30th October, 1995: 16 years ago today. By the narrowest of margins, the mostly French-speaking Canadian province of Quebec votes against sovereignty, and decides to remain part of Canada:
Quebec Referendum, 30th October 1995:
Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Quebec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?
Yes, 2,308,360, 49.42%
No, 2,362,648, 50.58%
Turnout 93.52%
As you can see from the question asked to Quebeckers, the Salmond tactic of bamboozling the electorate on questions of sovereignty is nothing new. The unity of Canada rested on just 54,288 votes – just over one percent of Quebec electorate. Given the ambiguous question being asked (no ‘economic and political partnership’ had been agreed, and there was no certainty the Canadian government would wish to negotiate one) what mandate would that have been to tear a country of 34,000,000 people apart?
As David Steel has warned today, confusion over the question asked in any Scottish referendum could deliver a result which does not reflect the will of the Scottish people, and lead to a legacy of hard-feeling.
The Telegraph article I linked to above suggests that Salmond’s decision to offer the electorate multiple options “…increases the likelihood that Mr Cameron will end the confusion by taking control of the referendum and asking Scots a single ‘yes or no’ question on whether they want to remain part of the UK.”
In my view, that would be a mistake. A referendum foisted on Scotland from outside is likely to lead to the exactly the same kind of hard-feeling, and any backlash could have profound results for the Union. To misquote Neil Kinnock, you can’t play politics with the future of the country, let alone people’s lives.
Instead, Cameron should learn from the Quebec experience:
The narrowness of the Quebec result – coming 15 years after an earlier referendum, which while not a closely fought, raised similar questions over Quebec’s right to unilaterally secede and over the question being asked – prompted action from the Canadian Federal Government.
In a series of open letters, and references to the Canadian Supreme Court, the Government established that:
- The Quebec National Assembly could not unilaterally declare independence. If Quebeckers expressed a clear will to secede, the Government of Canada would have a political obligation to enter negotiations on independence
- The Canadian Parliament has the right to decide whether a question being asked to Quebeckers is clear enough to trigger such negotiations
- The constitution of Canada remains in force (and by implication, the country united) until terms of succession are agreed upon by all parties.
These fairly basic principles were enshrined in a Bill – The Clarity Act – which sets out clearly the ‘rules of the game’ should any Canadian province wish to secede. It’s this kind of law which I think we now need in the UK, setting out exactly how any part of the UK – be it Scotland, Wales, or even Cornwall – should proceed should it wish to test the will of its people to leave the Union.
It isn’t for Alex Salmond or any other sub-national politician to decide how this process should operate – it’s a matter for the House of Commons, where the interests of the whole country are represented. Cameron should rise above Salmond’s petty politics and set out clearly and openly the standards expected for a test of opinion and subsequent negotiations.
Whilst the Clarity Act proved controversial with Quebec nationalists, it has changed the terms of debate on Quebec – any future Parti Quebecois provincial government (and there hasn’t been one elected since Clarity Act took force) would have clear standards by which their referendum would be judged. Politically, nationalism in Quebec appears to be on the wane – the PQ’s federal cousins, the Bloc Quebecois were decimated at this year’s Federal Election in favour of the soft-Federalist NDP. Similarly, at the provincial level the PQ are struggling in the polls.
Worth a try, I’d say, and far more favourable than a Tory PM foisting a referendum on the people of Scotland.
I am afraid that the Lib Dems lost all moral authority on this issue when they refused to support a referendum on Scottish independence in the 2007-2011 Holyrood parliament. They refused even to discuss a coalition with the SNP unless that party abandoned any attempt to hold a referendum.
I will remind you that every opinion poll showed that a majority of Scots wanted such a referendum, including those who planned to vote no.
So instead, given the opportunity, the Lib Dems have had a referendum on AV, a non-PR form of voting in which hardly anyone, anywhere , had the slightest interest.
Your totally inept party is never going to recover in Scotland -the Labour and Tories may stage a comeback after Scottish independence, but the Lib Dems never will-being illiberal and undemocratic has done for them for all time.
Glad you were able to get that off you chest, Tom. Any objections to a UK Clarity Act?