THE former speaker of the Commons, John Bercow, has said it is “perfectly possible” that Scotland may decide to hold an independence referendum without the consent of Westminster, arguing circumstances have changed since 2014.
Bercow made the argument as he spoke at an event in Edinburgh. He suggested the UK Government would be unable to resist a second vote if there is evidence a majority of Scots want it.
Bercow’s comments coincided with a warning by the SNP’s longest serving parliamentarian about the possible negative impact of a consultative referendum, should Boris Johnson continue to refuse handing powers to Holyrood to hold a new vote.
Pete Wishart, the MP for Perth and North Perthshire, argued holding a ballot without agreement from the Prime Minister could reduce backing for independence.
READ MORE: John Bercow under fire for naming staff in memoir without permission
Bercow, asked if there was any way Scotland could become independent without a referendum, told the audience: “It is perfectly possible at some stage – I’m not saying it will happen – but it’s perfectly possible at some stage that if people in Scotland feel that they are being arbitrarily and unreasonably prevented from having a referendum that they obviously want, they might decide to hold a ballot of their own even if it’s not authorised by Westminster.”
Further commenting, the Herald reported that Bercow added such a referendum would not be legally conclusive, “but politically it would be very significant – very significant indeed”.
“It would change the facts on the ground,” he added. “I’m not arguing for that, but I think that’s not out of the bounds of possibility.”
Wishart (below), writing on his blog, pointed to recent opinion polls which have put between 50 and 52 percent of Scots favouring independence, as voters change their minds because of opposition to Brexit.
“Where our new support for independence has been hard won it remains tenuous. Our new recruits have come mainly from former No voting remainers and they are looking to see if we are worthy of their continuing support. Talk of UDIs, ‘dissolved unions’ and wildcat referendums terrify them half to death and pursuing any such strategy could very well return them back to the Nos,” he stated.
“Just now all the talk of is of an ‘advisory referendum’. This is now being presented as a cost free strategy to break the deadlock. The suggestion is that the Scottish Government simply legislate to hold a referendum and in doing so provoke a legal challenge from the UK Government.
READ MORE: Labour nominates former Commons speaker John Bercow for peerage
“The supporters of this approach suggest that nothing will be lost if this is judged illegal and that all could be gained if successful in court. I’m afraid that the suggestion that this course of action would be consequence free is simply fanciful.”
Bercow also argued support for independence would “exponentially rise” if Johnson continued to “bunker down” and dismiss requests for a second referendum.
At the event organised by Topping & Company Booksellers, he said: “I think it will be quite interesting to see whether over a sustained period there is evidence of a majority of people in Scotland definitely wanting that further referendum, and/or definitely wanting Scottish independence.
“If that happens, it just seems to me that although legally a government might be able to resist, sometimes legal facts can clash with political reality. My view, by the way, for what it’s worth, on Scottish independence is simply that ultimately, if you believe in sovereignty, if you believe in self-government, if you believe in the right of people to choose their own destiny, it has to be up to Scotland ultimately to decide. At the point at which they do, I think that decision has to be respected.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel