No man has a right to fix the boundary of the
march of a nation; no man has a right to say to his
country, “Thus far shalt thou go and no further”.
Charles Stewart Parnell (1846-1891)
So begins "Choosing Scotland's Future", the consultation document on further constitutional change which was launched in August 2007 by the Scottish Government and which provides the foundations of the National Conversation. In the post-Calman days of devolution, this quotation actually sums up the essence of the debate which is ahead of us. The Calman Commission, paid for by the Scottish Parliament and backed by the three parties which favour limited change to the constitutional settlement was expressly forbidden from considering the possibilities offered by Scotland becoming a normal, independent Nation.
A recent opinion poll by the British Broadcasting Corporation found that a clear majority wanted the opportunity to have a referendum on the issue of Scottish independence in 2010, as is currently proposed by the SNP Scottish Government. Tavish Scott, leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats was asked on television recently how he could oppose a referendum and call himself a Liberal Democrat. His supporters may say that the question was harsh but it is easily justified as it is surely neither Liberal or Democratic to deny the People a say on the biggest issues of the day. What could be more democratic than settling the issue at the ballot box?
At it's most fundamental, the question facing the political parties active in Scotland is this: If all the Parties who support the union are not prepared to trust the people of Scotland to make their own informed choices, why should the people of Scotland trust any of these political parties to represent their views in future? They may not want to publicly admit it but I would wager that this is causing some of the more astute strategists some sleepless nights. No political party worthy of the name would want to be seen to be denying the electorate a voice.
The second question for the unionist parties is also an interesting one: If you are so convinced that the Scottish people will vote against Independence, why are you so scared to put your case in a referendum? There are a number of factors at work there. There is no reliable model for working out which set of voters would be more likely to turn out in numbers come an independence referendum. Though the opinion polls currently give the status quo the nod, even when the SNP government's own choice of question is asked, there is the vexed issue of differential turnout. It is one thing to tell pollsters which position you would nominally support but it is quite another to go out and vote for it. The SNP clearly believe that the pro-independence voters would view it as a once in a generation chance and would grab it with both hands. I believe that this is the case and it seems that this is what the other parties believe too, despite their rhetoric to the contrary. Why else refuse to have it? No political party avoids a fight they think they will win, especially given the effect a defeat would have on the morale of the SNP.
The other reason, the elephant in the room, if you will, is that everyone expects there to be a Tory government in Westminster by the time an independence referendum comes around. We will be back to the democratic deficit which existed prior to devolution and which motivates so many people to seek constitutional change. The difference this time is that the SNP are in Government in Scotland and can show that they are standing up for Scotland against a Tory UK Government that was not voted for in any great numbers by the people of Scotland. By the time November 2010 comes, it is likely that the Tories will be making rather large cuts as their hand is forced by the biting recession, left to them like a poisoned chalice by the departing Gordon Brown. A vision of a prosperous, independent Scotland buoyed by oil revenues at that time may well chime with a Scottish population which is sick of unemployment and stagnation under the status quo.
A recent opinion poll by the British Broadcasting Corporation found that a clear majority wanted the opportunity to have a referendum on the issue of Scottish independence in 2010, as is currently proposed by the SNP Scottish Government. Tavish Scott, leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats was asked on television recently how he could oppose a referendum and call himself a Liberal Democrat. His supporters may say that the question was harsh but it is easily justified as it is surely neither Liberal or Democratic to deny the People a say on the biggest issues of the day. What could be more democratic than settling the issue at the ballot box?
At it's most fundamental, the question facing the political parties active in Scotland is this: If all the Parties who support the union are not prepared to trust the people of Scotland to make their own informed choices, why should the people of Scotland trust any of these political parties to represent their views in future? They may not want to publicly admit it but I would wager that this is causing some of the more astute strategists some sleepless nights. No political party worthy of the name would want to be seen to be denying the electorate a voice.
The second question for the unionist parties is also an interesting one: If you are so convinced that the Scottish people will vote against Independence, why are you so scared to put your case in a referendum? There are a number of factors at work there. There is no reliable model for working out which set of voters would be more likely to turn out in numbers come an independence referendum. Though the opinion polls currently give the status quo the nod, even when the SNP government's own choice of question is asked, there is the vexed issue of differential turnout. It is one thing to tell pollsters which position you would nominally support but it is quite another to go out and vote for it. The SNP clearly believe that the pro-independence voters would view it as a once in a generation chance and would grab it with both hands. I believe that this is the case and it seems that this is what the other parties believe too, despite their rhetoric to the contrary. Why else refuse to have it? No political party avoids a fight they think they will win, especially given the effect a defeat would have on the morale of the SNP.
The other reason, the elephant in the room, if you will, is that everyone expects there to be a Tory government in Westminster by the time an independence referendum comes around. We will be back to the democratic deficit which existed prior to devolution and which motivates so many people to seek constitutional change. The difference this time is that the SNP are in Government in Scotland and can show that they are standing up for Scotland against a Tory UK Government that was not voted for in any great numbers by the people of Scotland. By the time November 2010 comes, it is likely that the Tories will be making rather large cuts as their hand is forced by the biting recession, left to them like a poisoned chalice by the departing Gordon Brown. A vision of a prosperous, independent Scotland buoyed by oil revenues at that time may well chime with a Scottish population which is sick of unemployment and stagnation under the status quo.
