Complications of a Referendum
11th May 2008
Posted in: The Union
Written by: Ali Gledhill
I pity Gordon Brown. Not for his catalogue of mistakes - they are his fault, and he should be held totally responsible. But the latest crisis has put him in rather a sticky position: no response to Wendy Alexander’s call for an early referendum could have been successful. She U-Turned without telling Gordon Brown - clearly the result of her belief that Labour will lose the next general election. She should know - Labour in Scotland lost their shared power to the SNP last year. She rather stuck Gordon in it.
Brown is stuck in a rut. He wants to save the union, as does Wendy Alexander. It is clear that Alexander now sees a referendum as the inevitable consequence of SNP rule, and expects them to wait until a broadly English-elected Conservative party takes the helm in Westminster. To save the union, therefore, she hopes to see a referendum take place at a time suited to her, not to the SNP. The timing of referenda, of course, being the most important factor in their outcome. But Gordon Brown cannot call a referendum on Scottish independence.
To do so would apportion blame on his shoulders; the Prime Minister who allows the public voice to be heard is surely the one who sets the ball rolling - the slippery slope to independence would begin at his hands. He also knows that Scotland requires Westminster to annex it, and Brown will trust on parliamentary support from all sides in order to prevent that happenning even if Scotland votes for independence. (For what it is worth, I suspect this eventuality is the reason Alex Salmond has retained his parliamentary seat.) If he is prepared to overrule a referendum, why on earth call one?
A more pressing concern is that Scotland is not the only nation which should have a say in the future of the Union. Just like the inbalance of devolution, an imbalance of independence should not be tolerated. What Union is is that allows one componant to vote for independence but not another? Why should Scotland have a referendum but England not? Why not Wales? Northern Ireland? I do not wish to see any referenda on the issue. But if there are, there should be four.
Clearly this raises issues for Northern Ireland, so tentatively staring peace in the face, ready to face a brave new world of powersharing and co-operation. A referendum on independence would doubtless throw new light on buried issues - albeit issues buried very close to the surface. But a referendum on independence in Scotland could not pass without requests for the same in Northern Ireland - a nation for which a referendum would clearly be a more legitimate request.
There is the glorious possibility of a Tory government being met with a referendum north of the border showing popular support for independence; if the Conservatives refused to grant it, and SNP-run Scottish Parliament may well unilaterally declare Scotland’s independence. I suspect the poll would show minority support and would hit the SNP hard at the next Scottish Parliament elections, but the prospect of a unilateral declaration would be something of a spectacle.
Brown has been thrown into an issue he does not want to be in, thanks to his inept Scottish party leader. But the issue will haunt him. In a strange irony, the SNP are hoping for an English-elected Conservative government; Gordon Brown’s lingering in office is a gift to Alex Salmond. The larger the Tory majority, the further into Scotland they creep - it is worth considering that a Tory majority about as large as Labour has now would contain considerably fewer Scottish MPs than a majority twice as big. It’s a balancing act.
This is democracy’s greatest triumph; voters in Scotland in 2010 can knock Labour down, beef up SNP support, and wait for a referendum or they can vote Tory and break Salmond’s greatest weapon; an English Tory government in Westminster. With a Scottish Prime Minister and a heavy presence in the cabinet, Salmond’s main weapon has yet to come into his own. English voters opting for a party totally committed to the retention of the Union run the risk of giving the SNP golden arrow, which will see the end of a United Kingdom.
It is not all bad news, but it could soon become so. In the meantime, few people benefit from continuing arguments on the subject.
“A more pressing concern is that Scotland is not the only nation which should have a say in the future of the Union. Just like the inbalance of devolution, an imbalance of independence should not be tolerated. What Union is is that allows one componant to vote for independence but not another? Why should Scotland have a referendum but England not? Why not Wales? Northern Ireland? I do not wish to see any referenda on the issue. But if there are, there should be four.”
Not necessarily. The logic behind Scotland pushing for a referendum is, as far as I’m aware, that the SNP were elected on a mandate of holding such a poll in 2010. That is not the case in the other countries, unless Plaid are stating their case more strongly than they have done recently…
If that argument is of any value, then one must ask what the SNP mandate is worth. Here, the idiocy of referenda is exposed; parties should be elected to perform the task they hope to perform, not to call a referendum on it.
This is democracy’s greatest triumph; voters in Scotland in 2010 can knock Labour down, beef up SNP support, and wait for a referendum or they can vote Tory and break Salmond’s greatest weapon; an English Tory government in Westminster.
You are suggesting that Scotland might vote for the Conservatives?
“Parties should be elected to perform the task they hope to perform, not to call a referendum on it.”
I’d agree; but surely, if a party mentions a referendum in its manifesto, and is elected on that manifesto, it sould hold one? I’m sure I’ve heard you claim this with regards the Lisbon Treaty…
Indeed I have, Doug. But I am gradually coming to the opinion that no manifesto should include promises for referenda. Of course, that means that the EU Constitution would be imposed on us anyway…
Am I going to have to start repeating myself, Ali?
Because the likelihood of Scotland going Tory is about as high as Tower Hamlets & Southall going NF.