The Section 30 Order
The Scotland Act 1988 re-established the Scottish parliament, which (in the words of Winnie Ewing when she reconvened the parliament in 1999) was adjourned on 25th March 1707, following the Union of Scotland and England.
There are many parts to the Scotland Act, but the one we're interested in is in an appendix called Schedule 5. There, in part 1, paragraph 1, it lists 'reserved matters', one of which is 'the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England'. In other words: Scottish Parliament, don't even think of trying to end the Union.
Unless, that is, the UK government says you can. Because they're in charge. In 2012, it actually said to Scotland, ok, go ahead, have your independence referendum. And it facilitated it by changing the paragraph in Schedule 5.
Section 30 says: "Her Majesty may by Order in Council make any modifications of Schedule 4 or 5 which She considers necessary or expedient." Note well the word 'any'. We'll come back to that.
Why We Shouldn't Ask Again
In 2012 the UK government used the powers granted by Section 30 to 'give' us our referendum. But there are at least two things we should consider when we're shouting for a Section 30 order to give us another referendum.
The first is obvious. Enacting a Section 30 order at all means that we have to ask the Union government if we can have a referendum to end the Union. And why on earth would they grant that again? They almost lost the first time!
When David Cameron graciously granted permission in 2012, the Yes vote was polling around 28%. Yes had no chance of winning, so why not placate the Scots and give them their referendum? But by the time September 2014 came around, Yes was leading in the polls and the UK establishment was in an almighty panic. The lies that comprised the 'Vow' were cobbled together and published in the Unionist Daily Record two days before the referendum vote. In the end there was a slim No win, but 55-45 was way too close. Only 383,937 votes kept the Union intact.
Since then the polls have settled to an even 50-50 split. If you were in charge of the Union now, would you take the chance of another referendum when the polls were evenly split? Especially when you didn't have to. There's no imperative on the UK government to grant another referendum. They don't have to do anything.
The Danger
But whether another Section 30 order referendum is sanctioned or not by the UK government, it brings us back to that word 'any' in Section 30. The UK government can add any old provision into it that it wants.
What if it added conditions that 16 & 17 year olds couldn't vote? What if it placed a condition on a Yes victory? It's got previous on that one.
In the 1979 assembly referendum, the government stipulated that more than 40% of the electorate had to vote in favour in order for the vote to carry. That's 40% of the total electorate — not 40% of those who voted. Which meant that if you didn't vote because you were washing your hair that day, or were on holiday, or were dead, you counted as a No voter. The vote for the Assembly was lost. Even although 51.6% voted in favour, the turnout of 64% represented only 32% of the electorate. Tough luck, Scotland.
So the danger of a new Section 30 Order is not that it's granted but that it is granted and is so loaded with conditions that Yes cannot hope to win.
A Section 30 enabled referendum is a giant elephant trap with big sharp spikes just waiting to impale us. Asking for another Section 30 order is next to useless. Useless because it places our destiny in the hands of the very Union that we seek to end.
Asking for our independence isn't going to work again.
We need to take back our independence if we're ever to end the Union.
#endtheunion