubled or distracted by Scotland. Then again, it never does.
In the best of worlds, this small yet vibrant nation will vote to restore its rightful position around March 20, with Holyrood immediately petitioning Brussels for successor status in the EU, if necessary by the revoking of Article 50 as it applies to us, right before Brexit, thus maintaining the broadest options for Scotia’s children and workforce during the years that it will take the EU itself to work out that conundrum, even as we ourselves best determine our future. After all, no one already in “the club” has ever been forced out. There simply is no mechanism for it. Suspension, yes; ejection, no.
A MacGregor
East Kilbride
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel