Just as British politics and society is now divided between Remainers and Brexiteers, Scots can look at one another and ask: ‘So, what side were you on?’
FOUR years ago today the people of Scotland went out to vote on whether or not their country should remain in the UK.
Four years is the gap between World Cups and Olympic Games.
In Scotland today there are plenty of supporters of independence who would relish the opportunity to once again compete with their opponents in a duel of ideas about their nation’s destiny.
SNP First Minister Nicola Sturgeon is only too aware there are many other people who would howl at the thought of another decisive referendum. Scottish Tory leader Ruth Davidson has led her party to impressive results in Westminster and Holyrood elections in part due to her steadfast opposition to another vote.
But it still seems it a question of “when” and not “if” the Scots go to the polls again.
The SNP knows it cannot expect to always be in a majority in the Edinburgh Parliament, and if Ms Sturgeon does not push for another referendum when she has the chance she will be remembered by some as the leader who bottled it.
The UK that 55.3% of Scots voted to stay part of is about to vanish when Britain leaves the European Union and a significantly different country emerges. A key argument against independence had been the hurdles an independent Scotland would face as it sought to join the EU.
A future independence race would be presented as an opportunity for Scotland to jump back into the EU.
Every hiccup and earthquake that the UK experiences in its post-Brexit reality will be used as an argument for Scotland cutting the cord with London and forging a new bond with Brussels.
Already, indy-thusiasts can argue that the scary radicals intent on detonating the foundations of contemporary prosperity are not ideologically centrist SNP politicians but English Brexiteers whose eyes light up at the thought of a hard exit from the EU.
There are two key ways in which the Scottish vote prefigured the 2016 EU referendum.
First, it demonstrated that Scotland’s membership in the UK was absolutely provisional on the will of the people. This is not the case in the United States or Spain where there is no constitutional provision for a state or province to secede. Young Americans are taught to pledge allegiance to “one nation under God, indivisible”.
The UK is definitely divisible. The reason why there has been no independence referendum in Wales is not because Westminster or the Supreme Court have denied us the opportunity, but that there is no clamour for one.
David Cameron did not try to deny the Scots their vote on breaking up the UK. In a classic display of Tory pragmatism he decided it was “game on” and avoided the scenes of confrontation that so marred Catalonia’s independence referendum last year.
Scotland’s independence campaign may have been defeated, but it is remarkable that when given the opportunity to leave the UK 44.7% of voters grasped it.
This demonstrated that independence is not just the dream of eccentrics who name their terriers after Scottish princes and can quote Braveheart backwards; 1.6 million ordinary people who live with the same pressures and obligations as contemporaries in any part of the UK listened to the stark warnings of what could go wrong and yet were prepared to abandon the status quo.
Their bond to a political alliance of nations was not as great as their desire for change – and you might have thought this would make David Cameron think thrice before backing the Brexit referendum.
If so many level-headed Scots were prepared to end a union that dates back to 1707 and has survived the rise and fall of an empire and two world wars, why would anyone think a majority of UK voters would shy away from bringing down the curtain on our membership of the EU, a club which has been derided for decades as a dampener on growth and a corrupt bureaucracy?
The second way in which is the independence vote was the precursor of Brexit is perhaps the most important.
Politics stopped being something that you see on the telly in the evening. It landed – plonk! – in the centre of the dinner table.
Dads, mums, brothers, sisters and generations of family found themselves on separate sides of an issue that ignited fierce emotions. The future of Scotland was at stake, and this wasn’t just an argument about what you wanted to happen – it was a debate about what you would personally do to make it happen.
Would you put a poster in your window, go campaigning with a local group of volunteers and make your case on Facebook? Unlike in an election where people can vote for a wide range of parties, in a referendum the question is a dividing line and you can find yourself on the opposing side from people you normally love and trust.
Just as British politics and society is now divided between Remainers and Brexiteers, Scots can look at one another and ask: “So, what side were you on?”
This polarisation can be painful. You can look at a loved one and wonder: “Don’t we share the same values? Is one of us an idiot?”
Difficult though these post-referendum conversations can prove, there is one great blessing that each referendum has brought. On these great questions, people had an experience of direct democracy and were trusted with making a decision that was profoundly personal and political.
In elections, parties can treat people like the basest breed of consumers with campaigns that insult the intelligence and the character of voters. But for a moment in 2014 and 2016 ordinary men and women held the destiny of communities they loved in their hands, weighed up the options and voted as citizens.
A generation is now growing up who not only discuss politics as something that directly affects them but as something they should be able to directly affect.
The scope for reform is rich and wide, and they have learned that if the majority of the people want a vote, it is difficult for politicians to deny them that power.
On both Brexit and Scottish independence, the desire of people to once again have their say could prove irresistible.