Boris Johnson’s plan to block a second vote on Scottish independence will reduce the United Kingdom to a partnership “that survives only through force of law”, one of the key British government figures from the 2014 campaign has warned.
Ciaran Martin, who was the lead civil servant on the Edinburgh Agreement which laid the groundwork for the first referendum, said that by discounting SNP election victories Downing Street was suggesting there was “no lawful, democratic path” to secession.
In a damning critique by the official responsible for drafting Whitehall arguments against Scottish independence, Martin said that England had now abandoned any restraint as the dominant partner within the Union. He highlighted the EU exit deal as an example of the majority of people north of the border being “overruled and ignored”.
As a result “Scots have withdrawn from UK-wide political leadership at the instruction of voters,” he said. There was “no good reason to resist” another referendum, he said, insisting that “fear of a different result isn’t a reason to ignore Scotland’s election result”.
Martin, who will today unveil a paper about the future of the Union, backed by Sir Tom Devine, Scotland’s foremost historian, was the founding chief executive of GCHQ’s national cybersecurity centre and was constitution director in the Cabinet Office between 2011 and 2014. In it he says that Holyrood is “constitutionally . . . nothing more than a large, powerful county council. And during the Brexit process it was treated commensurately”.
Advertisement
Polls consistently show that next month’s Holyrood elections are almost certain to return a pro-independence majority.
It appears to be on a knife edge as to whether the SNP will have total control of the parliament or whether it will need to find support from the Scottish Greens or, potentially, Alex Salmond’s Alba Party in attempts to force another referendum.
Powers over the constitution are reserved to Westminster and Johnson has said that he will not countenance another independence referendum while he is prime minister.
In a sign of turbulence within Downing Street, the UK government recently disbanded its “Union unit” which was supposed to be devising a strategy to strengthen support for keeping the UK together. Instead, support for Scottish independence is roughly 50-50 and there is increased backing for both a united Ireland and independent Wales.
Writing in The Times, Martin says that the UK government’s hard-headed approach risks undermining Scotland’s right to self-determination. “London can block a referendum even if Scotland votes for one,” he said. “But that changes the Union we know, which is based on consent, to one that survives only through force of law.”
Advertisement
Yesterday Philip Rycroft, the former permanent secretary at the Department for Exiting the European Union, said that the UK government’s “imperious disregard” for devolved policies was fuelling support for Scottish independence and Irish reunification.
It followed reports that cabinet ministers believed Johnson’s position was impossible to sustain and he should consider a snap vote to emphasise the dangers of Scotland going it alone.
A three-question ballot has been suggested for any future referendum, with voters given the chance to choose between independence, the status quo and a defined set of greater powers for the Scottish parliament.
Martin argues that this is not viable because federalism, or home rule, would mean the Houses of Parliament are no longer sovereign.
Any referendum should be a close repeat of the 2014 conditions, he argues, but with greater honesty and clarity from the respective campaigns.
Advertisement
He says that both sides made “implausible assertions in 2014” with the Scottish government’s claims that independence would mean continuity in many areas “stretching credulity” particularly over a currency union with the rest of the UK.
He also criticised the UK government’s pushing of economic forecasts, which he said were of high quality but suffered like any predictions because of the unpredictability of events. His more serious criticism of the Better Together campaign was the assertion that an independent Scotland “would be alone and friendless in the world”.
In the paper, he states: “There would be a land border of some sort with England, just as there has been in Ireland for a century, both before, during and after EU membership.
“There would be, in time, different currencies, as there have been for decades across the Irish border, both during and after the UK’s EU membership.
“Nationalists would also have to address very challenging fiscal numbers, assuming a reasonable settlement of debt in the negotiations. Similarly, EU membership would be likely, but not inevitable, and almost certainly not immediate.”
