Playing With Fire

As I've mentioned, I'm deeply skeptical of the SNP's chances of actually holding a second independence referendum next year. However, I've been deeply worried at some of the responses to the announcement.

On the one hand, we have various strands of the unionist camp who have been positively gleeful in announcing that of course it won't happen because of course Westminster have an absolute veto - they'll say "no", and that's the end of the matter.

The major reason that that's problematic is that it cuts right through a crucial point of principle: is Scotland a voluntary member of a union, courtesy of having had a vote in 2014, or is Scotland an imperial possession, that was only permitted that vote by the very great generosity of an indulgent (and arrogant) Prime Minister?

If the answer to that is "we're a voluntary member of a union", then Scotland must have the right to ask itself if we want to remain in that union - unilaterally, whenever we want, and indeed as often as we want. (It would be reasonable to specify in law a "cooling down" period between votes. At present, however, no such period is defined - and if one is to be introduced, it must take effect after the next such referendum. We need to know what we're voting for.)

(The "once in a generation" thing was campaign rhetoric by Alex Salmond who, not surprisingly, isn't the definitive authority on anything. It certainly wasn't a promise, a condition, or in any way binding. But even if it had been, UK law does actually define what a "generation" is in terms of a referendum for leaving the UK, which is specified in the Good Friday Agreement as 7 years. Which, of course, have already passed.)

On the other hand, we have had various people suggesting that if the SNP go ahead with an advisory referendum without Westminster approval, the UK government should follow the example of Spain with Catalonia, and violently repress Scottish democracy. Which is an utterly abhorrent thing to suggest, and which I'll therefore waste no more time on.

Fundamentally, though, many of the unionist commentators are coming to the position that Westminster should have a permanent veto on a referendum and that they should permanently exercise it; and that, therefore, Scotland should never be allowed a democratic route to independence.

I find that really quite scary, because while it may be superficially attractive it betrays a lack of deep thought. If you close off every peaceful, democratic route to independence, that doesn't end the struggle for independence. It will stops it being peaceful and democratic - a prospect that is, of course, terrifying. That should be the last thing that we want.

If Westminster are indeed to veto the referendum in 2023, as I'm pretty sure they will (one way or another), they must detail when and how one may be held in the future. Otherwise, they are playing with fire.