The Commons: Does Westminster Hold the Reins on Scottish Independence?
DEA / S. VANNINI / themoog
Under a renewed push for Scottish independence, Prime Minister Boris Johnson has shied away from entertaining the possibility of a second referendum. Even before chaos of COVID-19 swept the globe, his new leadership position and concerns around Brexit had already determined the course Johnson was to take.
The devolved Scotland Parliament at Holyrood has limits to its independence from Westminster, as set out in the Scotland Act 1998. Significantly, Holyrood does not have sole jurisdiction over “the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England.” Without explicit permission from Westminster, Scotland cannot entertain a disunion. In order for the 2014 referendum to occur, Scotland negotiated with Westminster to draft the Edinburgh Agreement. The 2012 agreement amended the original act in order for “a single-question referendum on Scottish independence to be held before the end of 2014.”
Six years on from the first referendum, with the UK having left the EU, Scotland is again pushing Westminster for a second referendum; A possibility that Boris Johnson is not keen to entertain. December 2019 saw Sturgeon’s government publish “Scotland’s Right to Choose: Putting Scotland’s Future in Scotland’s Hands.” On the heels of a landslide Conservative win, Johnson responded swiftly to that Scottish Parliamentary. In his view, the 2014 Independence Referendum was a ‘Once in a Generation’ vote, not to be undertaken again. He wrote that “the people of Scotland voted decisively on that promise to keep our United Kingdom together, a result which both the Scottish and UK governments committed to respect in the Edinburgh Agreement.” As mentioned above, the Edinburgh Agreement allowed for the actualization of the referendum, but beyond that, it also made clear that each nation would respect the result of the vote: a point the Prime Minister has held close. In his January remarks, Johnson stated that “the UK government [would] continue to uphold the democratic decision of the Scottish people and the promise that [SNP Leader Nicola Sturgeon] made to them. For that reason, [Johnson] cannot agree to any request of transfer of power that would lead to further independence referendums.” There is an almost immediate tension in Johnson’s argument here: a contrast between upholding democracy and a refusal to transfer power to Scottish Parliament. The Scottish paper to which he was responding addresses this tension explicitly.
In the opening lines, the paper states that “it is a fundamental democratic principle that the decision on whether or not Scotland becomes independent should rest with the people who live in Scotland,” a clear call to democracy and self-determination. With regard to Johnson’s respect for the 2014 referendum, the paper communicates that “there has been a significant and material change in circumstances” that would warrant a reconsideration of the ‘Once in A Lifetime’ attitude toward a referendum. What creates the most friction between the Scottish paper and Johnson’s response is the Prime Minister's justification of ‘respecting democracy.’ The paper makes clear that, in line with the well-received SNP manifestos of 2016 and 2019, they had received a “mandate” to push for Scottish Independence. If anything, in the eyes of Scottish Parliament, it is undemocratic for Westminster to deny them the right to another vote.
In line with voter sentiment and recent polling numbers, Westminster fears Scotland would vote out of the United Kingdom. Thus, blocking the manifestation of a second vote removes that risk altogether.
Source: YouGov
This renewed push for independence is not just a result of the chaos of the last few months. The SNP has been diligently championing the cause for the last 5 years. In its 2016 manifesto, the Scottish National Party “argued that ‘Scotland being taken out of the EU against [its] will’ would justify a second vote on independence. Scotland voted by 62% to 38% in favour of Remain in the EU referendum in June 2016, and the first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, concluded that indyref2 'must be on the table.’” Brexit has no doubt shifted the Scottish political landscape, and with regard to the 2019 Scottish Parliamentary paper, the UK’s decision to leave the EU may constitute a ‘material change in circumstance’ – enough to warrant a second referendum. The material change, in the eyes of First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, is simple: “Brexit and all that flows from it will affect the ability of Scottish Governments now and well into the future to do the day job—to support businesses, combat poverty, fund the national health service and public services, and work with other countries to tackle the defining challenges of our time.”
In March 2017, the day before Article 50 was triggered, Sturgeon “formally requested the consent of Westminster to hold another referendum.” Theresa May, the then Prime Minister, “declined, arguing that ‘now is not the time.’” With hopes that April 2019 may have beeen the time, Sturgeon again pushed for a second referendum. In a parliamentary meeting on April 24th, Sturgeon stated, poignantly:
“Scotland’s 62 per cent vote to remain in the EU counted for nothing. Far from being an equal partner at Westminster, Scotland’s voice is listened to only if it chimes with that of the UK majority; if it does not, we are outvoted and ignored.”
Beyond a question of the material benefit of Scotland staying in the EU, Westminster’s continued refusal to compromise on the issue has shone light on the unequal power dynamic between these two nations. With so much power still in the hands of Westminster, Holyrood has become increasingly louder as to its frustration. From its initial formation, in the language of the Scotland Act 1998, whilst the relationship is a “Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England,” most of the power remains with England. Now more than ever, Scotland is advocating for its own right to self-determination and democracy, on the grounds that over 50% of the population is on board with the referendum; there’s no doubt a mandate for a second vote. Westminster’s call to ‘protect’ democracy on the grounds of the 2014 vote may be but a thinly veiled attempt to avoid being deserted by Scotland.
In a time of immense uncertainty as to its political and diplomatic future, Westminster needs to maintain its formidable reputation. There’s no doubt that the disunion of Scotland and England would hurt that reputation and the future of the United Kingdom.