Five and a half years after Scotland voted to remain a part of the United Kingdom,
Britain's departure from the European Union has reignited the debate over Scottish independence.
While the Scottish Government argues that Brexit has created an undeniable case for another referendum on
statehood, the British Government insists that there's no valid justification for a second vote
so soon after the last one.
In this video, I'm going to look at the argument for another referendum on Scottish independence
and explain why there is in fact an unequivocal case for a new vote.
[MUSIC]
Hello. My name is James Ker-Lindsay.
Welcome to Independent Thinking.
A channel dedicated to international relations, independence and the origins of countries.
On 18 September 2014, the people of Scotland went to the polls in what was billed
as a once-in-a-generation vote on independence.
Although polling in the run-up to the referendum suggested the result would be close,
and that those in favour of statehood were gaining ground,
the final results saw the people of Scotland vote against independence.
Of the 85% of Scotland's 4.2 million registered voters who turned out,
55.3% chose to remain in the United Kingdom.
By all accounts, the referendum result appeared to settle the matter of independence for the foreseeable future.
While it was understood that those in favour of an independent Scotland would continue
to make their case for statehood, there appeared to be little likelihood that another vote would be held
for at least another decade.
However, just five and a half years later, Scotland is already preparing for another referendum.
The Scottish Government has presented legislation laying the ground for a new vote
and has even suggested that vote could happen before the end of 2020.
However, the British Government has formally rejected the call for a new vote.
Defending its decision, it emphasised that the people of Scotland had voted decisively against independence
and that both the British and Scottish Governments had pledged to respect the outcome of the vote.
So, is there a case for a second referendum?
Essentially, the question rests on whether or not there's been what the Scottish Government
has called "a material change of circumstances".
Simply put, has there been a development in the period since 2014 of such significance that it can clearly
be understood to redefine the basis on which the original decision was reached
and thus merits a new vote?
Clearly, there has.
By any reckoning, Britain's decision to leave the European Union has completely altered
the parameters of the discussion.
Even in the very specific context of the 2014 vote, it's easy to see how the decision to leave can be
understood to represent a material change of circumstances.
In the run-up to the 2014 referendum, the debate on independence focused on a number of issues.
These included Scotland's economic strength as an independent state,
its future currency, pensions, jobs, defence and even the future of the Health Service.
However, it also centered on an independent Scotland's membership of the European Union.
Those in favour of retaining Scotland's place in the United Kingdom argued that if Scotland voted to leave,
then its place in the European Union would also be in jeopardy.
As they saw it, an independent Scotland would be forced to exit the EU
and would have to reapply for membership in its own right.
Given the concerns amongst some member states about the precedent of a secessionist territory
joining EU, it was claimed that Scotland's membership at the European Union could not be guaranteed.
A vote for independence would therefore not only see Scotland leave the UK, it would also see it forced out
of the EU with no guarantee that it could rejoin.
In truth, it was not obvious how the EU would handle the question of an independent Scotland.
After all, such a situation had never occurred before.
While there may have been room for an alternative mechanism to be created that would fast-track Scotland,
it may have also been the case that Scotland would have to become independent
before it could apply to join.
As for the claim that Scotland's path to membership would be blocked, this was far less solid.
Most observers pointed to Spain's fears about Catalonia's quest for independence.
However, Spain objections lay in unilateral secession rather than secession as a principle.
But whatever the merits of the argument about Scotland's EU accession,
it appears the EU played a part in shaping the final outcome.
Polling done at the time of the vote indicated that 15% of those voting against independence cited concerns
about EU membership as a key reason for their decision.
Given the margin between the sides, concern over Scotland's place in the European Union could therefore
have realistically swung the votes against statehood.
However, at the time the EU aspect of the vote didn't seem especially important.
After all, the polls showed that other factors more clearly shaped the outcome.
This all changed a little less than two years later when, on 23 June 2016, the United Kingdom went to the polls
to vote on continued membership of the European Union.
In what was widely seen as a shock result, it voted to leave.
However, the final voting tallies painted an interesting and important picture.
While 53% of voters in England supported leaving European Union,
an overwhelming 62% of voters in Scotland opted to remain in EU.
Indeed, a majority for 'Remain' was recorded in every single one of Scotland's 32 voting areas.
As far as most observers were concerned, this sent an unequivocal message about the strength
of support for Scotland's place in the EU.
More to the point, it meant that even though Scotland had voted against independence just two years earlier,
in part because of fears that it would lose its place in the European Union, it now faced the prospect
of being dragged out of the EU against its will anyway.
This happened three and a half years later when, on 31 January 2020, the United Kingdom formally left the EU.
The argument in favour of another vote is also strengthened by the fact that the British Government's
decision to call a referendum on EU membership wasn't taken until 2015.
Although it was clear at the time of the independence referendum that a vote on EU membership
was a possibility, it was still firmly within the realms of speculation.
Indeed, at the time of the independence vote, few believed that it would actually happen,
let alone that there would subsequently be a vote to leave the EU.
Of course, amongst those who oppose another vote there are those who argue that opinion polls continue
to show that support for independence has not grown significantly since 2014.
That may well be the case - although most recent polls do in fact show a slight majority in favour of statehood.
However, it doesn't change the fact that an essential premise of the 2014 vote
- that Scotland's place in the European Union was best secured by continued place in the United Kingdom -
no longer stands.
Given the overwhelming support for continued EU membership expressed in 2016, this creates enough
uncertainty about the validity of the 2014 results to justify giving people another say on independence.
Ultimately, there's a clear case for another vote.
While the exact reasons for the decision to reject independence 2014 can be debated,
it's nevertheless clear that the people of Scotland made a decision that was based on the
country's continued membership of the European Union.
However, that all changed in 2016.
Scotland has now been forced to leave the European Union,
despite the fact that the majority of its population voted to remain.
For this reason, and notwithstanding the obstacles that stand in the way of another vote, there has quite clearly
been a material change of circumstances that justifies putting the question to the people again.
I hope you found this video useful.
If so, do please share it.
And consider subscribing for more videos like this. I post new content every Friday.
Thanks for watching and see you again next time.
[MUSIC]