Scottish Independence Referendum

Mhairi Black Excerpts

Monday 22nd March 2021 Westminster Hall

[Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP) [V]]

It is a pleasure to speak in the debate. I know it might be hard for others to believe, but I genuinely try my best to understand where Unionists are coming from in their defence of the UK as a Union. Although I disagree with them more often than not, I always respect and accept what their position is. That is what keeps a democracy healthy: genuine thoughtful debate.

Today’s debate is not about the merits of independence or the problems with independence, but about whether Scotland should have another independence referendum. Although the two issues are intrinsically linked, it is important to keep that distinction in mind. The basic principle on which all democracies are built is that it is for people to exercise their democratic rights in free, fair and regular elections to determine what the future of their country should be. To an extent, this is a hypothetical debate. We are weeks away from the upcoming Scottish elections, when people in Scotland will again exercise their democratic right to choose the future direction of the country. If the people in Scotland elect a majority of Members on an explicit pledge to have another independence referendum, this debate will no longer be hypothetical. In that scenario, there should be another independence referendum—there is no democratic or moral argument to state otherwise. Ultimately, time will tell. We are all politicians; we know how elections work. It is for us to present the future we want to pursue and for the people to democratically endorse which plan they want put into action. No one has the right to stand in the way of that. It is as simple as that.

Scotland held a referendum on independence, and a majority in Scotland voted to give this Union another chance. A lot has happened since then—I will touch on some of that later—but it is important to remember that there was nothing in the Edinburgh agreement stating that there would never be another independence referendum. In fact, there was cross-party agreement that nothing contained in the Smith commission report

“prevents Scotland from becoming independent in the future”.

I remember watching the debates back then, when the idea of Boris Johnson as Prime Minister was laughed off and the possibility that Scotland would be dragged out of the EU against its will was dismissed as scaremongering. Any attempt to say that there has not been a material change since then is wishful thinking at best.

I was elected to my current role on a manifesto pledge to hold Westminster to account for the promises that were made. Any suggestion that we are not respecting the outcome of that referendum is a futile attempt to rewrite history. Supporting independence does not equate to disrespecting the outcome of the referendum. We would not be in the position we are in if we had not respected that outcome. It means that we know we need to work to convince others. That is why I find it quite curious that the only people who seem vehemently opposed to a second referendum are those who are passionately in favour of the Union.

I will specifically address some of the arguments made today. We heard that Alex Salmond said that the referendum was a “once-in-a-generation” vote. The last general election was described by the current Prime Minister as a

“critical once-in-a-generation”

vote. Does that mean that there will not be a general election for a generation? I assume not. Although he might not like it, Alex Salmond does not hold the authority on Scotland’s future anyway.

The second main criticism—that we should be debating health, social security and the economy—for me shows a complete failure to meaningfully engage with the arguments being made. The reason most people support independence is not because of nationalism or flags, but rather because they see the actions and attitudes of Westminster. Our Scottish Parliament spends millions every year mitigating policies of the UK Government, which more often than not Scotland did not vote for. People are recognising that only by having the powers of a normal independent country can we actually have the power to deliver that radical change that we need, particularly in the context of our post-covid recovery, because we are certainly not getting that thinking from Westminster.

The Scottish Government disagreed with Brexit, but they still produced a framework for how to make it work. That was rejected by Westminster. In the situation that Scotland ever does vote for independence, the SNP does not and should not dictate what that future looks like, but Unionist parties are depriving people of what their own vision would be and then decrying the SNP for being the only ones talking about it. Like I said, we want independence because we think it will give us the means to provide a lot of the responses we think people need. As I said at the beginning, the issue of timing is undoubtedly interlinked with our constitutional preferences, and I do not think anyone would disagree with that. But it got me thinking; if Scotland was already independent, and we were debating whether to join the UK, particularly in the aftermath of covid, what would the merits of this Union be? Power would be moved to a Parliament miles away, where we would be in the minority, we would rarely get the Governments we vote for, and those Governments would have the ultimate control over our economy, our borders, and our social security. They would dictate how much money we could spend and what we could spend it on, and we would have nuclear weapons in our waters, like it or not. In that context, the fear of another referendum becomes much more understandable.

The events of the last six to seven years have shown that the case for the Union is paper-thin. I sincerely respect and welcome the fact that people disagree with independence, but it takes an epic leap to then say that the matter should never be discussed again, especially when a sizeable amount of people in Scotland consistently disagree. Ultimately, it is for the people of Scotland to decide if and when a referendum should happen, and it is our job to listen.