SCOTLAND’S pre-eminent historian has said he is surprised people are not more outraged about the “dramatic transformation” in the Union in the past few years.
Speaking during an event at the Edinburgh International Book Festival, Professor Sir Tom Devine also said that those who think the push for Scottish independence is weakening are living in a “fool’s paradise”.
Devine was appearing on stage alongside Professor Ciaran Martin, who appeared remotely from Oxford where he teaches at the world-famous university.
Martin, who was a key architect of the Edinburgh Agreement during his time as constitution director at the Cabinet Office, said that the Union is currently “in better shape than in 2020, but apart from that the prospects for it are in worse shape than any time, I would venture, since the 1760s”.
READ MORE: Tories' muscular Unionism will 'make a new Better Together campaign impossible'
He added: “It’s not even, in my view, better than it was on the morning of September 19, 2014 [the day after the first referendum].”
Devine agreed with this assertion, saying the Union is in greater danger than it has been since "Prince Charles Edward Stewart led his Jacobite army across the border to England in 1745".
The historian also said that the nature of the Union had changed from one based on consent to one enforced by law.
"In my opinion, a Union of that type cannot stand."
Devine (above) went on to say that this change had been both dramatic and swift, adding that he was surprised Scots "are not more outraged by this dramatic transformation, which has literally occurred over the last few years after nearly three centuries of a different and more harmonious regime based on respect and concern for the sensitivities of the other".
This point, of the changing nature of the Union, had previously been made by Martin in his report entitled “Resist, Reform, or Re-run? Short- and long-term reflections on Scotland and independence referendums”, published in April 2021.
READ MORE: 'Ethnonationalism': Top UK constitution expert on Tory plot to 'rig' indyref2
In that report, to which Devine wrote a forward, Martin said that is Westminster would not allow a second independence referendum “then the Union as we understand it will have changed fundamentally”.
“In effect, it would change the Union from one based on consent, to one based on the force of law.”
This was echoed by Devine, who told the book festival: "We're simply not even being allowed to have a vote.
"This is not about a decision on independence, it's not being allowed to have a vote on one of the great issues of our time.
"Remember, 1707 was an agreement between two historic nations. It was not an imposition. What we have now is imposition.
"Those in London, and particularly in the political class, who think the problem of the north, the problem of the Scottish question, is receding are quite literally living in a fool's paradise."
The historian said "more rigorous control" of public finances is also coming down the road due to the pandemic, and suggested this could "stir Scottish discontent about the Union".
Elsewhere, he said England and Scotland seem to be going in "radically" different political directions, with "right-wing and semi-nationalist Conservatism" in control in England, while a "moderately left-wing position" is dominant in Scotland.
The two experts also agreed that the demographics of Scottish independence supporters spell bad news for the Union.
Martin said the narrative that the danger to the Union is receding is "short-term political analysis gone mad".
READ MORE: 'Once in a generation' was just a slogan, top constitution expert tells Tories
He said there has been a "sustained, enduring swing" to independence over the course of a decade, while younger Scots back Yes in substantial numbers.
"Now demography is not always destiny and people change their minds, but I think in the historical context these are terrible numbers for the British state,” he said Martin also added that the UK "remains at much higher risk of dissolution compared to any other rich, stable Western country that I can think of".
Devine said of the demographics of Scotland’s pro-independence voters: "There is that factor to be taken into consideration – that the Grim Reaper may be on the side of the independence analysis, may be on the side of the Scottish National Party's position.
"We don't know whether those views will change over time as people get older, but that is certainly the position as we speak."
Martin was also asked about the likely outcome of a court case around Holyrood's right to hold an independence referendum without Westminster's consent.
While he cautioned that he is "not a lawyer", Martin explained: “I think the Scottish Government will lose.
“Ultimately, I think that even if they pull off a surprise win, Westminster could change the law, they could refuse to recognise the result or Unionists could boycott the vote.
“My point here is that in law the smooth path to independence sought by Scottish nationalists depends entirely on Westminster’s acquiescence, so if Westminster withholds that acquiescence then there’s a stalemate.
“We’re heading for a stalemate and how a stalemate plays out is something I can’t predict.”
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