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

  • 22nd January 2019

    The UK is increasingly polarised by Brexit identities and they seem to have become stronger than party identities, a new academic report finds. Only one in 16 people did not have a Brexit identity, while more than one in five said they had no party identity. Sir John Curtice’s latest analysis of public opinion on a further referendum finds there has been no decisive shift in favour of another referendum. The report, Brexit and public opinion 2019, by The UK in a Changing Europe, provides an authoritative, comprehensive and up-to-date guide to public opinion on each of the key issues around Brexit. CCC Fellow, Dr Coree Brown Swan contributed a chapter on "the SNP, Brexit and the politics of independence"

  • 22nd January 2019

    In the papers accompanying the draft Environment (Principles and Governance) Bill published at the end of 2018, the UK Government says that it is “exploring opportunities to co-design the final proposals with the devolved administrations.” There are clear benefits in having strong co-operation and collaboration across the UK in the oversight of our environmental law and performance. Yet the challenge of finding a way forward in terms of working together is substantial since each part of the UK is in a different position at present. Given where things stand today, it may be better to accept that a good resolution is not possible immediately and to revisit the issue at a later stage - so long as there is a strong commitment to return and not allow interim arrangements to become fixed. Colin Reid, Professor of Environmental Law at the University of Dundee examines the issues.

  • 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.

Read More Posts