Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[The Brain]

If a super-majority is required you just have a vote on remaining instead of leaving. You're welcome.

[Josquius]

I agree 50%+1 is stupid. That it has been done in the past doesn't matter, that's a naff excuse that if followed through would mean we never got the vote.

I thin it does matter - but also expanding the franchise increases democracy. I think imposing a super-majority now makes it more difficult for one side to win than it was at the last referendum which I think is entirely illegitimate. It's like gerrymandering on a national level.

But then when does it change?
On any referendum there will always be one side that stands to benefit from squeaking through on 50%+1.
"Its the way things have always been" will keep the UK a sub par democracy at best till the end days.

[Sheilbh]

But one side, the Unionists, can never win. While the secessionists can. That strikes me as also illegitimate. I mean once Scotland leaves the chances of them ever returning is about 1 in a billion. But if the Unionists win the chances of their being another referendum is pretty high. How is that legitimate? Seems to me a super-majority is entirely just and fair in that kind of election. Context matters, does it not?

I'd absolutely dispute that. The Scottish government have made a reference to the Supreme Court to confirm whether they have the power to hold a referendum - legal consensus is that they don't.

If that is the way the court goes, then the power to decide whether there's a referendum or not is entirely in the hands of unionist parties. If the unionists decide they never want another referendum then they don't have to hold one. Politically there's also a bit of a revival of Scottish Labour going on and the way the unionists win is by going convincing people there are other more important issues - which is very much the Scottish Labour attack line (which I think is quite effective). And the way the unionists win is by delivering for Scotland so there's less demand for independence outside of the fundamentalist wing of the SNP. In many ways given the context the real surprise of the last 10 years after the referendum is the way unionists have actually endured and held up far better than I think many expected.

The reason the SNP are pushing so hard for a referendum now is because they can see the window of opportunity closing. If they don't get (and win) a referendum in the next two years it is difficult to see when they will ever have better circumstances: Brexit, Tory government, Johnson. I think it's a huge gamble. It might work (a little bit depending on the Supreme Court). But given the NHS crisis and the cost of living crisis for the SNP to go all in on a constitutional argument, that might back fire. My general view is if you're a Western politican right now talking about anything but how you're fixing cost of living then you doing it wrong. This is very much the Scottish Labour line of attack.

There is a real if not now, when issue for the SNP and there's a number of reasons to think that it might not be now.

If we do got with 50%+1 it should be binding for 100 years. That would be fair.

There's been one vote in the 25 years of the Scottish Parliament. Subject to the Supreme Court there won't be one before the next general election and, reportedly, Keir Starmer intends to rule one out if Labour wins the next election - which takes us to around 2030. And with a Labour government or with Scottish Labour fightback we probably going to end up more in the politics of 1998-2011.

I'd also add there's starting to be evidence in the polling that basically there is no demographics is destiny here. Young people back independence and then as they age become more unionist at roughly the same pace as was observed in 2014 - it doesn't look like they stay as vigorously pro-indy as they age.

But then when does it change?
On any referendum there will always be one side that stands to benefit from squeaking through on 50%+1.
"Its the way things have always been" will keep the UK a sub par democracy at best till the end days.

I think you need a really good argument why change should be more difficult in a democratic system than stasis. And I've never heard one - I mean the US is the extreme example of what happens when you riddle a system with mechanisms to stop change. But especially in the context when the power to hold a referendum is in the hands of unionists/the status quo - they already have an incrediible built-in advantage.

My point isn't that we can't change things because it's the way things have always been but that change needs to be justified and I think it needs to be legitimate - by which I mean it has support from voters, it is perceived as a legitimate decision. I don't think there's any basis for it in Scotland. We'd just be messing with the democratic to disadvantage one side.

[Iormlund]

I think you need a really good argument why change should be more difficult in a democratic system than stasis. And I've never heard one.

 

Millions of people losing rights they currently have is not a good enough argument for you?

Say the Aragonese independence movement (there is of course one) gets big enough. I've got a job here, a family, a home, could have a business.
A vote comes and 50% + 1 decide I've got a choice to make: either I'm a foreigner in my country now, with no say whatsoever in how things are run, or I'm a foreigner in the rest of Spain, plus likely lose my EU citizenship. Brilliant.

Deciding that sort of thing by so narrow a majority is just madness.

Likewise for any situation where a tyranny of the majority can develop (sorry Mr Scott, us white folk have decided you've never been a citizen).
I'm really, really glad that changing certain stuff in our constitution basically requires that everyone is onboard.

[Sheilbh]

Millions of people losing rights they currently have is not a good enough argument for you?

There's also a right to self-determination - and the alternative is we are compelling a majority of  people to be governed by a state or in a constitutional arrangement that they don't consent to. Why should the UK's existence have a lower bar than the people of Scotland's right to self-determination? There's nothing sacred about the UK that means we should force a country to stay in a union it wants to leave - if we can't convince a majority to back it then we shouldn't be there.

And it's about a really fundamental issue - who gets to make decisions that affect Scotland and its people. Being in a union means that us voters in England get to have a say over the affairs of Scotland (to the extent it's not devolved) and vice versa. I think that requires consent of the majority (but just a majority) because otherwise I don't know how we would justify Westminster with MPs from across the UK being able to make decisions that impact Scotland.

The apportionment of rights or citizenship or any of that is for the divorce. It's for the negotiated, staged way that independence would happen. It's not - at least in the context of Scotland - ever been proposed that there'd be a vote and the next day a new state. There'd state-building, negotiation etc. It would really be like mega-Brexit, but it doesn't just change overnight.

A vote comes and 50% + 1 decide I've got a choice to make: either I'm a foreigner in my country now, with no say whatsoever in how things are run, or I'm a foreigner in the rest of Spain, plus likely lose my EU citizenship. Brilliant.

Deciding that sort of thing by so narrow a majority is just madness.

But the other side is supporting the state forcing your fellow citizens to remain in a country that a majority do not consent to on the basis of a minority?

Edit: And in practice I don't think that's how it'd work - I imagine most residents would be grandfathered in to Scottish citizenship, so they'd just have dual citizenship. I'd imagine there'd still be a fair bit of mixing and mingling and even a hundred years down the line there wouldn't be a clear, bright dividing line (possibly because that's not the point/focus of Scottish nationalism). I'd be surprised if there wasn't a similar arrangement as with Ireland where there is still the right to live, work and study in each other's countries and there's a huge number of dual citizens across the islands - and Irish citizens can vote in UK elections (and I think vice versa). We'd still be neighbours sharing a small plot of land and that has an effect.

Edit: In fact thinking on it it would be particularly strong in Scotland because Scotland has already extended the vote to everyone who is legally resident in Scotland and there's no sign they intend to turn away from that approach.

[Tamas]

Sheilbh, I reply to Valmys point, I think your reply just proved it right. All those things the unionists should do to preserve the union - that has to be done constantly and always better than separatist efforts. That is not true for the separatists. They only need to get temporarily better, for one day, and they win forever.

[The Brain]

"Forever", until the next Acts of Union. Presumably decided on by 50%+1 votes.

[HVC]

Just wait until Scotland goes broke, like last time. Maybe offer them a nice colonizing opportunity in Central America to speed it along.

[Sheilbh]

Sheilbh, I reply to Valmys point, I think your reply just proved it right. All those things the unionists should do to preserve the union - that has to be done constantly and always better than separatist efforts. That is not true for the separatists. They only need to get temporarily better, for one day, and they win forever.

I think (subject to the Supreme Court) the power to decide whether there's a referendum shouldn't be overlooked in terms of unionist power.

But I think you're fundamentally right - and I think it's the way it should be. I think as a union of nations the UK has to justify its existence to all parts and to do that constantly. Both materially but, as that's never sufficient, also politically and morally - we need to be able to always answer the question why should we stay together? Why should English people decide issues in Scotland and vice versa? Why do we tolerate that as a shared democracy rather than imposition from outsiders? I think a union of nations has to be constantly justifying its existence - because it doesn't take much to fall apart once people turn away, or resentments and greivances grow.

Again I think the real surprise is that despite Brexit, despite Tory rule, despite Boris Johnson (who is uniquely loathed in Scotland and is just a very alien figure to Scottish politics) there is still more support for the union than not. But there's no right for the UK to exist or for Westminster to rule West Lothian.

The big challenge I think is actually the moral and political. I think there's a lot to Linda Colley's argument that what created and cohered the UK (between Scotland and England) was Protestantism, opposition to France and Empire. Those justifications have fallen away one by one over the 300 years we've been together - I think arguably WW2 gave them a bit of a boost as another justification. I think the post-war welfare state was also a bit of a justification. But we need to imagine what are the new ones - what are new causes that can help what Scotland and England do together and what they can do so much better together (I think climate might be a big part of it and I'm fairly sure Brexit isn't). That doesn't mean investment or material stuff is irrelevant but I think it's a really important side to "why" that we don't currently have a great answer for.

Edit: But this is why I think it's a huge gamble for the SNP to decide that what they need to focus on now is independence (and I think they're doing it because they know their window of opportunity is closing). Again it's like the Tories - I don't think talking a lot about Brexit would help them - and after more than 10 years in power they really need (and are perhaps incapable of) delivering on the key issues people actually care about:

[Josquius]

Keeping the tories out of power?

[Jacob]

Millions of people losing rights they currently have is not a good enough argument for you?

Say the Aragonese independence movement (there is of course one) gets big enough. I've got a job here, a family, a home, could have a business.
A vote comes and 50% + 1 decide I've got a choice to make: either I'm a foreigner in my country now, with no say whatsoever in how things are run, or I'm a foreigner in the rest of Spain, plus likely lose my EU citizenship. Brilliant.

Deciding that sort of thing by so narrow a majority is just madness.

Likewise for any situation where a tyranny of the majority can develop (sorry Mr Scott, us white folk have decided you've never been a citizen).
I'm really, really glad that changing certain stuff in our constitution basically requires that everyone is onboard.

That's assuming dual citizenship is not an option.

[Josquius]

Dual citizenship is a weird one. It just doesn't seem fair if everyone automatically gets it.
I'd imagine some kind of Irish situation where you have to choose but you have the rights of a citizen in both countries.
But then the world is a different place to the 1920s and an awful lot will be of mixed British and Scottish parentage or what have you.

[Sheilbh]

I'd imagine some kind of Irish situation where you have to choose but you have the rights of a citizen in both countries.
But then the world is a different place to the 1920s and an awful lot will be of mixed British and Scottish parentage or what have you.

I don't think there was ever a need to choose and there still isn't - both countries are fairly relaxed about dual citizenship. Though there were lots of controversies in the 20s and 30s because Ireland was technically still a dominion of the British empire so was restricted on rules about citizenship/passports. I don't think there'd be any reason to suspect Scotland would be more restrictive

Separately Tony Blair had his Future of Britain conference with people like Rory Stewart etc. I think this is the best piece I've seen on it - but similar reactions even from Economist and FT journalists who are probably a core target audience:

Does Tony Blair's new centrist project have any answers?
At the former PM's Future of Britain conference, it felt as if the past 15 years of British politics never happened.
By Freddie Hayward

At 9am on 30 June, Tony Blair opened his Future of Britain conference with a call to "plan and prepare for a new world". Blair told this gathering of change-makers that the conference was not the germination of a new political party but an attempt to forge a "new politics". The premise was simple: to bring progressive centrists together to discuss the policy challenges of the future, from climate change to the technological revolution.

Sat in the basement of a swish hotel in Westminster, we were there to listen to the experts. Ably compèred by an effortlessly smug Jon Sopel, the presentations progressed with slick precision. Larry Summers, the US  economist who served in the Clinton and Obama administrations, was one of the first speakers. He admitted that "we [in the progressive centre] never dreamt that something like Brexit could happen; never dreamt that somebody like Donald Trump would be president of the United States; never expected the degree of backlash from our middle classes to ideas we thought were fairly self-evident."

And that remains the case. Despite the convulsions of the past ten years, Summers' views haven't changed. He thinks the solution now isn't "de-globalisation" but "intelligent globalisation". The answer is self-evident to those clever enough to see it. The policies weren't wrong; we simply need to implement them in a more intelligent way.

After coffee, there were PowerPoint slides along the lines of "Three E's to solve education" and "Five C's to fix the climate crisis". In one session, the speaker pointed to the fact that the gentrified London borough of Hackney had one of the highest levels of bicycle usage in the country. "Well done, Hackney!" they roared to whoops and applause. Another speaker said part of the solution to climate change was to herd the public like sheep.

During lunch, Blair's acolytes swarmed around discussing The Future. One person told me about the need to introduce a law to prosecute politicians for making misleading claims in public. People queued up to take photos with Tony.

Back in the auditorium, the global financial elites were invited on stage to deliver us into the 21st century. Tech billionaire Larry Ellison meandered on and on about how Tesla produces batteries as well as cars. "The cars themselves have to be robots!" he cried. There was no discussion about the rising threat of China, but we did receive a lecture from a Taiwanese businessman on why the UK should adopt the Chinese Communist Party's "techno-utilitarian" policies. The CEO of Snapchat was asked to give his views on how social media should be regulated. The line between politics and global capital became so blurred I thought Nick Clegg would drop from the ceiling at any moment. I found myself laughing when no one else was.

This was a celebration of science, an affirmation that technology and the private sector would solve all our problems. One speaker said satellite imaging of the war in Ukraine allows Vladimir Putin to be held to account for atrocities. No one mentioned that, notwithstanding the satellite pictures, Putin continued to bomb civilians.

The conference was called the Future of Britain but it could have taken place anywhere. At times it felt like an away day for venture capitalists, not progressive politics. Elon Musk was mentioned more times than the NHS. It was as if the past 15 years of British politics never happened.

It came as a surprise, then, that it was Nick Clegg's former staffer, Polly Mackenzie, who burst this hubristic balloon:

"We have had this amazing conversation today," she said on one panel. But it was "based on a flawed premise that there is a technical solution to the problems that we face". The very people "who have votes, and choices and agency and power, and for whom this is all supposed to be in service, we occasionally hear them talked about as if they're sheep. And that assumption, that what you need is a bunch of clever people to get together in the Tony Blair Institute or the think tank I used to run, Demos, and just figure it out... is profoundly, profoundly harmful to democracy."

To which Sopel made a joke about Mackenzie needing a strong glass of wine after the Lib Dems' 2015 general election losses.

***

As Blair mounted the stage to deliver his closing remarks, Andrew Adonis sat on the floor towards the back of the room, gazing up at the stage forlornly. Journalists crowded around the television cameras. Blair wanted to address what Mackenzie had said.

"I agree that politics can't be technocratic," he began. But he added: "You can have the best politician in the world, but if you've got the wrong answer it's not much use. The technical part of it does actually matter," Blair said. "And one of the things that's important is for the politicians to be able to take those technically correct answers and make sense of them for people."

I went to speak with Blair afterwards. He asked for my opinion. I expressed some misgivings about the tone of the event. He looked annoyed. The smile left his face – his eyes blue against his thinning grey hair – and he said if the policy isn't right then the messaging doesn't matter. But didn't he say ten minutes ago that the role of politicians is to convince the public to support those policies? "It's all about the policy," he repeated before his team whisked him away.

What was this form of the radical centre? Its claim to be radical seems confined by its snug relationship with the rich elite. The liberal consensus that contributed to the 2008 financial crisis and the poverty it unleashed was never under debate. Where were the discussions of belonging? Of lessons learned? Of the causes of Brexit?

Nonetheless, the conference deserves credit for its ambition and for turning to face the issues hurtling towards us. As a consequence, it threw the paucity of ideas in both major parties into sharp relief. Labour is set to announce its policy programme in the coming months. As for the Conservatives, the party is bereft after "getting Brexit done". Levelling up has been exposed as vacuous. As someone involved in its concoction in 2019 recently told me, the policy was "no more than a slogan".

But that does not mean Blair's project has the answers. Values weren't up for discussion at the Future of Britain conference; they were taken for granted. Intelligent people will, it was assumed, eventually come to accept the "reasonable" position. As John Gray has written in these pages, "The core centrist belief is that all reasonable people share the same values." Simply look at the evidence and you'll know what to do. There's a reason business elites and liberal internationalists often sound the same: because for both, the premise is never up for debate. The question is simply how to achieve the most efficient outcome.

For business, that's because they're motivated by profit. But for politicians, this is a sleight of hand. The politics of competence is a facade for the efficient implementation of one set of values over another. This facade gave Blair cover to enact a massive redistribution of money from the rich to the poor. David Cameron was able to impose a punitive programme of austerity. Both knew that appeals to competence would make their policies appear as faits accomplis.

But the past 15 years of British politics did happen. And people did get sick of experts. Blair may want the experts to return to power, but why does he think people will respond any differently?

[Zoupa]

Tamas it's a bit rich to argue the independentists need to be right just once. The unionists haven't needed to be right even once before devolution and the referendum.

The referendum happened and was seen as legitimate by all parties. That box has been opened now. The issue will not go away and will force both sides to work hard and convince people their option is the smartest one. It's a good thing for Scots.

[Sheilbh]

And I think it's good for the union too. If unionists are not abe to convince people in Scotland. If we don't have a convincing case for why it's better for Scots and what we can do better together, then unionists deserve to lose and the UK doesn't deserve to carry on. If we want the union to survive it should force us to identify why and make it work.

If the union loses the support of the people of Scotland, there's no basis for it carrying on because it's already failed.