As The Telegraph has noted this morning:
Andy Burnham has suggested that another Scottish independence referendum could be held if public opinion shows demand for it.
The Prime Minister told the Commons that the trigger for a separation vote was “exactly the same situation in Scotland” as in Northern Ireland.
Under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement, there is a potential pathway for an Irish reunification poll. It states that a referendum should be staged if it “appears likely” that a majority of people in Northern Ireland would vote to leave the UK.
Scortland needs to hold him to that.
A week next Thursday, then?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
If, as in Northern Ireland, the secretary of state has to make the decision, conditions will never exist under which a second referendum will be permitted to take place. The incumbent has a very special loathing for the Scottish Government and will never co-operate. Even with a more reasonable secretary, the goalposts will continually shift to keep Scotland from making a decision on self-determination.
I fear what you say is absolutely correct C.P, much as I would wish otherwise.
Yes, a vote for Scottish independence. Scots should decide what they want.
It should, of course, be clear what the vote is for. For example, do independence proponents think they will continue to use the British pound (is that possible)?, what will be trading arrangements be etc, freedom of travel and residence? People may think, “well that’s obvious”, but different folks may find different things obvious. Unresolved differences are a recipe for later problems and discord. That is, perhaps, what was wrong with the Brexit vote, people didn’t know what they were voting for.
Then, of course, there’s the question of who should vote? Should it be residents of Scotland (however that might be defined?), British citizens who happen to be resident in Scotland?, anyone who could be a Scottish citizen after independence (i.e. anyone with a Scottish grandparent)?
If we can get those little matters resolved by next Thursday then, yes, let’s go for it.
Then we can move on to independence for the English regions. Independent Yorkshire and Cornwall anyone?
Alternatively we might try to make the Union work for everyone, with adequate independence (subsidiarity) and a British government deciding only on matters that are strictly common. A bit like the European Union was supposed to be. Pity we couldn’t get that to work for many people in England. 🙁
Much to agree with.
But much of this is now clear.
All highly relevant questions. In the run-up to the first independence referendum, the Scottish Government prepared a six hundred page document covering the vast majority of scenarios. Turning to your point about the franchise, the vote was given to all legal residents of Scotland aged 16 and over for the 2014 referendum. There is no advantage to either side in tinkering with that franchise.
I cannot agree to the same franchise. No other country seeking independence has allowed students and other temporary residents to vote on independence. Indeed, most have insisted on five, ten or other lengths of residence. In 2014 a maximum of those born here voted for independence. Why should new incomers be allowed decide our future?
Believe in Scotland as a very well organised effective independence group has a good handle on this running a petition to present to the PM about the already expressed will of the Scottish Electorate choice for pro independence parties in Scottish elections of last ten years. Burnam’s question time answer was a matter of an expressed majority of Scots wanting a vote on the independence issue. Not a vote for actual independence. It’s clear in the existing electoral arrangements that only Scots registered to vote and resident in Scotland would be the ones voting for that and in any subsequent vote for actual independence. Gerrymandering the electoral rolls for a union result in any way would not be accepted by pro independence or pro unionist Scots, they are a pretty fair minded lot either way and would not accept that being imposed on them again. Refer to history of 1707 and 2014 debacles and the 60% show to vote and 40% yes vote for devolution of 1979 Labour gerrymander. The world has become more educated about what democracy and equity is all about.
” It’s clear in the existing electoral arrangements that only Scots registered to vote and resident in Scotland would be the ones voting for that and in any subsequent vote for actual independence.”
Does the electoral register show whether someone is Scots? My brother has lived and worked in Scotland since at least 1990. His wife is Scottish. Would he have a vote?
Yes, I think
Of course. I was born in Lancashire but have been resident in Scotland since 1983. I have voted in all elections here since, including the 2014 referendum (when I campaigned for and voted “yes”)
“My brother has lived and worked in Scotland since at least 1990. His wife is Scottish.”
Did he not have a vote in the 2014 referendum? If not, what reason was given?
I certainly did. I’ve no Scottish blood at all and have lived and worked here since the mid-80s
Yes, anyone legally living in Scotland can vote, as I (formerly from England) did in 2014. Further to that, anyone residing in Scotland is regarded as a Scot. There are still some ‘blood and soil’ purists at the right hand end of Nationalism, who would deport me although I have been here for 30+ years and have a Scottish wife and two Scottish children. But the majority of folk here simply accept that if you choose to live in Scotland, you have become Scottish. Former FM Nicola Sturgeon explores the complexities of nationhood here: https://www.thenational.scot/news/20741040.nicola-sturgeon-i-consider-british-well-scottish/
Including this quote: “Identity is a complex thing. Many people live in Scotland, are as Scottish as I am, but will have a very proud Pakistani or Indian or African identity.”
Interesting article from the Daily Record
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/commission-should-look-indyref2-scotland-37609458
They suggest that there should be a trigger of (say) 60% of Scots supporting independence to trigger a poll
They would….
Why have a different standard here?
I think that it should also be made clear that after independence there would need to be a Scottish Constitution which would need to be written at that time. After all the SNP would by its very name not have an overriding say. The implication is that the then citizens of a new Scotland would be able to determine their own future.
I wrote about this here prior to the 2014 vote
Post Independence | Questions and Reflections
I’m probably being cynical here, but I think Burnham is just kicking the can down the road. Making pleasant noises and nothing else. How are we in Scotland supposed to prove we want a referendum without formally asking for one?
I’d much rather he put the BBC in its place—our public funded news channel which Scotland contributes to—requiring it to give independence and the current SNP government (which has been in place since 2007 …19 years) a fair go in the media, when it comes to reporting events, potential, etc. Instead the BBC just dishes out all SNP Baaaad or nothing.
Either that (or AND that) why doesn’t he just agree to a blinking referendum.
A nebulous promise of a referendum if we can prove a majority wants one? When we have no other way to prove it, EXCEPT with a referendum. Aye, right….
I see that Burnham has now done what Paul Kavanagh calls a “reverse ferret” and claiming to have said (or meant) otherwise. Very like his predecessor. https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/
Of course. It was inevitable.