When a political decision is made by a community or society, should there be a minimum lapse of time before which that decision can be reviewed or changed?
The Scottish First Minister and Leader of the Scottish National Party (SNP) Nicola Sturgeon this week announced that she would like to hold a second referendum for independence in the autumn of 2018 (before Britain leaves the EU), having voted on this issue previously in September of 2014. Despite there being an influence on the rest of the United Kingdom, only those British or Commonwealth citizens which were resident in Scotland were permitted a vote.
The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom (not a resident in Scotland) responded to this request:
“When the SNP government say that it is the time to start taking about a second independence referendum, I say that just at this point all our energies should be focused on our negotiations with the European Union about our future relationship. And to be talking about an independence referendum would I think make it more difficult for us to get the right deal for Scotland and for the UK.”
“…It wouldn’t be fair to the people of Scotland because they would be being asked to make a crucial decision without the necessary information, without knowing what the future partnership will be.“ She continued, closing with the statement “Now is not the time”.
The argument that such a referendum would not be fair to the people of Scotland since this would involve them making a crucial decision without the necessary information is perhaps an important point. Indeed, it seems only right and correct that asking someone to make a decision (let alone the important ones) without all of the necessary information is unfair. And yet, isn’t this a scenario identical to the situation for the the Brexit referendum? Only now (nearly 10 months after the referendum) is the government of the United Kingdom about to sit down and discuss with the EU the terms of departure. This being the case, the “…future partnership…” could not have been known at the time of the vote, and therefore – if we follow Theresa May’s logic – was unfair to the people of the United Kingdom. Despite this obvious unfairness however, the government dogmatically push forward in their goal to leave the EU, and counter any suggestion of reviewing the decision with derision; arguing simply that the British people have decided.
Given therefore that the argument of unfairness is spurious (since it is not adhered to in other situations by the self-same government) we can examine the eligibility of the UK government to make this decision on behalf of the Scottish people. In the previous referendum, no right to vote was accorded to citizens residing outside of Scotland. Since therefore Theresa May does not reside in Scotland, why should she be permitted a say in this decision? The office of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom does indeed have a responsibility towards the Scottish people (as for the Welsh, the Northern Irish and the English), but if it has been determined that the question of independence for one of these communities is relevant only to that community, then surely that judgement should apply to the decisions of government too. The decision therefore whether or not to hold a second referendum should fall entirely on the shoulders of the Scottish parliament and not the United Kingdom parliament. You cannot have it both ways, the decision is either for a single community only, or for all – if it is for all communities then they should all vote, and if not, then it should concern only the Scots and the Scottish government.
Furthermore, the recommendation of Theresa May that Scotland wait until after the United Kingdom leaves the European Union is also interesting. If a referendum is held prior to Brexit, and the vote is for independence, this could have a bearing on the negotiations for Brexit – perhaps with a request that Scotland be permitted to remain in or later re-join the EU independently (Scotland voted in favour of remaining). Denying the Scottish people the opportunity to revisit a decision (with which they are in disagreement) is simple pig-headedness, and is such that it could have an impact on not only the people of Scotland but also on the people of Europe.
Of key importance here also however, is the question of whether or not it is permissible to change one’s mind. Should such decisions be irrevocable, and who is empowered to determine that? As an individual not only do I change my mind but I value this ability. To be able to question and review a decision that one have made is arguably very important; situations change, and it is conceivable that our responses as individuals change also. For General Elections in the UK the people cannot change their minds except once every 5 years; can any one of us actually say that we don’t change our minds more frequently than that?
With decisions of this magnitude, I would rather that the decision be questioned than it be pushed through regardless of consequence (which is what the current UK government is doing). I would rather we checked to see if we are jumping from the frying pan into the fire, and should we perceive that the fire is a worse option, then perhaps we shouldn’t jump at all. Perhaps there should be a cooling-off period for decisions of this magnitude – perhaps we should have the obligation to run the referendum again now that we see how our decision is being managed.
Why are we, the people, only allowed to change our minds when the government tells us that we can?