On the day when Her Majesty the Queen became the first monarch to visit the site of the Battle of Culloden, a poll revealed that a majority of the Scottish people support a referendum on independence. The news is not quite as good as it seems, since only 42% of people agreed that ‘The Scottish government should negotiate a settlement with the government of the United Kingdom so that Scotland becomes an independent state.’ However, when the phrase was put more bluntly, ‘In a referendum on independence for Scotland, how would you vote?’ even fewer said that they would vote for independence. The wording of the questions is interesting – whereas the first question requires merely a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer, the second requires the respondent to specify independence as their explicit will. Furthermore, the first question implies that independence will be a gradual process and it will be managed by the Scottish government. Yet the use of the phrase ‘Scottish government’ and the idea that it could negotiate a settlement with the United Kingdom government already suggests that the Scottish and UK government are potential equals – which, under current constitutional conditions, they most certainly are not. However, it is encouraging that Scots think of the Scottish government as potentially a real government, and, as Alex Salmond has pointed out, the polls show a ‘driection of travel’ towards independence and growing trust in devolved government.
Scottish independence, when it happens, must not be a revolutionary process or even have the feel of a revolution. Scotland’s independence is her constitutional right, taken from her in 1707; it should never be a crude ethnicist aspiration but instead the calm insistence that what is rightfully Scotland’s should be restored. I am surprised that there was not more controversy concerning the Queen’s visit to Culloden (I note that she wore dark blue – presumably not a conscious reference to the Hanoverian substitution of dark for light blue as the ‘royal’ blue to distinguish themselves from the Stuarts!), but it is a good thing that there was not. The restoration of Personal Union between England and Scotland in the person of the Queen is a crucial element in any future independence settlement – although if, as would be logical for an independent Scottish Parliament, all of the Acts of Succession as they apply to Scotland were ultimately to be repealed, it would not follow that the Prince of Wales would succeed the Queen as King of Scotland; consequently any Scottish Parliament serious about genuine independence would sound out the legitimate descendent of the Scottish kings.
David Cameron has very belatedly said that he will not interfere in Scottish devolution, but the Tory Party still has a long way to go before it throws off the Imperialist mantle of Unionism. Much of the fear of Scottish independence at Westminster seems to focus on the military dimension; the SNP has made clear its opposition to the renewal of Trident and the keeping of Britain’s so-called ‘nuclear deterrent’ in the Firth of Clyde. General Sir Mike Jackson’s comments on the issue highlight the worry there is at Westminster that it could become a divisive issue in Scotland. It is pleasing that the Archbishop of St. Andrews and Edinburgh has raised the profile of this issue, which has the potential to sway Scottish voters towards independence in a future referendum, just as the invasion of Iraq produced more support for ending the Union.
