Please Gamble Responsibly

Nicola Sturgeon’s letter of 31 March 2017 to Theresa May stated that ‘the Scottish Parliament has now determined by a clear majority that there should be an independence referendum’. That would now be the common assumption. But in fact the motion does not mention independence, let alone specify whether what is envisaged is independence within the European Union. It ‘mandates the Scottish Government to take forward discussions with the UK Government on the details of an order under section 30 of the Scotland Act 1998 to ensure that the Scottish Parliament can legislate for a referendum to be held that will give the people of Scotland a choice over the future direction and governance of their country at a time, and with a question and franchise, determined by the Scottish Parliament’.
 
The UK Government, if it is in a can-kicking mood, could quite reasonably complain that that this is too imprecise a request for a section 30 order. The one made on 12 February 2013 ‘un-reserved’ until 31 December 2014 ‘a referendum on the independence of Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom’ as long as no other referendum was held on the same day and there was only one ballot paper giving the voter a choice between only two responses. This formulation could be repeated, with only the date up for negotiation. Sturgeon’s letter cites the 2012-13 precedent, but does not exploit it to the full. 
 
At the moment both governments seem to be complicit in each other’s hesitations, and this is only natural in a situation whether the result of a referendum could not be called with confidence. Alex Salmond’s notorious ‘once in a generation, perhaps once in a lifetime’ phrase of 14 September 2014 was hinting at a subtle point: that it was very unusual for the UK Government to concede that a yes vote would lead inexorably to independence, and it only happened because they were sure of winning. Indeed, David Cameron saw his political task as forcing the SNP into a straight up and down vote during their time as a Holyrood majority. After two gut-wrenching referendums the motif now is ‘please gamble responsibly’. Salmond said in June 2004 about the SNP leadership (misquoting General Sherman), ‘if drafted, I’ll defer’. His deferral lasted only a month, but this one could last longer.     
 

Comments policy

All comments posted on the site via Disqus are automatically published. Additionally comments are sent to moderators for checking and removal if necessary. We encourage open debate and real time commenting on the website. The Centre on Constitutional Change cannot be held responsible for any content posted by users. Any complaints about comments on the site should be sent to info@centreonconstitutionalchange.ac.uk

Richard Parry's picture
post by Richard Parry
University of Edinburgh
3rd April 2017

Latest blogs

  • 17th January 2019

    Richard Parry assesses a memorable day in UK parliamentary history as the Commons splits 432-202 on 15 January 2019 against the Government's recommended Brexit route. It was the most dramatic night at Westminster since the Labour government’s defeat on a confidence motion in 1979.

  • 17th January 2019

    What is the Irish government’s Brexit wish-list? The suggestion that Irish unity, as opposed to safeguarding political and economic stability, is the foremost concern of the Irish government is to misunderstand and misrepresent the motivations of this key Brexit stakeholder, writes Mary C. Murphy (University College Cork).

  • 17th January 2019

    Brexit is in trouble but not because of the Irish backstop, argues the CCC's Michael Keating.

  • 16th January 2019

    Fellows of the Centre on Constitutional Change respond to the rejection of the Withdrawal Agreement by the House of Commons and the impending no-confidence vote in the government.

  • 11th January 2019

    Richard Parry assesses the unfolding drama at Westminster around no-deal scenarios. The deal ‘would be an uncomfortable outcome for the EU: providing quota-fee, tariff-free access to the EU market without any accompanying financial obligations; without any access to UK fishing waters in the absence of further agreement; and without any commitments to align with the majority of so-called level playing field arrangements’. For Tory leavers, what’s not to like in this negotiating triumph for Theresa May?

Read More Posts