Wednesday, July 14, 2021

We need to get out of the United Kingdom because the Scottish Parliament is not safe within it

I'd heard a while back that the UK government were thinking of scrapping English Votes for English Laws (EVEL), but my reaction to the sudden news yesterday that they've actually gone ahead and done it (and without a vote, apparently) was "that's a bit casual, isn't it?"  It's the right decision in principle, but the fact that such a complete reversal was done so quickly and easily is a timely illustration of how a Tory government can simply reshape the constitution at a whim.  We need to get out of the United Kingdom because the Scottish Parliament is not safe within it.  Promises and conventions are utterly worthless, as has been demonstrated time and again over the last few years.

The main argument against EVEL was that legislation was being wrongly certified as "English-only" when in fact it had implications for the whole UK.  It may sometimes have been primarily English, but that's not the same thing.  It's quite difficult for a UK Parliament to pass laws that don't affect the whole UK to some extent, especially when there are things like Barnett consequentials to consider.

But we can safely assume democratic fairness is not the reason the UK Government have changed course - it'll be more to do with the dreadful optics of what happened on the morning after the independence referendum.  David Cameron and Gordon Brown had spent the entire campaign promising that a whole new thrilling world of enhanced devolution would open up for Scotland the moment we voted No, but instead the message was "right that's quite enough about Scotland, time to talk about England", just as soon as Scottish voters had been duped into rendering themselves powerless. People have long memories, and even if they don't remember that episode it's easy enough to remind them as soon as the next campaign gets underway.  Yesterday's tactical retreat will only repair a small amount of that damage.

*  *  *

I was asked the other day if I was going to write about the recent controversy over the franchise for any future indyref.  My view is that we should stick to the principle that applied last time - ie. we should use the same franchise that applies to local government and Holyrood elections (albeit that franchise is now wider than in 2014, because it's recently been extended to cover non-EU and non-Commonwealth citizens, and also some prisoners).  That's the right thing to do as a matter of principle, because the people who have most at stake are the people who live here.  If there was such a thing as Scottish citizenship, there might be a case for also including Scottish citizens who live elsewhere, especially if they haven't been gone long.  But there is no Scottish citizenship, and it's laughable to suggest that we should create an ad hoc pseudo-citizenship for the purposes of a single vote just because the Tories think it would be helpful to bring in English-domiciled Scots who might be more likely to vote No.

On the other extreme, though, there are also pro-independence bloggers trying to come up with justifications for stripping Scottish residents of their right to vote because they originally come from England and would be probable No voters.  Apart from the anti-democratic nature of this proposal, I'd suggest it's extremely naive from a strategic point of view.  In the unlikely event that a referendum occurs via an agreed Section 30 process, we won't be able to rig the franchise.  If we go ahead with a unilateral vote (as we should), we can choose any franchise we like, but drawing a circle around likely Yes voters and excluding everyone else will simply lead to the result being safely disregarded, both by the London government and the international community.  Any vote that isn't scrupulously democratic will be a monumental waste of time.

It's also worth making the point that it would be very difficult to devise a rule for excluding English people in Scotland that wouldn't also exclude a lot of EU citizens - and the latter would probably vote overwhelmingly Yes in the hope of Scotland rejoining the EU.

*   *   *

Donations made to the Scot Goes Pop general fundraiser until the end of this week will be put towards our next opinion poll.  If you'd like to donate, please click HERE.

12 comments:

  1. completely agree, ultimately if you cant win a referendum without the need to exclude a subsection of the electorate you dont deserve to win.

    Apart from anything else if you excluded people who were born in England from voting you would be stopping the President of the SNP from voting!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Good blog James ... On the 2nd part as I'm born in England "... stripping Scottish residents of their right to vote because they originally come from England and would be probable No voters. " ... This would exclude me (Indy/SNP Activist) ... and Michael Russell now overseer of the SNP Indy Campaign born in Bromley, Kent - Ho Hum

    ReplyDelete
  3. I have no problems with the franchise being the same, or now the expansions you mention.

    We do need to recognise however that the data shows that those born here and still loving here voted Yes in 2014 and remain in favour of independence.

    A future situation where there is a narrow result for no as a result of the votes of non-Scots would make us a colony.

    The outflow of population from Scotland being larger than the inflow to Scotland makes this more likely.

    I'm not being emotional or blood & soil about this, jut making everyone aware.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The Edinburgh University study of the 2014 referendum found that voters born in the "Rest of the UK" voted 72% No, 28% Yes, while those born in Scotland voted 47% No, 53% Yes.
    I wouldn't expect that split to be much different in a future referendum and it's not "blood and soil" nationalism to point out demographic reality. English people living in Scotland will always be much less persuadable to vote for Scottish independence as they will see it as "separation" from friends and family rather than independence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, it's not blood and soil nationalism to point out demographic reality. It is, however, blood and soil nationalism to try to rig the franchise on that basis.

      Delete
    2. I have a cousin who lives in England. He won't stop being my cousin, and he won't stop visiting Scotland if Scotland gains its independence. It's silly to suggest, as some do, that independence will prevent easy travel from Scotland to relatives down south, or vice versa.

      Delete
  5. Well, 5 to 10 years from now if we're still a British appendage then it will be too late - the Brits will close down HR

    ReplyDelete
  6. James, The point about RUK folk having family in England is true but applies to many Scottish born voters too.
    Wouldn't it be interesting if Gove's secret polling was targeted on UK Scots living in England?
    On the wider issue of the SNP Govt putting indy on the back-burner, I wonder if the SNP gaining control of councils next May is seen as a necessary step to undermining Unionist resistance?
    Such an outcome could open the door to a September Indyref.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The single transferable vote ensures that the anti Indy tranny party rights wont gain control of any Councils. That might be a blessing in disguise. That would be the anti male SNP and not just the now anti Indy SNP. It is he SNP that is now propping up the rotten anti Scottish Union.

      Delete
    2. IainM, The average punter hasnae a scoobie what you're gaun on aboot. Current polling would suggest the SNP will win control of more councils in May.
      My point is that removing much of the remaining unionist representation which is exceeding its shelf life on local councils could precede a tipping point on the road to Independence.
      In short, how many gubbings can Labour take till the penny drops that their own voters want to dump the Tory union?

      Delete
    3. I thought it was meant to be women that the SNP hated

      Delete
  7. Boris granted us a speech today on Leveling Up. It sounded a lot like Devo on Demand, an option the Coalition Government came up with in 2013/14. Not a bad thing in itself - the regions of England need and deserve more autonomy.

    ReplyDelete