Referendum on Scottish Independence

Martyn Day Excerpts

Monday 13th November 2017 Westminster Hall

[Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petitions 180642 and 168781 relating to a referendum on Scottish independence.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey, in what I am sure will be an interesting and lively debate. I thank the Petitions Committee for allowing me introduce the two petitions before us. The petitions are diametrically opposed, representing opposite views on essentially the same issue—Scottish independence and how that should be determined. One of the petitions is entitled, “Another Scottish independence referendum should not be allowed to happen”, and it reads as follows:

“We in Scotland are fed up of persecution by the SNP leader who is solely intent on getting independence at any cost. As a result, Scotland is suffering hugely.”

The other is entitled, “Agree to a second referendum on Scottish Independence”, and it reads as follows:

“The actions of the UK government after the Brexit vote do not align with the people of Scotland. We are not bigoted. We are not racist. We welcome everybody based on their contribution, not on where they come from. The UK government does not behave in this way and so we must LEAVE.”

Petitions by their nature express a grievance, as both petitions make clear. It is not possible simultaneously to support the premise of both petitions, as my electronic mailbag has demonstrated over the last few weeks in the number of emails I have received supporting or opposing either position. I have selected a few representative excerpts that sum up the debate among my constituents and to give a flavour of what has been said. One says:

“I ask you to argue that the sovereign will of the Scottish people must be respected.”

It is interesting that although that point was made by somebody who opposes an independence referendum, very similar points were made by those who support one. A constituent said:

“I would ask you to take a motion to investigate precisely whom effected a constituent coup, that precluded the majority from being respected.”

Again, I directly quote a no petitioner, but similar points were also made by those arguing in favour of an independence referendum. Another said:

“the people voted to remain part of the U.K.”.

That is a historically factual position. Another email said:

“I would like to remind you that NO means NO.”

I will come back to that point. One said:

“I strongly urge you to continue to investigate keeping Scotland in the EU.”

That was a very common feature, again from both sides. Another wanted to work

“to help attract skilled workers to create a better and diverse Scotland in the future.”

Other emails stated:

“There is a democratic deficit, seen by such things as EVEL; there is a need for independence”,

and

“Brexit has caused a material change and our views are being ignored.”

It is, however, possible simultaneously to oppose both positions, as several correspondents suggested. That is best expressed by the following quote:

“Scottish independence and Scottish sovereignty don’t require the permission of Westminster. They require ours”—

a view that I have considerable sympathy with.

There is quite a range of varied opinions. It is quite clear from just that snapshot, which I hope flavours the arguments of both sides of the debate, that the underlying thought process clearly is whether someone supports self-determination, and how they think that would be best determined.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way so early in his speech. Quite rightly, he makes a balanced argument for the positions of the two petitions, but before he moves on to the substantive part of his argument, will he tell us how many people signed each petition?

[Martyn Day]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Library briefing as I cannot remember the exact figures, but significantly more signed the petition opposing independence than signed the one in favour. However, what is more important in the debate is democratic mandate, which I will come on to and which changes that dimension considerably.

Without any doubt, the strongest and most repeated argument of constituents opposed to another independence referendum is basically that the matter has been determined and that “NO means NO”, as I quoted earlier. However, circumstances change. People have the democratic right to revisit any decision or policy if they wish at any election.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful and balanced speech. Does he agree that, in many ways, running a country is like running a business: as circumstances change, people have to look at their options, re-evaluate and re-address, and nothing should be ever be ruled out?

[Martyn Day]

I agree with my hon. Friend and I could not make that point better myself. We had universal suffrage for the first time in this country in 1928, but we did not stop the ball at the 1929 election; we continued to have democratic elections on a regular basis.

[Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)]

Were Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon wrong to say that the referendum was a once in a generation event—a once in a lifetime event? The posters for the yes campaign said, “One opportunity”. Were they wrong to do that?

[Martyn Day]

I cannot give an opinion on someone else’s personal opinion.

[Douglas Ross]

It is your party’s opinion!

--- Later in debate ---

[Martyn Day]

If the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene again, I will let him. It is up to the Scottish people at any election to decide what platform they wish to endorse, which is a point I will come to. The principle is that in 2016, at the Scottish Parliament election the Scottish National party was voted in with a mandate to potentially—

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

You lost your majority—your vote went down.

[Martyn Day]

Would the hon. Gentleman like to intervene? No. I will continue. The SNP was elected in 2016 with a clear mandate from a vote in the Scottish Parliament that was re-endorsed by the Westminster election.

[Kirstene Hair (Angus) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that losing 500,000 votes in the recent election is quite a clear indication that the people of Scotland did not want another independence referendum and wanted his party to take it off the table?

[Martyn Day]

It is worth pointing out—I will speak slowly for diction purposes, lest I am misheard—that in my previous career I was a banker, and that it is a simple piece of arithmetic that 35 is a majority of the Scottish seats. It trumps 13 plus four plus seven.

[Paul Masterton (East Renfrewshire) (Con)]

Can the hon. Gentleman use his career in banking to tell me the percentage difference in the number of voters who backed pro-independence parties and those who backed anti-independence parties?

[Martyn Day]

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that figure, but I am sure that if he has it at his fingertips, he will intervene to give it to me.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Martyn Day]

I will come back to the hon. Lady in one moment. If we believe in a parliamentary democracy using the system that Westminster uses—I have a lot of complaints about that and want a proportional system of representation at all elections—then we have to accept that a simple majority is a win under this democratic approach.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

Does my hon. Friend see the irony that the Government party, whose Members have turned up in large numbers here—I wish they would do so in debates on universal credit, for example—argues for democracy, but its candidate for Perth and North Perthshire lost at the election so was stuffed into the House of Lords, and is of course the Secretary of State’s understudy in the Scotland Office?

[Martyn Day]

I do indeed see the irony and I oppose the House of Lords as a whole on principle, not just on that point.

To continue with the substantive part of my speech— I am sure that I will provide many opportunities for everyone else to intervene—

[Mr Alister Jack (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Martyn Day]

The hon. Gentleman does not know I am going to say next, but of course I will.

[Mr Jack]

The hon. Gentleman mentions the new Under-Secretary of State moving from Perth and Kinross to that job. Does he think that it is appropriate for the former Member for Gordon to move to RT?

[Martyn Day]

I do not think I will deign to answer that—that is not part of a democratic process.

Circumstances change and people have the democratic right to revisit any decision or policy at any time they choose at an election. The 2014 referendum is simply a case in point. It is pretty clear to me that the United Kingdom that the people of Scotland voted to remain in in 2014 no longer exists. During the referendum campaign, Ruth Davidson and the then Secretary of State for Scotland, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), assured voters that a yes vote was a vote to leave the EU. He is sitting beside me, and I am sure he will correct me if I am wrong on that. But where are we now? The UK is clearly no longer a strong or stable member of the EU. It looks like we are pretty much on a shoogly nail on our way out.

[David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that the content of the document “Scotland’s Future”, of which I have a screenshot, shows that the yes campaign in the 2014 referendum clearly knew and campaigned on the fact that Brexit was a possibility, and that, even armed with that knowledge, the Scottish public still voted to remain in the United Kingdom?

[Martyn Day]

It is also a matter of record that I and many of my colleagues campaigned strongly on the view that the best way of staying in the European Union was to vote yes and leave the United Kingdom, which now shows remarkable premonition.

[Hannah Bardell]

I thank my hon. Friend for being so generous in giving way. On the point by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) about Scotland’s place in Europe, does he agree that it was excellent to see a Government actually put together a proposition and a document, unlike the Conservative Government, which did not write a single thing down in the run-up to the Brexit referendum and will not even publish their post-Brexit economic impact assessments?

[Martyn Day]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that very strong point. A substantial White Paper was produced on the 2014 referendum.

Before the last round of interventions, I was talking about EU membership. The point that I want to make is that independence for Scotland does not depend on Brexit, but Brexit clearly shows us what can happen when we do not control our own future. I remember that during the referendum campaign, Cameron, the Prime Minister at the time, told us that a no vote was

“not for the status quo”,

while the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) told us:

“A No vote will mean faster, better change.”

Where are we now?

That brings me on to the vow by the three Westminster leaders, who promised us extensive new powers for the Scottish Parliament. Sadly, those promises have been broken and all but forgotten about.

[Ross Thomson (Aberdeen South) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman talks about promises made during the campaign. Would he like to explain what happened to the second oil boom that John Swinney promised during that campaign?

[Martyn Day]

We hear fear stories about oil at different times. In my political career, which spanned 16 years as a councillor before I was elected to Parliament, oil has been one of the Brigadoons of Scottish politics. It is always running out or a burden to us when there is an election, and there are always new finds and windfalls afterwards.

The point that I wanted to make is that choice must always be informed. I try to be fair and balanced, and I hope that everyone here agrees that I am trying to open the debate in an even-handed manner. If I have one criticism of the 2014 referendum campaign, it is that the yes side, in which I participated—I am as much to blame for this as anyone—often projected a message of “change but no change”, while the no side clearly did the opposite, projecting a message of “no change but change”. Far from settling the issue, that left us with what became an emphatic “not yet” holding position, which combined with the failure of the winning side to respect the terms of their own mandate leaves us where we are today.

We were assured that a no vote would result in a union of equals, the closest possible thing to federalism and a guarantee that we would stay in the EU. By contrast, I and people like me on the pro-independence side respected the decision, and we did not plan even to consider having another referendum on such a short timescale, but circumstances change. [Interruption.] Circumstances change. Perhaps if the Government had delivered on the promises made during the referendum this situation would not have emerged.

Perhaps both petitions have been overtaken by events. Both predate the 2017 snap election, which provided the public with a political opportunity to express their democratic views on this and other issues, the result in Scotland being yet another win for the SNP and the pro-independence movement. As I said earlier, with 35 seats, we have a majority in this House from the Scottish electorate. We were elected on a clear pledge— I will quote it to remove any confusion—that

“any continued Tory attempts to block the people of Scotland having a choice on their future—when the time is right and the options are clear—would be democratically unsustainable.”

I have seen nothing to change my mind about that as we head towards a Brexit cliff edge.

It will not have escaped anyone’s notice that we have had a number of referendums recently, including the 2014 Scottish independence one. Indeed, I have witnessed 12 referendums across the UK in my lifetime, half of which directly affected Scotland and four of which I was eligible to take part in—and I did so fully in each case. As hon. Members will no doubt be aware, all 12 referendums were of a constitutional nature of some sort, and there is a clear pattern that major UK and devolved nation constitutional issues are now determined in that way.

That leads me to the question of process: is a referendum the correct method to decide on Scottish independence? If we believe in democracy, there are logically only two routes by which we can make such a decision: the parliamentary route or by public plebiscite. The debate has moved on considerably in my lifetime from the days when we took the view that having a simple majority of SNP MPs at Westminster was the route to negotiate for independence. Even Thatcher accepted that route, and her successor Major made the point that no nation could be

“held irrevocably in a union against its will”.

How do we express that will?

[Christine Jardine]

Although we would all agree that no nation can be held in a union against its will, the expressed will of the Scottish people was that they would stay within the Union.

[Martyn Day]

As I have said a few times, circumstances change. The 2016 election gave a mandate. That was reinforced by a vote in the Scottish Parliament—I hope that everybody respects parliamentary sovereignty—and further reinforced by the election of 35 SNP MPs to this House earlier this year.

[Ian Murray]

On a point of order, Mr Bailey. I am sorry to interrupt proceedings when the hon. Gentleman is making such a powerful speech, but given that he is presenting the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee, I wonder whether he will at any point get to the arguments for why we should not have a second independence referendum.

[Mr Adrian Bailey (in the Chair)]

I am not sure that that is a point of order, but the hon. Gentleman has made his point none the less.

[Martyn Day]

The last two Westminster elections have seen a clear majority of SNP MPs democratically returned by the people of Scotland, but under the UK’s first-past-the-post system, that is not democratic enough. For a truly democratic decision, we must secure the majority of the votes cast, not merely the majority of elected representatives. I say that as a democrat. That said, representative majority is the only democratically expressible way for a mandate to hold another referendum to be established. How else could we get to the plebiscite view? Of course, independence referendums are used frequently across the globe to determine such issues, and I am aware of at least 30 nations having gone on to become members of the United Nations after taking that route. I look forward to Scotland following them.

As I have said, the Scottish people can give their politicians an electoral mandate at any time they wish. In the last Scottish Parliament elections in May 2016, the SNP achieved the largest constituency vote in the history of devolution and was again returned to Government with a clear manifesto commitment. I will read the full commitment, because it is very important:

“We believe the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if there is clear and sustained evidence that independence has become the preferred option of a majority of the Scottish people—or if there is a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will.”

Those are two very clear conditions, one of which looks like it may be about to met.

[Mr Jack]

If that is what the SNP genuinely believes, why did it hold a vote in the Scottish Parliament on a second independence referendum when opinion polls showed that less than 50% of people were in favour of having one? Of course, that was an Achilles heel for the SNP going into the last general election.

[Martyn Day]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but I hoped that I had clarified that point by reading out the full position in our manifesto. There are two conditions in it: a clear and sustained majority for independence, or a significant material change, and the example we gave is being played out in front of us just now. Indeed, it is very timeous that we are debating this issue as the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill enters Committee stage, which might fulfil that democratic mandate of ours.

However, we are not out of Europe yet. I say this as someone who was strongly pro-remain, but I hope that the disaster of Brexit can be avoided and that the will of 62% of the Scottish people can—

[The Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

[Martyn Day]

Certainly.

[David Mundell]

It is very important that it is on the record for the 500,000 SNP “yes leavers”—the people who voted to leave the EU—that the position of the SNP is to block the UK leaving the EU. I think that is what the hon. Gentleman just said.

[Martyn Day]

I would be quite happy to block the UK leaving—I say that unashamedly as a remainer. I hope that we can create a situation in which the 62% of the Scottish people can have their wishes respected. The Scottish Parliament put forward a sensible compromise position, which comes a long way from where I would start but allows us to stay in the single market.

[Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)]

Having heard what the hon. Gentleman just said and his earlier description of himself as a democrat, what is democratic about overturning a referendum of the people of the United Kingdom, when on the ballot it clearly stated that the issue was the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union? He just said that he will do what he can to block us leaving. What is democratic about that?

[Martyn Day]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments; I will come on to that in my speech. We have a clear mandate: 62% of the Scottish people voted to remain. We have a different constitutional opinion from the UK: we believe in sovereignty of the people, not necessarily sovereignty of Parliament. Our people have expressed a democratic wish and I am striving to maintain that. However, if we do not manage to maintain that position, we clearly have the potential for another route and a second referendum.

As I was saying, unlike the UK view of parliamentary sovereignty, the Scottish view clearly states that sovereignty rests with the people, so it will be for the Scottish people to decide. That view is well entrenched from the claim of right and legal precedent, but I want to bring us to a more recent one, because this debate is about Scottish independence and the referendum we held. People may remember the Smith commission, which did not live up to many of our hopes, but paragraph 18 of its report states:

“It is agreed that nothing in this report prevents Scotland becoming an independent country in the future should the people of Scotland so choose.”

That was signed off by all the political parties in Scotland —a very democratic position.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

If we cast our minds back to the beginning of the year and the end of last year the First Minister of Scotland went out to consult the Scottish people, to see how they felt about a second independence referendum. We heard an awful lot about that, and we read about it in The National—[Interruption.] Well, two people bought The National and I was one of them. After that, we heard nothing at all. Will the hon. Gentleman share with us what the results of the First Minister’s survey were?

[Martyn Day]

I think the hon. Gentleman has probably answered his own question. It was the First Minister’s survey, not my survey, and I do not have the answers. If I did, I am sure I could have found hundreds of quotes to support the argument I am making and kept the debate going for the rest of the sitting, but I want to make progress and allow other Members to get in.

I made the point that we have the right—or we should have the right—to make the decision, established by our principle of sovereignty of the people. How best can we achieve that when the time is right? I look back to the 2014 referendum, in which I played a large part for more than two and a half years. That referendum was praised by the Electoral Commission as setting the gold standard for civic engagement and participation. The commission went on to note that

“The Scottish independence referendum was well run, with high levels of voter satisfaction in the voting process.”

It added:

“The atmosphere in polling places was reported by police, staff and observers to be good natured throughout the day.”

That was certainly my experience in the north of West Lothian, where I was campaigning on the day. While people had differing opinions, there was a good-natured democratic outpouring, and we still benefit from that today, as it is still there in civic engagement across society.

The commentator Iain Macwhirter described the 2014 referendum as being

“like the velvet revolutions in eastern Europe, Scotland’s national movement was non-sectarian, peaceful and rigorously democratic.”

That sums up my experience in Linlithgow, in the north of West Lothian, working with many people from different political parties.

[Christine Jardine]

While I fully accept that that was the hon. Gentleman’s experience, it was not the experience of a whole lot of us, who found the referendum divisive and damaging. There are still families who do not speak to one another. Perhaps his experience is not universal.

[Martyn Day]

There is clearly an attempt to rewrite history: the word “democratic” has been erased and replaced with “divisive”. It was democratic and it was empowering. That is the message that we have to take forward, and that is what any future referendum has to be as well.

I have no doubt that that was achieved as a result of the consensus that stemmed from the Edinburgh agreement and the securing of the section 30 order: a democratic and consensual approach to politics between Scotland’s two Governments. In that, a clear route map has been established for how a referendum can be best carried out in future.

The reasons for independence are important. Much of what I have spoken about has been on process, but I hope that, as the debate continues with other speakers, we will get on to “why?” Let me give my own tuppence-worth. It will be no surprise to people that I often wear a “yes” badge—I am proud about my involvement in that—but the reasons are more important than just about being in or out of Europe, although that is important at the moment. I hope that Scotland can become a fairer and more equal society. That requires us to have the full levers of power to make Scotland a more successful country. Now, 70% of tax and 85% of welfare powers remain in the control of Westminster; the Scottish Parliament has no say over immigration, and it is powerless to prevent the Trident weapons of mass destruction sitting a few miles from our largest city. We need an alternative to the economics of austerity, where our Scottish Government are not restricted to merely mitigating some of the worst aspects of Westminster.

Independence—this is worth saying again from a democratic point of view and as a lifelong SNP member—is about more than the SNP. Scotland now has a multiplicity of pro-independence groups, with a broad home-rule movement pushing the case for independence. No amount of huffing or puffing in Westminster will decide whether Scotland is to become independent or not. Indeed, it will not even be decided by who shouts the loudest back in Scotland. It will be decided by the Scottish people, and at a time of their choosing.

[Douglas Ross]

On a point of order, Mr Bailey. I ask you to reflect on the earlier point of order, along with parliamentary authorities and indeed the Petitions Committee—

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Brown]

I think that the key word there is “possibly”.

[Martyn Day]

Perhaps what Alex Salmond was hinting at was that when the devolution referendums took place, it took from 1979 to 1997 to get a re-run. That assumption was made without the belief that circumstances would change as materially as they are now about to.

[Alan Brown]

If the facts change, we have the right to change our minds in line with the facts, and we weigh that up going forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martyn Day]

I apologise to the hon. Members for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) and Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Lesley Laird) for leaving during their speeches. I have had too much water to fight the cold that I am suffering from; there was no disrespect intended.

I always thought that my constituency was the friendliest place in the country; I have learned today that it obviously is, given the number of references to division that we have heard—hon. Members know where to come on their holidays this year. I would like to make the point that we all need to be careful about the language that we use, and ensure that the word “division” does not become a self-fulfilling prophecy. It is incumbent on people on both sides to make sure that if their supporters are not behaving reasonably, they take action and show proper leadership.

That brings me on to the final points that I wish to make. No one has addressed the democratic deficit. I am a great supporter of the work of the Petition Committee, which allows things to be debated that otherwise would not be, but we have had suggestions that a number of people submitting an e-petition to the Committee is somehow worth more than a democratic vote in the Scottish Parliament—an elected chamber that has a mandate. Clearly, that is not the case, and this debate has a long way to run. I look forward to taking part in it over the coming years.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petitions 180642 and 168781 relating to a referendum on Scottish independence.