I voted remain, and I am of course disappointed at the result.
The result happened. It's done. You're out of the EU. Well done. In the last 100 hours, the political and economic scenery has dramatically changed for the worse, but you're out. There's no going back. Europe want rid of us - that much is quite clear from the deliberately polite but nevertheless firm rhetoric from the EU. A repeat referendum would be democratically unacceptable domestically unless there was substantial change in the next two years or so, and it would serve only to weaken the UK's position at the negotiating table. The petition to overturn the result is frankly moronic, and has no democratic basis.
As for Scotland, it'll be no surprise to some that I think a second independence referendum is on the cards, and is democratically justified. I am, of course, a proud supporter of (although not a member of) the SNP, and actively supported independence in the first referendum. Indeed, my view on the matter has not changed.
For those who disagree, I'd like to take you back to the Scottish Independence debate in 2014. One of the big issues for the "No" block back then was the EU (here's an
old BBC article about the issues). It was said that a vote for independence risked our place in Europe, and that to preserve it we should vote to remain in the UK. Now, Scotland have voted to remain in the EU by a comfortable margin, whilst England and Wales voted to leave. As a result, our constitutional framework in Scotland has been changed contrary to the will of its people.
I think the EU referendum was conducted in an entirely appropriate manner, and that the way of interpreting the result (50% +1 vote, regardless of where the vote comes from) was correct. But for Scotland (and indeed Northern Ireland) it does raise the question of independence again. Our people wanted to take a different approach, and I think it is justified that the people, knowing what the options are further down the line, have the right to decide whether we keep our ties with rUK, or whether we keep our ties with Europe. Although this is a very different debate to the one we had previously - it's going to be about whether Scotland has ties with London or ties with Brussels. An independent Scotland that is offered to the voters in a potential IndyRef 2 must be a member of the EU for this to be a reasonable debate.
It is quite sensible in my opinion - the vision of Scotland sold to no voters as a member of the UK has changed. There is already a poll demonstrating huge support for an independent Scotland. I think it is therefore reasonable to ask the question to Scots again, as there has now been a huge change in circumstances. Of course, this isn't a simple affair, and we need to know:
- Whether Scotland can remain a member of the EU whilst rUK leaves (I suspect that this is unlikely, but there is a precedent with Denmark/Greenland/Faroe Islands).
- Exactly what the divorce between UK and EU will entail.
- Exactly what is required for an independent Scotland to ascend to the EU (whether we have automatic rights to join as a fragment of the UK, or need to go through the full Article 49 process requiring approval from every member state)
- What we would need to do to join the EU - I suspect that joining the Euro at the very least would be non-negotiable, and indeed preferable in the new circumstances.
This will all become clearer as the Scottish Government continue in their discussions with European ministers.
Sadly, in this debate, people in Scotland have seen England & Wales in a very nasty light. The role that blatant xenophobia and racism has played in this campaign has not gone unnoticed by us, and I think that will serve only to strengthen support for independence further. Scotland is continuing to drift politically further apart from the rest of the UK. And, as far as I'm concerned, long may it continue. The tone of this campaign has made me throughly ashamed to be British.
