Last week, I spent an afternoon in the company of Roz Foyer, the general-secretary of the STUC. She’s one of the most interesting people in Scottish public life, completely fearless about speaking her mind on any subject.
Her gutsiness is more than refreshing in this era of self-imposed silence for fear of being cancelled by the pious howling of culture warriors.
The STUC isn’t affiliated to the Labour Party so is neutral on the question of Scottish independence. That doesn’t stop Foyer, though, from making consistently good points on the issue of the constitution.
Broadly, she considers it an affront to democracy that the Scottish Parliament is unable to legislate for another referendum, if, crucially, a majority exists in Holyrood for another vote. Scotland’s future should be a matter for Scotland’s democratically elected representatives.
Read more
- Neil talks to Roz Foyer about Reform, indy and another referendum
- The case for why Scotland needs a Northern Ireland solution to indyref2
- Why the Yes camp must prepare for indy as the union is on borrowed time
Last week, Foyer was mulling over the “likely” prospects of Reform becoming the next UK government. It would clearly put the Yes movement on steroids.
In the last 10 opinion polls, Yes has been in the lead six times, No four, and the sides were tied once. The most recent polling had Yes on 52% to No on 41%.
You don’t need the gift of second sight to know that Farage in Number 10 would create a consistent and stable majority for Yes in the mid-50s at least.
What then? I’m from Northern Ireland, and have suggested before that Scotland deserves by any measure the same constitutional status.
If a majority develops in Northern Ireland in support of reunification, then the terms of the Good Friday Agreement dictate that the Secretary of State must call a border poll.
It’s far from a perfect solution. There’s a whiff of colonialism to the notion of a London government deciding when the Northern Ireland people can have their say on any issue, but given the bloody events I grew up around this democratic half-way house is broadly acceptable.
But what would happen in Scotland if Farage took power and independence support went through the roof? We’d have a recipe for a very ugly constitutional crisis. Foyer genuinely feared that there could be civil unrest.
Given where I’m from, I’m not sure that’s the case. Scotland has a proud and robust democratic tradition and whilst sometimes our politics can get verbally unpleasant, I struggle to ever imagine it progressing much beyond an egg being chucked at some bloviating politician.
However, the toxin of a constitutional crisis in which the democratic will of the majority of Scots is suffocated would undoubtedly corrode our country and its institutions. Our discourse would become embittered and hateful. It’s certainly dangerous to deny voters a voice.
Thus, we need to be prepared for that eventuality, for Farage in power, and for polls to put Yes into the mid-50s or even the 60s. A Reform government would inevitably – one imagines theatrically – deny the right to a referendum in such circumstances.
If you’re Yes or No, you cannot wish such an outcome on your country. Unionists would be cast in the role of oppressor, and it would simply delay the inevitable. Such rage would build up that sooner or later the Union would end, only this time with hate, not handshakes.
Scottish voters need a mechanism to express their will. The notion of the Scottish Parliament having power over the independence question is dead. In 2022, the Supreme Court ruled that the Scottish Government cannot hold a referendum without UK Government consent.
Many Yes voters disagreed, understandably so, but the law is the law. The ruling, however, doesn’t mean that we must stand around sucking our thumbs.
Northern Ireland provides the pathway forward. If Northern Ireland has a mechanism towards a vote on its constitutional future, then each of the four nations should have the same rights.
Perhaps, England might one day like to vote to leave the rest of us behind. If so, English voters should have the right to express that opinion.
There’s a case to be made in the courts that Scotland and Wales should have the same rights as Northern Ireland: that if, in the event of sustained and consistent polling showing a significant majority in favour of independence, the Secretary of State is duty bound to call a referendum.
Again, this is far from satisfactory, again it smacks of colonialism, but at least it provides a legal pathway that would head off any constitutional crisis should we find ourselves in the situation where Farage is in office, Yes polling sky-rocketing, demands for a referendum are getting tetchy and Reform is saying No.
To establish a set of rules in the courts would tie everyone’s hands. We need the law to sandbag us for the future.
I’d suggest that the SNP isn’t the best plaintiff in any such case. It failed during the last Supreme Court challenge, and it would be much more PR-friendly to see the Yes movement itself lead such an endeavour.
Perhaps some grassroots group could find a friendly pro bono lawyer or fundraise for a test case on giving Scotland parity with Northern Ireland?
I believe this is a way forward for Scotland which allows us to park our differences, pending a change of circumstance, and get on with governing the country in the most collegiate fashion possible.
This needs to happen. We need a way out and a way forward. Such is my belief, that I’ll state here that if a grassroots group doesn’t step forward in due course to take such a case then I’ll try to do so myself.
I’m sure I can find a friendly lawyer to work with (I’m not hard to find). And if not, I’m sure I can raise at least the seed money online to hire a lawyer who can help put a case together.
Perhaps it’s futile, perhaps it will all end in a court defeat. But it’s better to try to act in the best interests of your country and democracy than to sit and wait for the worst to materialise.
Neil Mackay is The Herald’s Writer-at-Large. He’s a multi-award-winning investigative journalist, author of both fiction and non-fiction, and a filmmaker and broadcaster. He specialises in intelligence, security, crime, social affairs, cultural commentary, and foreign and domestic politics.
