Indyref2 ‘Holyrood majority should trigger vote’
Civil servant behind first referendum believes a second should be held if there is a majority.
THE lead UK civil servant behind the first independence referendum has said a second one should happen if there is a simple
Holyrood majority for it in May.
Ciaran Martin, constitution director at the Cabinet Office from 2011 to 2014, said the UK would no longer be a Union based on consent if Indyref2 was blocked despite voters’ wishes.
“If Scots vote next month for a referendum, there should be one,” he said in a report titled “Resist, Reform or Re-run?”
THE lead UK civil servant behind the first independence referendum has said a second one should happen if there is a simple Holyrood majority for it in May.
Ciaran Martin, who was constitution director at the Cabinet Office from
2011 to 2014, said the UK would no longer be a Union based on consent if Indyref2 was blocked “by force of law” despite voters’ wishes, something which would “fundamentally” change the UK.
“If Scots vote next month for a referendum, there should be one,” he said in a report titled Resist, Reform or Re-run? published yesterday.
He said: “A vote next month, or at any time after, in favour of any majority – however constituted – of MSPS elected on an explicit pro-referendum mandate, in effect puts Scotland’s consent for the Union on pause.”
He said the UK Government faced a choice between fighting for the Union in Indyref2 or resisting by using Westminster’s ultimate power to pass any law it wanted to block Indyref2.
He said third options were illusory – there was little scope for significant further devolution given so many powers had already been passed to Holyrood, while there was no public appetite for federalism.
Mr Martin, now a professor at the Blavatnik School of Government at Oxford University, helped negotiate the 2012 Edinburgh Agreement which underpinned the 2014 vote, and was one of just two officials in the room when Alex Salmond and David Cameron signed the document.
Prof Martin said the failure of Cameron’s government to set rules for another referendum after the No vote had led to a “looming constitutional crisis”, the clash between a democratic mandate of Scots voters in favour of Indyref2 and Westminster using its sovereignty to block it.
He said Westminster could, in theory, indefinitely maintain the Union by law, but questioned if that was wise.
“In effect, it would change the Union from one based on consent, to one based on force of law,” he said.
“That would be the most profound transformation in the internal governance of the United Kingdom since most of Ireland left, almost exactly a century ago.”
He added: “A union is not a union of equal partners if the bigger partner does not allow the smaller one the option to leave.”
Prof Martin said the “difficult truth” for Unionists was that recent Westminster trends were funnelling Scotland towards a second binary decision.
One was the previous UK Government sensitivity to Scotland being “completely abandoned”, the prime example being Brexit, which was “done to Scotland, not with it”.
In addition, Scots voters had “killed off” a key Union narrative about Scots playing a big role in the UK by electing a majority of SNP MPS three times.
“The Commons no longer has its Gordon Browns, Alistair Darlings, or John Reids. This is a fundamental change to the Union that no constitutional tinkering can fix.”
Prof Martin said if Indyref2 did take place, it should be run on the lines of 2014, and appealed to both sides not to repeat past “implausible assertions”.
He suggested a No vote could come with a promise to set out the rules, timing and conditions for Indyref3.
He said: “Despite all the deliberately created myths to the contrary, in the grand scheme of human affairs, the choice facing Scotland is not all that complicated. It’s a huge decision. It’s uncertain. But it’s not complicated. “The choice is basically this:
“Does Scotland want to be a small, independent nation, likely back in the EU but with new barriers to trade and travel with the rest of the UK; or does it wish to remain in the UK, with its own powers over some areas but subordinate to the will of the English majority on others?
“There is ample basis for Scots to make an informed choice on this, and if they vote for the opportunity to do so, they should be given it. If that choice is not allowed, the United Kingdom is no longer a voluntary union.”
The SNP said: “This paper blows apart Boris Johnson’s strategy for trying to block a referendum and exposes it for the anti-democratic ploy it is.”
The UK Government said: “The push for a divisive referendum is simply irresponsible. It is a distraction, when we need to focus on the pandemic and rebuilding our economy.”