Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee 18 December 2025
There is, for any number of reasons. First, in a democratic society, when a party wins an election on a manifesto, consent from the losing side through the acknowledgment that the Government has a right to make progress on delivering its manifesto is important for the democratic health of a country. Unfortunately, on the constitutional question, things have moved on since 2014. A range of rhetorical devices have been used to stop a referendum on Scottish independence taking place, notwithstanding the repeated election of a majority of members of the Scottish Parliament on a mandate for there to be such a referendum.
We need to separate something out. My point is not about whether one is for independence or not. As democrats, we live in a country in which referenda have been used as a mechanism for agreeing constitutional change. We have the precedent of an independence referendum and the way in which that worked. In Northern Ireland, we now have a mechanism that can determine constitutional change through the ballot box—a de jure mechanism. We have a de facto mechanism for England; given 85 per cent of the population and an overwhelming majority in the UK Parliament, if there were a move for constitutional change in England, there would be a mechanism through Westminster for such a change. However, no formally acknowledged mechanism exists in Scotland or Wales.
Convener, as I am sure you have seen, there is a long list of statements from past British Prime Ministers and leaders from across the political spectrum at Westminster—and, indeed, in the Scottish Parliament—that it is for the people to decide on the question. That being the case, surely there must be a mechanism for it.
As a democrat, for me there is only one route, which is the ballot box and a process that is legal, constitutional and agreed, because that is a requirement for international recognition. The fact that we have already done this tells me that there is a way of doing it, but it requires those who oppose Scottish independence to acknowledge, as democrats, that people have a democratic right to determine constitutional change in Scotland.
I acknowledge that the history of Northern Ireland is not directly comparable with that of Scotland. However, it is not sustainable that, although a mechanism exists for determining Northern Ireland’s constitutional future, one does not exist here. That needs to change. The mechanism does not need to be complicated, but it needs our agreement, as democrats, that the people of Scotland should be able to determine their future in relation to becoming an independent state. That is for our Parliament to determine.