Scotland’s constitutional referendum options

Much has been made of the ‘revelation’ that Alex Salmond is willing to consider a third option on an independence referendum ballot, it was a notion mooted some time ago and no doubt being reiterated now given the Lib Dems one day (behind closed doors) conference on the singular issue of where they should stand on the issue of the referendum, to be held at the end of the month.

I guess that the SNP’s current goal then is to attempt to win support in parliament for the three option ballot – given the near impossible nature of passing a two ballot option through Holyrood.  Of course attaining agreement for three option ballot won’t exactly be a walk in the park either. 

To pass the bill the SNP need the support of the fickle Lib Dems, the arithmetic would then be:

47 (SNP) + 16 (LD) + 2 (Greens) + 1 (Margo McDonald, probably, although who knows)  = 66

to the unionists:

46 (Labour) + 16 (Conservative) = 62

In this event I imagine we’re looking at something vaguely along these sorts of lines:

Should the Scottish parliament receive additional powers?

• Yes, it should be entirely autonomous, i.e. Scotland should become independent
• Yes, it should receive additional powers as detailed … elsewhere
• No, the Scottish parliament does not require any further powers

Others, elsewhere, have pointed out that it would be virtually impossible for any option to receive decisive backing from the electorate given that the vote would likely be split, with no option achieving a 51+% share of the vote.  This really beggars the question as to what the point of the referendum would be given the wooly nature of the results.

If we must have a three (or more) option ballot on the issue of independence constitutional reform then I would argue that it must employ the single transferable vote (STV) so that any outcome is decisive and can be seen to be decisive.  STV allows the voter to rank their preferences from most prefered to least, not a system I agree with given it may disenfranchise those who suffer literacy and /or numeracy problems.

My own preference is for a two option ballot, the archetypal yes/no answer to a simple question.  It does seem unlikely though that such a ballot will occur (given parliamentary arithmetic) and as such the SNP are likely to take what they can get, surely a flawed policy given that those who support the union will use the flawed ballot to keep the issue at arms length for “at least a generation”, a quote that yet may come back to haunt Salmond and his party.

The outcome of the ballot will therefore be hailed as ‘the end of the SNP’ and ‘the end of the independence movement’, whilst proclaiming that the union has been strengthened by devolving further powers to Scotland.  It may be that the SNP has become even more gradualist than most of us would actually like, would further powers be another stepping stone?  If this is the current goal then why not endorse Calman, unless the notion is that the SNP can extract some sort of Calman+ using the first genuine poll of independence to gain some more leverage.

Of course, as much as the unionists may disagree further devolved powers may well further undermine the union by increasing the level of asymmetric devolution of power that sees different countries and regions within the UK wield different levels of power and authority over there own affairs.  Would this bolster support for the English nationalists desire for a devolved or independent English parliament - a fledgling movement to be sure, but growing.

I’ve been asking the following question recently:

What is the point of Westminster?

I’ve been asking it a lot, I’ve been asking it of people who should be able to give a clear and decisive answer, people like David Mundell MP (Shadow Scottish Secretary), I haven’t had an answer from the latter and the other answers I’ve had have been fairly wishy-washy.

So if Holyrood pulls yet more powers away from Westminster won’t it simply become even more irrelevant and is this the real goal of the SNP, to undermine Westminster by delivering it into irrelevance, irrelevant to the day-to-day lives of the Scots? 

Alex Salmond recently made a comment about hanging Westminster from a Scottish rope, a poor choice of words perhaps … but what if the rope was Scottish devolution.

Sunday Jukebox – MP’s expenses

A couple of songs that remind me of they chancers who claim to represent us …

 

Also this week we’ve been having the SNP party conference, good an excuse as any for a bit of flag waving (another great song from Alan Smart):

drip … drip … drip … it’s not raining. It’s The Sun.

Much has been made of the news today that The Sun newspaper has withdrawn it’s support for the Labour Party and the New Labour project generally, since clearly our democracy is based on the musings of one australian/american by name of Rupert Murdoch.

The Sun splash image

On the one hand some are insinuating that the fact that The Sun now supports David Cameron’s Conservative over the alternatives will mean that Labour supporters (both of them) will flock to the party in blue and send Labour out into the cold for another 20 years.

On the other hand Labour ministers are down-playing the papers move as being irrelevant and pointing out that they have more respect for The Sun readers than they do for The Sun itself and that they’re sure that Sun readers are quite capable of making up their own minds on the issue.

The truth probably lies somewhere in between.  Although, to be honest, I’m not sure how much faith I have in people who get their political commentary from The Sun (or any ‘red-top’ for that matter).

The simple fact is that this move will not instantly convert thousands of Labour supporters to Conservatives, but what it will mean is that the drip-drip-drip of pro-Conservative propoganda will niggle away at those who may have either become disaffected with Labour and are on the verge of realising that they aren’t the ‘working mans party’ that they once were … the fact that they are arguably further to the right than the Tories on some issues though should have highlighted this for them before now!

It’s the drip-drip-drip that’s important though.  By continuously repeating ‘facts’ ad nauseum and supporting a particular party by reporting events through a particular lens then readers can be nudged in a particular direction, a tactic employed by the Labour party in Scotland in relation to the SNP.

It’s interesting that the Scottish edition of the paper isn’t following head offices lead on this one though, I imagine since they’d like to retain some sort of readership in Scotland.  Which raises the specter that the whole thing is merely a cynical ploy to sell papers … although one does wonder if some backroom deal has been made with the Tories in order to secure what amounts to turning the former ‘newspaper’ into little more than a propoganda rag … if it wasn’t this before.

The Editor of the Scottish edition was highly ambiguous about where his edition stands on the matter, acknowledging that Labour had failed yet refusing to support any of the other parties fighting it out in Scotland, it’s true that The Sun briefly supported independence during the 90’s and so it’s not beyond the realms of possibility that the paper could yet support the SNP in Scotland which would set up an interesting dichotomy where the English edition supports the most pro-union party whilst supporting the main pro-independence party in Scotland … I’m not sure how they could explain this away to their readership so I’ll not hold my breath.

Sunday Jukebox – reducing the voting age

Given the debate arising from the SNP’s proposed plans to give 16 and 17 year olds the right to vote in a referendum on the issue of Scottish Independence I thought this would be appropriate, especially given the inevitable teeth gnashing about the maturity need to make such an important decision.

There are those who believe this is little more than a cynical move given the greater likelihood of this age group to back both the SNP and independence than the equivalent age group at the other end of the spectrum, and maybe they’re right. The SNP however has had a long standing commitment to lowering the voting age more generally and has held to this in their (utter ridiculous) plans to hold elections for health boards … I value my vote as much as anyone, but I’ll not be voting for appointments to health boards.

Anyway there are many immature 16 and 17 year olds just as there are many immature and ill-informed people in any other age group, young people’s priorities are as important to them as mine are to me. They pay tax, join the armed forces, can leave home, get married, and have a family all of these things involve decisions that are arguably far more important than the decision over which box to tick and yet they are allowed these former choices but not the latter, bizarre.

Westminster: just what’s the point?

This is a question that often crosses my mind, particularly when I hear pundits, presenters and politicians proclaiming the (Westminster) Government will be introducing whatever piece of legislation or programme aimed at improving health, education, housing, or whatever.  Occasionally you’ll even here the age old conflation of England being labelled Britain, something that is even more misleading in these post-devolution days when Westminster bears no responsibility for a great deal of matters effecting Scotland.  You’d have thought that 10 years after gifting us our own parliament they’d have realised that.

Indeed a great deal of our day-to-day affairs in Scotland are managed and legislated for from Edinburgh, from our pseudo parliament, without any recourse to Westminster.  I say ‘pseudo parliament’ since it doesn’t have the full range of powers an independent parliament would have, but what it does have is enough to be going on with for the time being, enough even to usurp some unpopular Westminster decisions, such as new nuclear power stations.  Since the authority for nuclear power is reserved to Westminster the Scottish parliament has no direct say on them, however, if they are to be built in Scotland then they fall under Scottish planning laws, and this is a devolved matter.

So, if we’re running most of our own affairs anyway, what’s the point of Westminster?  They take and set most taxation, they are responsible for foreign affairs and defence.  These are probably the major things although there is obviously a great deal more, they are also responsible for dealing with Europe.

I was recently caught out repeating an oft-heard statistic, namely that 70% of UK legislation originates from Europe, it turns out that I was wrong.  Upon further research though I did discover that according to German MEP Jorgo Chatzimarkakis 85% of German legislation originates n Brussels.  OK, so it’s not the UK but it does give you a flavour of the influence that the EU wields.

Lord Stoddart asked the following question in regard to the EU:

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether, in the light of the statement by German MEP Jorgo Chatzimarkakis that 85 per cent of German legislation originates in Brussels, they will state what percentage of United Kingdom legislation is of European Union origin.

 Lord Malloch-Brown the Minister of State for the foreign and Commonwealth office responded thus:

It would entail disproportionate cost to research and compile the percentage of UK legislation originating in the European Union: some European measures are directly applicable in member states and others require incorporation into national law through a variety of legislative or administrative means.

It has been estimated that around half of all UK legislation with an impact on business, charities and the voluntary sector stems from legislation agreed by Ministers in Brussels, but this is a category of legislation which is more likely than legislation in general to have originated in the EU. It is likely that the overall proportion is therefore much lower.

In other words in the areas of “business, charities and the voluntary sector” it might be about 50%, but they don’t really know, and in other areas they might know but they’re not telling.  It all sounds rather wooly to me.

When the Lisbon / Reform Treaty finally becomes ratified yet more powers will be ceded to Europe and I guess we can expect an even greater percentage of our legislation to be influenced or originate from Europe either directly or on a more administrative basis.

So if the EU is directing Westminster in areas that haven’t been devolved, and Holyrood is dealing with much of the day-to-day items, as well as major infrastructure projects, then what is the point of Westminster?  It strikes me as being little more than an additional level of bureaucracy and furthermore it prevents Scotland from fully participating with the European project … assuming that Scotland wants to.

Jenny Hjul: Treat her with the ridicule she deserves

Jenny Hjul is seemingly a columnist for the Sunday Times, one which I admit I was not aware of until I read someone mention her elsewhere and I decided to do so googling.  Having read through some of her opinion pieces I think I can fairly confidently confirm that she is misguided at best or deliberately misguiding at worst … bearing this in mind I’ve decided to take her latest Sunday Times offering to pieces … this is also what happens when papers fail to publish my entirely rational ripostes.  You can find the original here.

The timing could not have been worse. The Scottish nationalists launched plans to hold an independence referendum that nobody wants the day after being isolated by most of the parliament over the Lockerbie bomber.

It just starts wrong, “… an independence referendum that nobody wants …”, really?  Most polls have shown support for a referendum amongst the populace to be anywhere between 60% – 80%!

This stark reminder that they are a minority government, completely dependent on the votes of the other parties, should have had a sobering effect. A rational party leader might have concluded (on reading headlines such as “SNP has ruined Scotland’s reputation”) that the dream was unattainable in the current climate and persuaded his minions that abandoning it, though disappointing, was in their best interests.

I can accept this to a point, but it seems largely based on a an unfounded or at least one sided media frenzy based on  the notion that Scotland’s reputation can only be based on the rantings of a minority of Americans.  Indeed, in a period of American politics dominated by Obama’s health-care bill it seems that the fate of Megrahi doesn’t really rank as a priority.

Meanwhile in the rest of the world and most importantly to me, amongst those with whom relations really are dire, this was seen as a courageous and righteous decision in the face of unrelenting and unwarranted pressure from the Americans.

But the referendum is all Alex Salmond has left out of his big manifesto pledges; he has long been intent on introducing the bill in this session, and to exclude it from his new legislative programme would have amounted to a loss of face. Losing face is not an option for a politician whose career is built on hubris.

What the author fails to consider here is that the SNP is not like the other mainstream parties, they have a single aim and it’s not to be in power (although that’s got to help), the SNP exists to deliver independence and a failure to attempt to deliver a bill on the referendum would be a failure to pursue the parties main aim.  If this is hubris, I dread to think how Ms Hjul makes of the other party leaders.

So while the country battles through the recession, and while it struggles to rehabilitate itself on the international stage in the wake of the Megrahi affair, its ruling elite will not be focused on rebuilding prosperity or on restoring credibility. It will be diverted by a vanity project.

There is no widespread clamour for a referendum in Scotland, just as there is no clamour for breaking up the United Kingdom. Even the nationalists must know this. An SNP victory in the last Scottish elections has not been accompanied by a burgeoning of nationalist fervour. Quite the reverse, in fact. Support for independence has not risen above 33% since 2007 and has crumpled to just 28% in the past fortnight. But the nationalists are not about to let a little thing like public disapproval inhibit their ambition.

Wrong, wrong, wrong!  It is now a key plank of unionist propoganda that you cannot do A + B at the same time, we can’t deal with knife crime / alcohol abuse / education / health care / or any number of other issues andindependence at the same time.  That if you don’t deal with the problems before a referendum or before independence then you won’t be able to deal with them at the same time as you are persuing the independence referendum or indeed indepdence itself.

As Nicola Sturgeon — the normally sensible (for a Scottish nationalist) deputy leader — said herself, the opponents of independence might be in the majority but the SNP remains optimistic that its referendum bill would be passed. This disdain for popular (or unpopular, if you are a Scottish nationalist) opinion typifies SNP attitudes and is exactly why the unionist parties must stop the referendum nonsense in its tracks.

What can I say.  Popular opinion wants a referendum,  support for indepdence has been fluctuating between 30% – 40%, although it fluctuates so wildly from poll-to-poll that any real feel for where it is is largely impossible.  The only real way to test opinion in this matter is with a plebiscite.

There is growing pressure on the right, spearheaded by the former Scottish secretary Lord Forsyth, for a snap independence poll.

If Gordon Brown won’t allow a referendum on Scottish independence when he calls a general election, then David Cameron, once in No 10, should test the strength of the union in a plebiscite, or so the argument goes. The justification is that the separatists would be so convincingly defeated that they would slope off into the sunset and never dare raise the subject again, or not for a generation anyway. This is dangerous territory into which the Scottish Tories in Holyrood must not stray. Give Salmond an inch and he will manipulate it into a mile.

I sincerely doubt that those supporting independence would be soundly defeated, certainly not once the real debate was being had, and if the unionists continue with their attacks on the idea of Independence rather than putting together a credible defence of the union and manifesto for it’s future then those who are borderline unionists or are simply undecided may well swing to the sound of a positive independence campaign, indeed there’s plenty to be positive about … especially when we see further cuts and privatisation of public services under either a Conservative government or a worringly right-wing Labour party.

Already the language of the nationalists has taken on the idiom of freedom fighters. Those who oppose a vote are creating “roadblocks to democracy”, they are depriving the people of their voice. These are strange things to say in a country that has plenty of elections — too many perhaps — to reflect the electorate’s views, including its views on independence. There is no evidence of what the SNP believes is a democratic deficit.

Perhaps there aretoo many elections. or perhaps those elections are simply inadequate at properly representing the people’s views, or perhaps the parties themselves are at fault, particularly when you look at the two main Westminster parties, their political ideals being virtually indistinguishable.  There have been many protestations and calls for referendum on a range of issues, most notably in recent times these being on the EU Constitution (or Reform Treaty as Brussels would like to call it) and on the issue of independence.  As has been shown with the former in Ireland, even when such plebiscites are allowed for, ‘incorrect outcomes are not.

A referendum would provide not the people but Salmond with a fresh platform, for his propaganda and endless scope to say he is “speaking for Scotland”. Even though he will be speaking only for his party and its narrow agenda, his rhetoric has a way of hogging the limelight.

More Scots voted for the SNP than any other party, if anybody can claim the right to ’speak for the people’ then it’s them.  The agenda of independence is the most radical and progressive political view currently in the mainstream in this country and Scottish Nationalist movement has become possibly the most inclusive and progressive movement in politics in living memory.

He has said he wants a three-way ballot, which includes the option for more powers for the devolved parliament. Those unionists in favour of the Calman Commission’s proposals for an extended form of devolution must not be duped into supporting a Salmond poll, which will almost certainly be rigged to suit its progenitor’s purposes.

Britain rarely resorts to referendums.

The only way a referendum will happen under current circumstances is if it is rigged, for the only way it will be passed is if the unionist parties agree to it and they would beyond a shadow of a doubt wish to see a question that was absolutely loaded against Independence. 

What is required is a simple ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ ballot with a simple question along the lines of “Do you wish Scotland to become an independent nation?”.  Simple and unambiguous.  It would then be for the elected Scottish MP’s and MSP’s to collectively negotiate a deal to see this happen.

The spectacle of Scotland in the throes of constitutional navel-gazing will do nothing to improve this small nation’s standing or attract foreign investors looking for stability. Furthermore, confusion surrounds the legality of a Scotland-only vote. Constitutional matters are reserved to Westminster and a decision taken here may not be binding.

There is no confusion surrounding a Scotland only vote, the responsibility for it may lie with Westminster although they would ignore calls at their peril both in terms of national politics and international standing … except in the minds of confused journalists like Hjul.

The reasons, then, for not holding a referendum are blindingly obvious, something all the opposition parties (except the two Green MSPs) agreed on when Salmond introduced his bill on Thursday. But it will not be enough to simply oppose it when it comes to the vote. Scotland is in for months of referendum talk, as its indefatigable leader criss-crosses the land placing “Scotland’s future as a nation at the heart of political and public debate”.

The opposition needs a strategy to deal with the increased level of independence activity. I recommend that they unite and adopt a uniform tone of their own. The Labour MSP Pauline McNeill came close on Thursday when she questioned the first minister’s motivation. The opposition to his bill does not come just from opposition politicians (few of whom bothered to turn up as it was unveiled), but from the public. There have been no petitions, no protests, no demand, mocked McNeill.

Actually there have been protests, there have been approaches via the petitions committee which has refrained from handling them as this was always going to be a matter introduced by the government.  On one point Hjul is correct, if the unionists wish to oppose the SNP quest for independence then they are going to have to articulate an arguement for the union, and as I keep saying, stop simply slagging of the idea of independence.

Ridicule and derision are effective tools to tackle the nationalists’ conceit that they represent a groundswell. They do not and this should be rammed home at every opportunity. There are many urgent issues for the Scottish government to attend to: crime, health, education, transport, housing. These are the chief concerns of the 85% of the total Scottish electorate who do not vote for the SNP and have never asked for a referendum.

Alas Hjul falls into the unionists trap believing that ridicule and derision are the way to tackle the growing support for independence, and it is growing and returns to the now common route of attack accusing the government of being unable to handle multiple issues at a time … how she must struggle to, you know, drive and listen to the radio.

Putting the constitution at the centre of the legislative programme during these rocky times, interrupting other parliamentary business and deploying civil servants to draft and redraft an unwanted bill, is not merely an indulgence but a misuse of public funds.

Unlike the EU Reform Treaty? or Nuclear Weapons?

Salmond has shown a lack of judgement in this, as in the other challenges (diplomatic, political and economic) he has encountered recently, exposing his leadership skills to uncomfortable scrutiny. If he continues to blunder on in this manner, misreading the Scottish mood, the union will be safe in his hands.

Alex Salmond is widely acclaimed as one of the most talented politicians of his generation and he’ll continue to run rings around Hjul’s political masters.

education or independence?

This was the suggestion levelled by one audience member during Brian Taylor’s new radio Scotland programme on Friday afternoon.  The accusation being that the SNP government are neglecting the ‘core priorities’ of the electorate given the absence of education from the new legislative programme for the year … let’s not get into the swathes of pointless legislation introduced by Labour since 1997.

The truth is two-fold, in the first instance the SNP are continuing to push out their curriculum for excellence in primary schools with local authorities as I compose this post.  The second truth is that this assertion is an extension of the tactics employed by unionist parties all along, and I have already heard numerous versions of the “neglecting insert chosen subject in pursuit  of independence” argument, for example:

The SNP are evil for pursuing their separatist agenda at the expense (insert grievance) of flowers on roundabouts …

It’s something that is based on the presumption that government a) can’t do more than one thing at a time; b) that every institution in a post-union Scotland will collapse from the shock of it all!

Needless to say, but I will anyway, it’s a nonsense and it fails to tackle in any way the arguments in favour of independence.  It’s become entirely typical, as was impressively exemplified during the 2007 Holyrood election, of the failure of the unionist parties to develop a coherent and reasoned argument in favour of the union or to engage in a positive fashion in the independence debate.

I’ve yet to hear, and would welcome, any coherent argument in favour of the union that wasn’t an attack on either the SNP as a party or independence as an idea.  Actually, I have heard a few coherent arguments in favour of the Union, although I’ve never heard one that couldn’t be easily countered!  I don’t think I’ve even ever heard a passionate defence of the union such as you might hear in regard to any of the home nations.

All we hear is more negative politicking, more politics of fear.

I have no fear.

 

scottish independence: why it’s coming

Mike Small writes this excellent opinion piece in the Guardian:

The SNP has begun its attempt to break up Great Britain by bringing forward a bill for a referendum on independence. The first minister, Alex Salmond, is due to outline plans to MSPs on Thursday for the next parliamentary session, in which the bill will be formally announced. A spokesman said that a vote on the bill would “place the issue of Scotland’s future – and the powers we need to succeed as a nation – at the heart of political and public debate”.

Various wishful scenarios declare that the proposed referendum “will never happen”, that the “celestial peace of the British Union” will go unperturbed, that the SNP hasn’t the majority, or, perhaps less credibly, that the Scottish government is acting beyond its legal remit. But there is good political reason to think that the referendum will happen and its result is by no means certain.

First, there’s that annoying problem of democracy. Iain Gray will need to face-up on Thursday and present a coherent response. All of the opposition parties in Scotland share the difficult prospect of opposing the people’s right to have their say. Let’s be clear, there are many more people who want a poll on independence than want independence itself or who would vote for the SNP. Support for a referendum on independence is vast, ranging from between 60% and 80% of the Scottish public in recent opinion polls.

At its heart the referendum offers the prospect of power to change beyond constitutional paternalism. As one wag put it when firearms legislation was being proposed at Holyrood, “with devolution you get to ban air-rifles, with independence you can cancel Trident”. Democracy for Scotland through referenda is both means and ends. Then there’s the Cameron-effect. The Tories may be riding high in the opinion polls in England but in Scotland they are flat-lining worse than Kevin Bacon and Keifer Sutherland ever did. In the immediate future, Scottish politics will at least be more interesting than Westminster. Brown may have consigned himself to political oblivion, but in Stirling and Dundee it’s not Brown v Cameron, it’s Cameron v Salmond, and the Cameronians are not half as clever as they think they are.

Polls have shown if a Cameron Tory cabinet forms support for independence jumps 25% . Even at its poorest ratings for a year (a YouGov poll shows support for independence at only 28%) the “Cameron Effect” could easily be a stepping stone to another Yes vote. The problem for Unionist politicians rubbing their hands in glee at this post-Megrahi nadir, is that the survey also showed a seven-point SNP lead over Labour in the first-past-the-post constituency vote and a four-point lead in the poll for list MSPs. People may think MacAskill wrong but they don’t doubt his integrity.

In a cruel paradox for Labour a referendum offers a way out from Tory public spending cuts, and it’s as campaign allies that Labour will be playing up the threat of the Tories’ plans.

The third and most compelling reason that may yet swing the issue is the collapse in credibility of Westminster and politics in general. Groups like Vote for a Change are mushrooming and likely to reinforce the idea of a failed political class mired in corruption, back-handers and moat-expenses. Holyrood is not immune from petty dishonesty, but it isn’t swamped with the same association of base venality that dogs Westminster. For many its not a gigantic leap to suggest that it’s the British state itself that needs disbanding. From Tomlinson to Peace Camp, from the surveillance culture to ID cards the prospect of an authoritarian state is an anathema to most Scots.

The unionist coalition may well play the fear card that was the tried and tested political tactic to oppose first devolution itself, and then a nationalist administration. The Megrahi decision will be portrayed as botched foreign policy, the financial meltdown as a sort of 21st century Darien, and the incoming Tories will no doubt try and portray David Cameron as a sort of Bambi in Tails.

The very institutions that could hold Britain together as an idea have been picked apart, privatised, sold off or dismantled by two decades of neo-liberal politicians who can hardly now appeal to the NHS, the Post Office or a common media voice as indicators of a common future, never mind a shared past. If you place so little value in these institutions then don’t rely on them to tell your political story.

The Megrahi case has sent many English commentators into a sort of spasm of resentment, anger and confusion, Fraser Nelson perhaps taking the prize for wilful stupidity. This sort of coverage is hardly a revelation but come the referendum the combination of the sort of harsh surveillance state established under Blair-Brown with a return to reckless unashamed Tory sado-monetarism may be too much for a nation with a ready alternative.

Conventional wisdom is that the Megrahi case has sent independence off-track, shattering confidence in self-determination just as the banking collapse was supposed to. This didn’t happen and next year’s referendum might just confirm the inevitable.

You can almost smell independence in the air right now, it’s not so much if rather than when it happens.