Scotland and Independence - Two Votes Better Than One?
John Major gave an interesting speech on Brexit recently in which he also shared his thoughts about a future referendum on Scottish independence.
In short, John Major is in favour of having two votes if there a second referendum in the years ahead - the first on the principle of Scotland leaving the UK; the second on the practical outcome of negotiations.
Now this time last year I supported the principle of a 'People's Vote' on the final terms of any Brexit deal, as did the SNP and other political parties as I recall - apart from the most zealous, nationalist Tories and UKIP.
So I agree with John Major and I'll be interested to hear if the subject is debated at the SNP national conference this weekend which will no doubt be talking up the prospects of an Indyref 2.
Because it would seem illogical, never mind hypocritical, to me if the SNP were to adopt one stance over Brexit - only to refuse voters the final say on the outcome of negotiations for Scotland to leave the UK.
The full extract of John Major's comments are attached below
SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE
One deeply troubling effect of Brexit is the risk of breaking up the UK by increased support for Scotland to leave the Union, and Northern Ireland to unite with the South.
Neither will do so immediately, but the combination of Brexit – and the unpopularity of our present Westminster Government in Scotland – has increased the likelihood of a breach.
I remain a convinced Unionist. Every part of the UK is richer – and of more weight in the world – if they stay together.
The most likely to leave is Scotland. If she does, it will not only weaken Scotland, but also undermine the rump of the UK.
It will be a step into the unknown for us both.
The problem is politics.
The raison d’être of the SNP is an independent Scotland while – for many Conservatives – Unionism is at the heart of their philosophy. It is a challenge to see whether that chasm can be bridged.
To keep the Union together will require consensus, consideration and consultation. The Government must engage, coax, encourage, and examine every possible route to find an arrangement that will obtain a majority for union.
It will be difficult – and is made even more so by the posturing of English and Scottish nationalists.
In law, the Scots require the approval of the Westminster Government before they can legally hold a new independence referendum.
But refusing one might help the separatist case, by adding to the list of grievances the Scottish National Party exploit with such skill.
The choice for the UK Government is either to agree the referendum can take place – or to refuse to permit it. Both options come with great risk. But the lessons of Brexit may offer a way ahead.
The Westminster Government could agree for an Independence Referendum to take place, on the basis of two referenda. The first to vote upon the principle of negotiations, and the second upon the outcome of them.
The purpose of the second referendum would be that Scottish electors would know what they were voting for, and be able to compare it to what they now have. This did not happen with Brexit: had it done so, there may have been no Brexit.
Many Scottish voices – and especially business – may support the logic of this: it may focus minds away from a short-term reflex opposition to a perceived English Government, and back to the mutual and long-term virtues of the Union.
Everyday Impact of Brexit (19/11/20)
- the loss of freedom of movement in Europe
- higher food prices
- more expensive holidays
- the withdrawal of EU driving licences
- the cost of health insurance without the free cover of the European Health Card
- the loss of the Pet Passport Scheme and the expensive – and time consuming – effort to get approval for pets to travel
- higher roaming charges for mobile phones
- slower entry and more delays at European airports
- the loss of the automatic right to work, live or study in the EU
