Introduction

On 18 September 2014, voters in Scotland were asked in a referendum ‘Should Scotland be an independent country?’ The ‘no’ option received approximately 55 per cent of votes cast, with 45 per cent of those who took part choosing ‘yes’. While the Scottish independence side lost by a margin of 10 per cent, the Scottish National Party (SNP), the main vehicle for this cause, has in subsequent years, become without doubt the dominant political force in Scotland, continuing decisively to eclipse the Labour Party, which had once been the most powerful group. A further referendum, held on 23 June 2016 across the UK on membership of the European Union, led to a renewal in demands for another vote on whether Scotland should leave the UK. In 2014, a prominent part of case made by the ‘no’ campaign was that, were Scotland to leave the UK, it would automatically cease to be part of the EU; and would be forced to reapply from the outside.

In 2016, there was a UK wide majority (of just under 52 per cent to just over 48 per cent) in favour of leaving the EU. This result was eventually put into effect formally at the end of January 2020. Yet voters in Scotland had favoured ‘remain’ by a margin of 62 per cent to 38 per cent.

This discrepancy between the outcomes for Scotland and the wider UK, combined with the emphasis that the ‘no’ campaign placed on continued EU membership in 2014, provided a basis for claims that a further Scottish independence was now needed. In 2014, leading figures on either side had accepted that the vote held then would settle the matter one way or the other for a sustained (though not precisely defined) period. Now, advocates of Scottish independence felt able to claim that the terms of Scottish membership of the UK had changed significantly since the ‘no’ vote of 2014; and given that Scotland was – as they presented it – being forced out of the EU against its will, they held that it should be given another chance to decide whether to remain within the UK outside the EU, or leave and seek EU membership as an independent state.

The SNP led these calls, and pledged that – should parties supporting such a vote be returned with a majority at the Scottish Parliament elections of May 2021 – it would press for a referendum to be held. The SNP did return with a majority following the election, gaining one additional seat. Opponents of such an outcome, including the UK government – argued that the result of the 2014 vote should continue to be decisive, and that there were other more pressing matters requiring attention, such as the response to the Covid-19 pandemic.

Diving deeper

The importance of referendums

This issue helps us to analyse the significance of referendums to UK politics. It shows that – in the period since they came into use above local level from 1973 onwards – though they are not particularly frequent, they have taken on an important role. In particular, they are a means of taking decisions about the system itself, including – in this instance – about whether or not a particular part of the UK can leave. The mere prospect of a referendum – whether or not it actually takes place – can become a major factor in political debates and contests.

Referendums have certainly had specific importance in Scottish political development over a period of more than four decades (see: chapter 12). In 1979, a referendum held on whether or not to introduce devolution produced support for the proposition among those who voted. But the threshold of support from 40 per cent of the total electorate was not met. The denial of devolution in these circumstances was highly controversial. In 1997, a further referendum was held, without a threshold, and it backed both devolution and the introduction of a tax varying power. The next referendum to take place in Scotland was held on independence, as discussed above, in 2014. By the end of the same decade the idea of another such vote was on the agenda again.

Referendums are not always necessary

Changes could take place without referendums being deemed necessary, however. Enhancements in the scope and status of Scottish devolution took place during the 2010s without being directly approved through referendums (see: chapter 11). By contrast, an alteration in the Welsh devolution system was made subject to approval through referendum (on the augmentation of the law-making powers of what was then the National Assembly for Wales, in 2011). It might be held that there is a general lack of clarity around when it is and is not necessary to hold referendums. Further confusion of this nature surrounded the question of when another vote can be held on the same subject. For how long can it be said to have settled a particular question? Are circumstances possible in which a second referendum can be held sooner than it might otherwise be?

Constitutional considerations

Whether or not a further vote was justified by events since 2014 was a matter of opinion that could not definitively be resolved within the context of the ‘uncodified’ or ‘unwritten’ UK constitution (see: chapter 1). There were also legal doubts regarding whether it was within the authority of the Scottish Parliament to legislate for the holding of an independence referendum if the UK Parliament would not do so. In this case, the disagreement could potentially be settled in the courts (and some legal consideration of the issue has already taken place), demonstrating how it is possible for the judiciary to become involved in matters of a highly controversial political nature (see: chapter 5). The UK constitution therefore combines political and legal considerations.

Authority

As well as disagreement, there was revealing consensus. It was accepted on both sides that if Scotland was to leave the UK the proper means of doing so was by the holding of a referendum. This understanding suggested that, where this matter was concerned, direct democracy provided an authority that representative institutions on their own lacked (see: chapter 1). However, the procedures and institutions associated with representative democracy – namely elections, and the Scottish and UK parliaments and governments – remained important (chapter 7). They would make the decisions about whether, when and on what terms a referendum would take place.

Territorial diversity

The debate on another Scottish independence referendum was also revealing with regard to the territorial diversity of the UK political system (see chapters 11 and 12). It is a state characterised by pronounced variety with deep historical roots. Scotland had a party system and a set of devolved institutions and legal arrangements that differed from those of other parts of the UK. Like Wales and Northern Ireland, to varying extents, it contained a significant body of opinion within it that was inclined towards departure from the UK. But ultimately, that departure, if it was to take place, would probably require compliance at UK level, and in particular the UK Parliament and whichever grouping commanded a majority within the House of Commons.

Summary

Referendums have played an important part in Scottish political development and in the political system of the UK.

The Scottish independence referendum of 2014 was acknowledged at the time by both sides as a means of settling the issue it addressed for a prolonged (though never precisely defined) period of time.

Brexit served to revive the possibility of a second referendum.

There is considerable disagreement about the proper approach to referendums. Nevertheless, there seems to be a general acceptance that direct democracy is the means of attaining Scottish independence, if it is to come about at all.

The debate and political dispute around the second referendum connects to various aspects of the UK as a historically diverse state.

Test your knowledge