The counting is done and it is clear that the SNP, together with the Scottish Green Party, have a mandate for a referendum on the question of Scotland’s independence from the United Kingdom. Whilst there may be some in the SNP who would like this to take place in short order, there is equally a recognition from cooler heads that the current moment is less than ideal for a full scale campaign and that a more reasonable timescale for the referendum to take place is sometime within the next five years. Boris Johnson, meantime, would appear to be in denial of this message from Scotland and to be basing his entire strategy for seeing off the SNP on his grand plans for “levelling up.”  It is as yet unclear how, when the SNP are so dominant in Scotland, he will claim credit for any benefits arising from newfound Tory largesse which may wash up over the border.

Whilst I have never been an enthusiast for Scotish independence, I do not doubt that Scotland could be a successful independent nation, prosperous, diverse and forward looking;  there are, however, sound reasons to suppose that the road to that happy place would be a good deal rockier than  enthusiasts may believe.

However, the prospect of an independence referendum presents an opportunity, indeed an imperative, for the Union to reinvent itself for the modern era. Any independence referendum must be preceded by a constitutional review and re-balancing, with the clear objective of presenting all UK citizens reforms intended to restore a sense of equal partnership to the Union. [1]

That, however, is a tall order. 

Stumbling blocks

Mere devolution of further powers to Scotland and Wales, and perhaps Northern Ireland, whatever short term appeal this may have, will simply compound existing structural problems in the Constitution, largely arising from the 1998 devolution settlement, intended, as it was, to satisfy secessionist pressures in Scotland and Wales.  There were no signs at that time, of  parallel political movements developing in the English regions, pressing for similar devolved institutions, and there have been no such stirrings in the intervening years. The result has been a UK Parliament which has increasingly taken on the character of an English Parliament with disaffected hangers on.

In short, the institution most urgently in need of reform is the UK Parliament itself, with reform of the House of Lords offering an obvious additional opportunity to create a system of government fit for the 21st century. Significant reform of the UK Parliament must have at its centre the introduction of a proportional system of voting, such that the votes of all UK citizens have equal value.Therein, however, lies a further problem.

The Conservative and Labour Parties have for many years been happy to rely on the way in which the First Past the Post [FPTP] system has served their interests to the exclusion of all other parties. Adopting a proportional system would oblige both of these parties to accept that for the foreseeable future they would be unlikely to form a government without the cooperation of other parties. 

Whilst a decisive end to the two party monopoly is a measure of just how radical such a change would be, it is also the reason it is difficult to see serious reform of the UK Parliament even being considered. Consequently it is almost impossible to imagine that such reform could be implemented in time for its impact to be registered in the context of the referendum on Scottish independence, which is clearly coming down the track.

And what of the status quo?

Even without constitutional reform, the outcome of a referendum on Scottish independence will by no means be a forgone conclusion. It could be that even if no major reform of the constitution takes place prior to a Scottish referendum, voters may still opt for the less than ideal status quo.  Should Scotland remain within the Union in this circumstance, make no mistake, the foreseeable future will be a Scotland perpetually divided around the independence question: politically disaffected; continuing to send significant numbers of SNP MPs to the House of Commons in the years to come; paralysing healthy political progress in Scotland itself, and inevitably chipping away at all UK Governments, whatever their colour. This can hardly be regarded as a satisfactory outcome, either for Scotland, or for the UK as a whole. Indeed, without significant UK constitutional reform, the arguments in favour of Scottish Independence become very strong indeed.

The Irish and the Scottish Experience of Union

Scotland,  whilst having engaged in many iconic battles with its English neighbour in earlier centuries, entered without significant conflict into the Union of Parliaments in 1707, no doubt eased by the fact that James the VI of Scotland became James I of England in 1603 and chose to move his court to London.  The merging of the Parliaments, just over a century later, was a relatively uncontentious event, albeit that only a tiny elite in both countries actually had any access to the Parliamentary politics of the day. 

In contrast to this conclusion to centuries of conflict between England and Scotland, the Union of Great Britain and Ireland in 1800 was preceded by a long history of English dominance, dating from the 12th century.   Following the proclamation of Henry VIII as King of Ireland in 1542, this dominance was marked  by a systematic oppression of the majority Roman Catholic population with successive plantation of English Episcopalians and Scots Presbyterians, introducing a minority religious population, willing to comply with English rule and to make it viable. 

It is often forgotten however, that in 1798 there was a rebellion in Ireland, inspired by the ideals of the French Revolution and led by an alliance of dissenting Anglo-Irish members of the established Church of Ireland, such as Wolfe Tone, and Scots-Irish Presbyterians, such as Henry Joy McCracken. It was the failure of this rebellion which precipitated the Acts of Union in 1800, merging the fundamentally Protestant Irish Parliament with the Parliament of Great Britain. 

In the case of Scotland, the religious, legal and educational institutions which were important to Scottish people were respected and left untouched by the  Union of 1707 and have remained distinct in their practice to the present day. Scotland went on to take a leading part in the industrial revolution of the 19th century, with Glasgow growing and prospering to the extent that it came to be thought of as “the second city of Empire”, an empire in which Scots took a significant role as soldiers, missionaries and administrators.  

In the 20th Century Scots shared the sacrifices and victories of the two World Wars and in the post war period, through partnership in the 1945 Labour Government, took an important role in the dissolution of Empire and the creation of the National Health Service, the Welfare State and an integrated system of education available to all citizens. Collectively and from the point of view of an average citizen, these represent the finest achievements in the history of the Union.  

It was only in the 1980s that serious strains between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom began to develop, as Margaret Thatcher’s Government pursued policies which undoubtedly generated immense wealth in London and the south east of England, but which laid waste to the great industrial cities of the United Kingdom.  Whilst there has been patchy regeneration, even ten years of a well-intentioned Labour Government with a Scottish Chancellor — and eventually Prime Minister — Gordon Brown,  was not sufficient to decisively overturn the devastation of the Thatcher legacy. This unsurprisingly opened the way for the SNP to turbocharge  the message that Scotland could do better on its own.  The fate of damaged  communities elsewhere in the UK has played out in different ways, with support for Brexit and a rising tide of a populist English nationalism which has shown itself to be careless of the Union.

A forlorn hope?

With so much shared history, can reform of the UK Parliament really be such a forlorn hope? 

Perhaps the situation may not be as irreparable as it first appears. It is just possible to imagine the coalescence of a progressive ragbag, perhaps made up of an alliance between the Green Party in England, the Liberal Democrats, and rogue elements of the Conservative Party. More important to the growth of a coherent force for change is the Labour Party and what may help to activate this potential is its  growing support for electoral reform.  

The Labour Campaign for Electoral Reform [LCER] has for many years made the case from within the Labour Party that we must change the voting system.[2]  One of LCER’s most distinguished and articulate advocates, until his untimely death in 2005, was Scottish MP and Foreign Secretary in the Blair Government, Robin Cook, also notable for his resignation from the Cabinet in protest against the decision to go to war in Iraq. 

Growing interest in a fairer voting system is doubtless  driven in the current moment by the  stark reality that in Scotland FPTP is no longer working in Labour’s favour and the Scottish Labour Party is consequently fighting for its survival. This could be, indeed, should be, the stimulus for fresh thinking on a range of matters. If it is to rise again, the Scottish Labour Party must articulate a new vision for the Union, a vision which can be understood as more progressive than the tempting prospect of a Scotland free from the populist opportunism of Boris Johnson; a constitutional settlement for the 21st century, which even the SNP representatives in Westminster might find difficult to vote against. 

Footnotes

[1]  A recent edition of the Talking Politics podcast, titled, Election Fallout, with guest, Scottish Historian, Professor Colin Kidd, discusses the difficulty of making constitutional changes before an independence referendum, referring to this as the “sequencing problem.”  This podcast and a previous edition of Talking Politics, titled “What is the Union?”  also featuring Professor Kidd, have been a significant influence on the ideas in this essay and also on a previous piece featured in this blog, Time up for the House of Lords and an end to nostalgic deference,  which discusses in more detail reform/abolition of the House of Lords and its replacement by a Chamber of the Regions and the Nations. 

[2] Labour Campaign for Electoral Reform https://www.labourcampaignforelectoralreform.org.uk/

Featured Image

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Elaine for help with proof reading, advice and comment. The final product, including errors, are mine.