Our politicians must commit to trusting the Scottish people

The National

24-06-2025

This should have been done at the time of the first Smith Commission in the wake of the 2014 referendum. This referendum on extended powers can be the basis for subsequent negotiations between Scottish Government and Westminster, if they will take part. Resulting legislation, if any, can be part of the status-quo option in an independence referendum or, if necessary, in the next General Election.
READ MORE: Ex-Unionist party leader backs Scottish independence referendum
Many people in Scotland want a referendum on independence. A two-thirds majority, when asked in polls, want a Scottish Government to have powers in most areas presently claimed by Westminster as 'reserved'. A Scottish Parliament, when acting on a specific electoral mandate from the Scottish people, must have more democratic legitimacy than Westminster and its institutions such as the 'Supreme Court' Westminster created in 2009.
A manifesto committing the representatives of Scotland's cause in Holyrood to asserting competence over constitutional affairs can supply that mandate. That would include power to hold an independence referendum. A commitment to a referendum on a menu of specific increased powers for Holyrood to be enacted in the time frame of that Scottish Parliament can also be put in a manifesto.
To get that specific electoral mandate, our political representatives need to win back the trust of the Scottish people. Trust in a prospective Scottish Government can be restored when voters feel that government respects the people and will give voters the final say on matters of prime importance to them such as their fundamental rights.
READ MORE: Scottish Secretary Ian Murray ends 'lifelong' opposition to nukes
Politicians will not regain the people's trust they have largely lost unless they show commitment to trusting the people. There must be a cast-iron commitment to giving the Scottish people a real say on how they
are to be governed and ensuring that say is respected. Direct democracy can be part of the legislative process; combined with use of citizens' assemblies to review issues before legislation. The Scottish Government can start now for some 'unreserved' matters, with 'reserved' matters considered after the Scottish election gives a mandate on that.
Some assert that this would be to ignore Westminster's Supreme Court ruling that Holyrood could not act on reserved matters without Westminster's permission. Not so; this approach tackles Westminster's attempted roadblock to democracy head-on. Westminster can be notified of our intent as a protocol courtesy. However, any problem with regard to their Scotland Act and a 'transfer of powers' is a problem for Westminster to address, and not a Scottish Parliament with a specific mandate from Scotland's highest legitimate authority – that of the Scottish people.
READ MORE: Rob Roy's missing blade feels like an apt metaphor for our situation
This is primarily about politics rather than any dispute in law, but Scotland's constitutional traditions and the UN-supported right to national self-determination are on our side. Those seeking election on this basis can ask other parties to state whether they support or dispute the right of the Scottish people to determine, by the result of an election, where responsibility for such constitutional matters regarding Scotland is to be held. This election needs to be made about Scotland's right to choose – or even have a real say over our own future governance.
What if the Scottish Parliament is prevented, by what would be widely seen as illegitimate actions of Westminster or Westminster's legal creations, from holding, without outside interference, any referendum where Scottish people determine how they wish to be governed? Then any future national election in Scotland can constitute a de-facto referendum on whether Scottish people wish to declare this Union at an end. Incidentally, the only realistic chance that Westminster will drop its overt attempts to stop a referendum is the certainty that such denial will only increase and strengthen support for ending the Union in another democratic event.
By this policy, we can attract the support of the clear majority we want – from those already convinced of the need for independence and some not yet so convinced. The question is, will the Yes movement adopt such a policy and exert sufficient pressure to persuade our politicians to convincingly commit to it?
Mike Wallace
Edinburgh