You can understand why many people in Scotland don’t like the idea of yet another referendum. In the last 26 months, we have had little respite from political campaigning with no fewer than five trips to the polling stations. But I would argue that the outcome of the EU vote means that another plebiscite must be organised in Scotland to settle the crucial issue of which union it prefers. And this needs to be staged sooner rather than later.
In September 2014, Scottish voters said they wanted to stay in the British union by 55 to 45 on a very high turnout. Yesterday, they said they also wanted to remain in the European Union by a substantially larger margin (62-38) but on a significantly lower turnout. It is now tragically clear that we can’t have both.
A key question has to be answered before a decision is taken to hold a “which union?” referendum. Will the EU 27 accept the principle of Scotland as a Member State in its own right with a special accelerated procedure to allow continuity of membership? This would entail Scotland leaving the UK on the day of Brexit, with Scottish EU accession taking place simultaneously.
To me, the answer to this question is a no-brainer. It is politically inconceivable that the EU would effectively kick-out a country that is already in and wants to stay. It wouldn’t be necessary to open 33 negotiating chapters as we already comply with the provisions of membership. But time would be certainly be needed to determine the nature of the new arrangement including difficult issues such as the currency.
The arguments of UK unionists against a further referendum are completely unsustainable and unprincipled. This is not just because of their warnings in 2014, which they must now bitterly regret, that a “Yes” vote would lead to Scotland’s exclusion from the EU – when it turns out that the opposite is true. It is also because it involves turning a basic principle on its head in insisting that the earlier act must prevail. Now I am not suggesting that Scotland’s EU remain vote leads to automatic independence and successor state status in the EU. That would be stretching it too far. But the different outcomes in Scotland and UK-wide on 23 June fundamentally change the circumstances that underpinned the 2014 independence referendum. That decision was for Scotland to stay in a UK that was part of the EU.
The Brexit vote means that we face a long period of uncertainty as Britain extricates itself from the EU system. A Scottish departure from the UK while staying in the EU would also be disruptive – probably more so – but in different areas. Whatever happens, “normal service” cannot be resumed.
A speedy “which union?” referendum is essential. We might choose to stay with the UK or we might opt for Europe but in either event, we would know where we were headed in the longer term. Without a deciding referendum, the sore will continue to fester, to the detriment of Scotland’s economy and the well-being of the people who live here.
* Simon Horner was Lib Dem candidate for North-East Scotland (European Parliament) in 1989 and 1994 and for North Tayside (Westminster) in 1992.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
High Fell leaflet watch (2)
No, Leave didn't win the Brexit referendum because of Northern working class voters
Two new Makerfield by-election polls gives Burnham 5 and 12 point leads
Reform under water
Geoffrey Payne
Richard Whelan
David Raw
Tom Reeve
18 Comments
There are not only questions about Which Union? but many others, including which direction to we in the Lib-Dems head in.
The people of Scotland have spoken twice, but as Simon says, they cannot have it both ways and remain in both unions.
It may be that now the party and the leadership north and south of the border needs to accept the true consequences of devolution and accept that the time has come for debate within the party as to where we go from here, even if it results in a different answer from Tim and Willie.
Sorry, Simon, Scotland does not already meet the criteria for membership of the EU as an independent country.There is no guarantee that we will get in to the EU, or that if we do it will be quick and painless. For example, Scotland is running what would be a huge budget deficit for an independent nation and, having been burned by the Greek experience already, I cannot see the EU welcoming us in until we have dealt with it. That would mean REAL austerity for several years.
Furthermore, Scotland trades more with the UK than the EU – 60% of our trade goes south of the border. It would be as difficult for Scottish business to be IN while it’s principal market is OUT as it would have been the other way round (which would have been the case at the moment if Scotland had voted Yes) Also, if immigration is really the issue down South and Scotland is in the EU that almost certainly means some type of border control further restricting trade. Jumping into a quick referendum would be disastrous for Scotland.
Russell – and the currency issue adds another problem to the mix, as the previous position of the SNP was to keep the pound.
They will need to come up with an answer to the issues you raise as well as an alternative strategy for the currency to be used by Scotland in the EU.
It is not credible for the SNP to argue to enter the EU using the currency of our major trading partner, which is in the process of leaving.
A referendum in Scotland and in Northern Ireland are now inevitable and should happen sooner rather than later. It makes sense for both parts of the UK to seek to remain in the EU because that’s what they voted for. It would the irony of ironies if the referendum called by the Conservative and Unionist Party led to a united Ireland or a Federation of Irish States.
John Barrett, if I lived in Scotland – and it looks a much more attractive proposition by the moment – I would have voted to stay with the UK. Now, however, for the sake of future generations, I would probably vote for independence.
Russel, I suspect you would find that the EU would look to overcome obstacles to Scottish membership, if only to stick 2 fingers up to England. Of course, Scotland would enjoy all tax revenues it raises rather than send them to England to be sent back as a grant. Now there may still be a deficit and that may well require higher taxes, though not austerity.
As for trade, presumably England and Wales would still want the goods Scotland sells and would not want to put tariffs on them?
The pound is only a problem if England chooses to make it one. In which case there is always the Euro, which on present trends will soon be at parity with the pound. Anyway, the pound will be a minor currency once Frankfurt becomes the major financial centre of Europe.
If the decision for independence is taken before invocation of Article 50 there is an easy solution. The UK remains in the EU whilst England and Wales leave the UK (and, thereby, the EU). Post Article 50 that might be more difficult, as the UK would have given notice to leave.
The position of Northern Ireland would be more problematic. Not that I know anything about the complexities of Northern Ireland but could one solution be to unify Northern Ireland not with Eire but with Scotland? And could Republican aspirations be somewhat met by the creation of a “Celtic Union”, Greater Scotland and Eire?
If there is another independence referendum in Scotland I suspect the results will be the same as they were last time. A strong no vote.
The SNP won’t be able to pretend that oil will pay for everything this time. And as for the currency question, that will be answered properly this time, an independent Scotland joining the EU would have to use the Euro. Not popular that. And after seeing how Greece was treated, nobody will believe the EU will help Scotland if it gets in trouble like the rest of the UK has. The nationalists are dreaming.
I’m pretty sure that Scotland will rise now and be a Nation again, within the EU.
However I suspect that other EU countries with similar views to English nationalists will stir it for both a vote within their own countries or at least some reforms which will restore at least the Common Market. Either way self determination, and some kind of federal state here I come, i.e. Home Rule – something I’ve voted for all my political life!
A very statesperson like statement has just been made by the First Minister. She will be exploring all possible ways to give effect to the will of the Scottish people that was expressed yesterday. It can be surmised that this includes seeing if there is any diplomatic way to make a special arrangement to preserve Scotland’s place in both unions. However, an independence referendum is also on the table should that not be possible. That seems a very reasonable preliminary step.
An excellent speech by Nicola Sturgeon. She is, by a long way and by all criteria, the best political leader in the UK today. That was meant to be a compliment although, when one considers the competition, it may seem a rather back-handed one.
If the people of Scotland decide to do whatever it takes to implement their decision to remain within the EU, very good luck to them.
An excellent speech by Nicola Sturgeon. She is, by a long way and by all criteria, the best political leader in the UK today.
Whilst I have not liked much of what Nicola has said in the past, I get the feeling from this speech that she fully understands her real position in UK politic’s; it is just a shame she isn’t a Conservative as I think she would make an excellent successor to David Cameron…
Is it nit-picky to point out that people born in Scotland actually voted for independence but this was brought back to 45% by the English & other ‘foreigners’ now resident in Scotland. Of course maybe you didn’t know that, in which case you’re welcome!
According to the list on Conservativehome, my area, Waverley, voted to remain. Can the observers on the LibDem Voice team confirm this?
“Waverley”, although the name of a local ruined abbey, is sort of a Scottish word isn’t it? Although we’re situated in South East England, could we perhaps apply for Scottish citizenship?
More seriously, although not strictly germane to this thread, there seems to have been a cluster of constituencies in this area (Mole Valley, Guildford, Waverley, Woking, etc. which voted to remain. What all these constituencies have in common is a population which includes a relatively high proportion of graduates and of people on above average incomes (there’s an overlap between those two group both of which , according to the pundits, had a higher propensity to vote “Remain”) and a high number of people who commute to London. This whole area, including London, was hit by torrential storms, flash floods and transport disruptions yesterday. How did the turnout in this part of England compare with the rest of the country; was it affected by those problems?. If so, how might a higher turnout in London and the South East have affected the overall result? That’s not a comment, but a series of questions, but I’d be interested in the answers if you guys are in a position to furnish them.
Nick Collins – on a similar note, Wokingham, the constituency of the Vulcan himself, John Redwood, voted remain.
Here in Bristol, we voted Remain by a considerable amount, as did many other prosperous, formerly maritime, cities, possibly disproving the notion that as a trading nation we want to be free ‘to trade with the world’, put about by all kinds of Brexiteers from the loony (Farage etc) to the apparently more moderate.
I’ve just found, on the BBC website, that the turnout in Waverley was over 82%, so we cannot blame the weather or our “low turnout” for the fact that we were out-voted by the most (thanks Matt) of the rest of the country!
Should currency be a problem? The two most misleading claims by Project Fear during the 2014 Referendum were that Scotland would be (1) excluded from the EU and (2) unable to use Sterling. The latter is the more scandalous because the Bank of England’s Mervyn King, no less, revealed in STV’s “Scotland Tonight” in March his opinion that the continued use of sterling would have been “totally feasible”
Free and easy cross-border trade with non-EU England could be more problematic for the promoters of a second referendum. But Nicola Sturgeon’s biggest headache is this: Scotland may well be assured of a warm welcome as the rest of the UK leaves, but by the time we have a second IndyRef the EU may be showing signs of disintegration as the contagion of “Exit” spreads to Denmark, the Netherlands, France etc.
I doubt there would be time for an independence referendum and the requisite dismemberment of the U.K. prior to the exit from the EU being completed. The trade issue would be the greatest in my view. Brussels and London not Holyrood and London will decide whether there would be tariffs or not. The minute tariffs are placed on the services we sell to the EU (by removing the so called passport etc) we would reciprocate on goods where there is a sizeable trade deficit. If that’s the case Scotland would be mad to jeopardise trade with their biggest partner, incur the expense of a closed border and the risk of entering the euro (which would also require currency exchange with their biggest trade partner). That’s before the change in the prospects of the oil industry since the last referendum is taken into account.
That said I think the UK is mad to leave the EU so you never know….
@Tony Lloyd ‘… could one solution be to unify Northern Ireland not with Eire but with Scotland?’
That makes sense geologically but I’m not sure that re-opening the Iapetus Suture politically would work otherwise.
Having had some time over the weekend to consider what might unfold in the future – north of the border………….
I am sure that Nicola Sturgeon’s strategy will be to appear to explore every option for Scotland to continue with its existing ties to Europe and to bring everyone (including the Scottish Lib-Dems) into her big tent to search for solutions to deliver “the will of the Scottish people to remain in the EU” while the rest of the UK leave – while all the time knowing that no such solutions exist.
This will give her a period of time to effectively do what Cameron did with Clegg and our party leadership in 2010. Bring them on board as part of the team in the short term, while she and the SNP develop her case for a second referendum. The short term willingness to co-operate will do for the Scottish Lib-Dems what coalition did for the party throughout the UK and end in electoral disaster.
When she has tried and failed to find any alternative way to remain in Europe, she will then announce that there is no alternative to a second referendum and she will have by then weakened any opposition to this, while at the same building up her case for a Yes vote. Parties which have already expressed opposition to a new referendum will then find that they have to reverse their position and decide where they stand on independence. Scottish Lib-Dems will probably be split down the middle.
Any attempt by Westminster to refuse to pass legislation to allow this second referendum to take place will only add to her support.
In the end there will be a second referendum and unless the EU show that they are unwilling to accept a Scotland with a massive deficit and other problems, or that the conditions placed on Scotland to comply with membership will result in Greek style austerity, there is every likelihood that she will win it.
Only time will tell.