I AGREE with Marcus Carslaw that going for a de facto referendum at the next General Election is a big risk (UK election as de facto referendum is a high-risk gamble, Jan 3). However, I also agree with what Marcus said to me this time last year: the people of Scotland voted for a Yes/No independence referendum in this parliamentary term and they must have it.
A few weeks ago, in this esteemed publication, Dr Elliot Bulmer wrote a piece that examined the difference between political and legal sovereignty. It was very interesting and clarified much of my thinking on this matter.
As a result of the recent Supreme Court decision, it is legally the case that the only polls that will be considered a binding expression of the sovereign will of the people of Scotland are an agreed referendum or a UK General Election.
READ MORE: When will we learn Nicola Sturgeon's views about de facto referendum?
A UK General Election is the ultimate test of the opinion of the people of Scotland and of the UK’s willingness to uphold the Acts of Union.
If a majority of the sovereign people of Scotland vote for a particular proposition in such a General Election, it becomes a self-executing de facto referendum on that proposition. The political sovereignty of the people trumps the legal sovereignty of the UK parliament.
Westminster can try to ignore that if they like, but at that point we would have exhausted all legal avenues and they would have effectively dissolved the Union by abrogating the Treaty. We would then be in the murky waters of seeking international recognition, but we could not possibly be in a stronger position to deserve it.
But Marcus is right: that only happens if we win such a vote, and with a majority of voters backing our proposition. There’s no world in which a majority of the sovereign people of Scotland oppose a constitutional change in which I will support it.
READ MORE: Alba hire lawyers to probe alternatives to SNP's de facto vote
Present polling would suggest that we will just scrape over the line but we would have a substantial number of voters in Scotland still passionately opposed to that outcome. If Scotland is to flourish and thrive as an independent nation it would help if we were all pulling in the same direction.
The greater a majority we can command, the smoother the transition will be. We saw just before Christmas just how much resistance even a small group can put up to changes that there is not a general consensus behind.
Governing an independent Scotland will be much easier with the consent of the losers.
The increase in the polling in recent months is almost purely down to the anger and dismay at the assault on democracy the Supreme Court decision represented. “You’ll have had your tea” has become “you’ll have had your democracy”.
READ MORE: Holyrood votes UK should 'respect Scotland's right' to hold indyref2
Perhaps we should focus the de facto referendum then on securing and guaranteeing those democratic rights? To making it the case that the Union is indeed voluntary, that there is a clear process for bringing it to and end, and that that process is entirely within the control of the people of Scotland and does not need permission from Westminster.
Not to sound like a broken record, or blow my own trumpet, but the constitutional amendments to the Act of Union I proposed this time last year would achieve exactly that.
I think a much larger section of the Scottish electorate would vote for changes that created a much more muscular Holyrood, with protected and guaranteed powers, and that could expand those powers or end the Union at any time by calling a referendum. Indyref2 would happen in around 2025.
Westminster would have to accept those changes or end the Union immediately.
Win, win.
Chris Hanlon
Kincardine, Fife
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