My post of 22 May on Scotland’s future has prompted a considerable correspondence.
Several constituents have emailed to say that the Union of the two nations was by mutual agreement and therefore, a dissolution of that union should also be by mutual consent: if the Scots are to have a (further) referendum on the question; so should the other members of the Union.
There is a logic to this position but there is no appreciation of the political realities. Were a majority of voters in Scotland to demonstrate their preference to leave the Union, it would be an affront to democracy and the principle of ‘self-determination’ if they were to be held captive by an overall majority voters in the other parts of the Union.
Others have written to state that the future of nations should not be determined by slender majorities and that such profound constitutional changes need to be based on an overwhelming majority, perhaps with as many as two thirds voting for change.
The horse has already bolted on that one: first, the last Scottish referendum was settled on the basis of simple majority; Second we had a referendum in 2016 which profoundly changed the constitutional future of the UK on the basis of a simple and slender majority. It would be very difficult to justify moving the goal posts now.
It is true that the First Scottish referendum to set up an assembly in Edinburgh, held in 1979, was based on a requirement not only to secure a majority in favour, but also to secure the support of not less than 50% of registered voters (in effect apathy and indifference counting against the proposition). In the event ‘yes’ did secure a majority but with a turn-out of only 64% ‘Yes’ only accounted for 33% of registered voters, so the proposition fell.
The political reality is that such ‘gerrymandering’ just doesn’t settle the question. On the contrary, it gives rise to the belief that ‘we was robbed’.
Imagine how ‘Leave’ voters would have felt in 2016 if, having won against the odds, they were denied victory by some questionable threshold.
The most significant correspondence that I have received however, has come from Scottish people who now live in the New Forest and who are outraged that the future of their nation should be considered without including them in the franchise, (whilst English voters residing in Scotland will get a vote on it).
The 2014 Scottish referendum was held on a local government franchise which included EU nationals and was expanded to include over sixteen-year-olds. I recall the anger of so many elderly Scots who were born in Scotland and spent so much of their lives there, at being excluded from the decision, because they were now living in the New Forest.
Given that we allow UK voters who move overseas to continue to vote by post in the constituencies in which they last resided for 15 years after leaving UK -and indeed, there are proposals to allow them to continue to do so for life- the demand for Scottish ‘exiles’ to have a say seems a not unreasonable one.
As we do not have any legal concept with which to distinguish Scottish citizens from the rest of us, other than purely on where one currently resides, establishing a Scottish franchise beyond Scotland’s borders will be a significant administrative overhead.
But, hey, as the 2014 referendum was to settle the question “for a generation”, we have plenty of time to sort out the franchise for the next one.