A challenge to Sturgeon: have your independence – only if two-thirds of Scots want it

So, this is what it all boils down to. There was a Scottish independence referendum in 2014 and, despite promising at the time that this would be a “once in a generation” opportunity, Nicola Sturgeon now wants another one. And if her party wins an overall majority in the Scottish Parliament at next month’s elections, she will claim that as a mandate for one.

The problem being, of course, that legally, only the UK government can authorise another poll.

And that’s what all of Scottish politics is about, and has been about since 2011.

Faced with the prospect, if not the reality, of another referendum, Unionists are all over the shop, torn between frustration at the “once in a generation” promise being broken, while utterly terrified of people on Twitter calling them undemocratic for opposing another referendum, whatever the results of the elections turn out to be.

It’s time for everyone to calm down. It’s time for a few home truths about Scotland, the future of the United Kingdom and the future of our democracy.

First of all, a lesson from recent history. In 1997 Scots voted by a margin of 74-26 per cent in favour of establishing a devolved parliament. This was uncontroversial for the very fact that it was an innovation that enjoyed broad consensus across the country. This referendum is often overlooked because of its uncontroversial nature, but in fact it provides – or should have provided – the template for all future constitutional decisions, in its result if not its methodology.

Because when a referendum is held to confirm what is already understood to be the settled will of the electorate, the ensuing changes brought about by the result stand a far better chance of succeeding and – most importantly – are less likely to divide the nation.

I like to invoke biblical wisdom at this point. We’re all familiar, I’m sure, with the tale of how King Solomon was asked to adjudicate in a quarrel between two women as to which of them was the true mother of a baby. When the king ordered that the infant to be divided by a sword and equal halves given to each women, the false claimant shrugged her shoulders and said “Fair dos,” (I paraphrase) while the real mother, the one who genuinely cared for the infant, relinquished her claim rather than see it harmed.

In this scenario, the heartless woman prepared to see the baby killed rather than given to her rival, is the nationalist movement. They care not whether the country they want to inherit is fatally divided on a knife edge of popular support, so long as they end up with what they want: an independent Scotland. They see the hurt and the division caused by a narrow win by the Leave campaign in the 2016 EU referendum and they think, “Yeah, we want some of that.”

Whereas patriots (as opposed to nationalists) want what’s best for Scotland, whether inside or outside the UK. 

How to reconcile these two, seemingly irreconcilable, views?

There is much talk in UK politics of “precedents”. David Cameron, whose love of referendums made and broke his career, created a precedent, we are told, by allowing voters to make key, existential constitutional decisions based on a mandate of 50 per cent of the electorate plus one. To compound this cavalier approach, he authorised a referendum on those terms when there was little demand for independence itself: polls showed a mere 30 per cent of Scots supported the proposition at the start of the campaign. The only way independence could have been achieved was through a break-neck race to that 50 per cent winning post, guaranteeing a dreadfully divided and irreconcilably angry electorate for at least a generation.

Now we are asked to accept that because a former PM made a terrible decision, it is now a precedent which all governments must follow forever.

But why must we allow a mistake to become a precedent?

The tearing asunder of the United Kingdom would be the biggest, most significant change to our country for more than 300 years. The task of disentangling cultural, economic, familial and historical ties would make Brexit look like a walk in the park. If such an exercise is to be indulged, it must only be when a large, settled consensus for that course of action already exists.

No true Scottish patriot could object to the proposal that any future referendum would only be considered decisive – and therefore valid – if at least two thirds of the electorate vote for it. And even then, to ensure this is what the public actually want, such a poll should only be held after at least a decade in which polls showed such to be the view of Scots.

There is no need for Boris Johnson to say “No, never” to Scots who demand another referendum. But there is a moral responsibility on him and every other political party to insist that any new referendum should be held only to confirm that independence is already the overwhelming choice of Scots. Absent that consensus, there can be no form of independence that doesn’t divide Scots irreparably from one another.

This would be a hard thing for nationalists to accept, and few of them will. But anything worth having is worth waiting for. The fight for independence has been long and hard, but it should be harder still. I am pro-UK to my marrow; there will never come a time when I support Scottish independence. But should Scots decide by a two-to-one majority that that is what they want, I will have no grounds for opposition or complaint.

Isn’t that a far better, healthier future for nationalists to fight for? Doesn’t Scotland deserve more than a mad dash for 50 per cent of the electorate plus one? 

And if you think that the views of up to half of Scots are irrelevant, if you really want to build an independent Scotland on the ruins of an angry and fatally divided populace, can you truly claim to love this country?