Referenda in a free society
The Scottish Lib Dems have apparently rejected the opportunity to share power with the Scottish National Party. The major stumbling block is said to be the Nationalists' demand for a referendum on independence. (Full story HERE.) Now, I can understand the two parties being polls apart on the issue of independence, but a referendum? Is it too much to ask that an issue as important as this be put to the Scottish people once every generation should the situation arise (as it just has)?
Personally, I would be amazed if the SNP wanted an early referendum. They may be the largest single party in the Scottish Parliament but they are heavily outnumbered by (allegedly) pro-union MSPs and the present ratio would almost certainly be reflected in a national referendum. Public opinion may change, especially if the SNP are perceived to be doing a good job in government, but I doubt that Alex Salmond would risk holding a referendum in the short term because, if the SNP lose, it will not only damage their ability to govern, it will make it difficult if not impossible to hold another referendum for a further generation.
Meanwhile, what are opponents of independence frightened of? In politics, as in other areas of life, people should have the courage of their convictions. A free society demands that major issues are properly debated and, where appropriate, voted upon. A general election, by its very nature, cannot do this because few elections are decided on a single issue. (I would guess, for example, that a substantial number of people voted for the SNP in the Scottish elections not because they support total independence from the rest of Britain but because they wanted to register a protest vote against the Labour administration.)
A referendum is an opportunity for a civilised, in-depth debate. Those who deny us that chance are enemies - not supporters - of a free society.
Reader Comments (9)
If a referendum is held, I think, as an Englishman in Scotland, I will abstain. My reasons for this are basic: it is for the Scots, and only those Scots residing in Scotland at the time of the referendum, to decide the future of their country.
I am the 1 in 10. One of the 500,000 English people that live here.
I wonder how many of the other 1 in 10's will also abstain? And what, if any, effect might that have on the outcome?
Where's Monteith when you need him?
What do you think Brian? Do I poke my nose in, or stay the hell out of it?
Firstly Simon why oh why do you persist with the falsehood that we live in a free society? Please list the freedoms we have left.
Colin; I am English and live in England and I would love the opportunity of a referendum on "allowing" Scotland to become independent of England. Surely both the Scots and English should have a say? My answer would be a resounding "yes" for them to be independent. I have nothing against the Scots at large only the collectivists amongst them, which amounts to 99% of their MPs and media people.
There should be a referendum on maintaining the Union, it should be held this year and it should be held in all of the constituent parts individually. Call it a rededication if you like. If any of the nations that take part wish to leave then so be it. People like Colin would thus feel entitled to vote.
If England said it was tired of all the Celtic whingeing then I would not blame it – but it wouldn't, because for all the accusations or insunuations of English intolerance it is in fact highly tolerant and mostly willing to turn the other cheek and ask for more.
Scotland would vote for the Union, the SNP would be redundant and then be nothing other than "Not the Labour Party".
If there is any referendum in Scotland by itself all those entitled to vote should vote as it is their future too. There will be many Scots working in England that will feel aggrieved that they don't have a say and that is why a UK approach makes far more sense.
Thats a much more sensible approach Brian. And you are quite right, I would feel like I was entitled to vote and I would feel like I was part of the process.
Its the same old story: if you are going to do something historic, something momentous, it is only right that all affected citizens get a chance to say yea or nay.
Alex Salmond, of course, has a referendum on independence written into the SNP manifesto, so he will surely have to accept whatever the majority has to say following that referendum?
I agree with Simon's thoughts that many SNP votes werent for SNP but were in fact protest votes against Labour.
I predict the same thing for England during the next general election.
I dunno. What if the UK wanted to drop out of the EU and Europe wouldn't let it because THEY'D voted against it?!?
Is it the same thing Rob?
Genuine question, as I am not as up to speed on the EU as I should be.
Rob; Good question about the EU. If (and that is a big if) we ever get such a vote and the climate hasn't drastically changed then I expect the English would vote to be out. If the rest of EU had a vote on that and decided we should be in I don't think we should be obliged to stay. Not that we may not legally be obliged to stay. I expect it might be more difficult for England to get out than a poorer country as I'm sure we contribute far more than we get back as a country.
With the Scottish question if the same scenario were to happen I think the Scots should have the right of secession, as should the rest of us.
Id say let the Scots decide in a referendum if they wish to remain part of the UK. But what do you think will happen to the economy?
It is after all their territory- but does anyone here know as a matter of interest if the Scots can immediately after independence join the EU and NATO or need to reapply and go through the process? Of course the same applies for other stateless nations like Wales and Catalonia for example.
As for leaving the EU it is up to the member state I believe, though no one has done so. Of course a state may be expelled or suspended under certain circumstances but no other states or the parliament cannot stop anyone leaving.