Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee 18 December 2025
That is the only rational explanation that I have. Let us cast our minds back to the 2011 Scottish Parliament election and the way in which the then UK Prime Minister was able to agree a process with the Scottish Government. That was done on the basis that a majority had been elected to the Scottish Parliament on a manifesto commitment, but support for independence was considered to be in the 20 per cents. I think that the calculation for the then UK Prime Minister was that this was a concession that would lead to a no vote and would then stop the debate and end the question.
The difference now is that not only do the majority of those in this Parliament support independence but a majority in this country support it, too. I see some shaking of heads, but the average of all the independent polling that one is able to point to shows that support for a yes vote is ahead of support for no.
Even if that were not the case, that would not negate the point that I am making, which is that the difference is that the starting point for a referendum in 2025, 2026 or 2027 would be support percentages that were not in the 20s but were, de minimis, in the 40s. Recent polls have also shown that, among those who have a view on how they would vote, support is at more than 50 per cent. That is the only rational explanation as to why someone would seek to block both a democratic choice and a mechanism for exercising that choice.
I am sorry to have to say it, but I think that colleagues who support that position should look themselves in the mirror and be honest about the fact that seeking to stop a vote simply because we do not like the potential outcome does not behove us as democrats. When we go into elections, we all know that we might or might not be elected or re-elected, and we are prepared to stand for election knowing that context.
Decisions have been taken about wider constitutional issues—such as devolution—on which we have had a number of referenda. We had a number of referenda on Europe. People’s views change, and I think that I am right in saying that we now have about 1 million people living in Scotland who were not able to vote in the 2014 referendum. We have also had a material change of circumstances since that vote. We were promised that, if we were to vote no, we would remain in the European Union, but we have since been taken out of the European Union, although a majority in Scotland voted to remain. That was a case of misselling.
Not only is there a strong rhetorical case for a referendum but we have the results of election after election after election. There are those who are not supportive of a yes outcome but who agree, as democrats, that the only acceptable mechanism for determining our future in governmental or constitutional terms is the ballot box. However, some are seeking rhetorical routes to put off answering an actually quite simple question.
I have another simple point. How on earth is it sustainable to have a mechanism in one part of the United Kingdom but not in another? That is just not sustainable.