Second referendum on independence or not, in Scotland? At the beginning of August, in a debate between candidates for the succession of Boris Johnson, Liz Truss had judged that the Scottish Prime Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, was not expensivechait only to “attract attention” with its new referendum aims and that it should be “ignored”. The tone was arrogant. Became prime minister last week, Ms.me Truss knows very well, however, that the Scottish national question will not let go of her anytime soon and that she will not be able to simply sweep it under the carpet in the face of a Nicola Sturgeon who has the sovereignist convictions of a Jacques Parizeau.
Mme Truss can, for a moment, ride the wave of national emotion sparked by the death of Queen Elizabeth II, which occurred just 48 hours after he officially met her for the first — and last — time. The conjunction is obviously striking. And no doubt the Scots experience it in a unique way, as the queen made them the flower of dying on their land, at Balmoral Castle.
Political fallout from this emotional hullabaloo? Almost nil, though. If the Scots are in every sense of the term further removed from the monarchy than are the English in general, the fact remains that the debate on independence does not immediately call into question the accession of Scotland. to the Crown. It is on another board that it is played.
It is an understatement to say that the Scots continue to wade in a deep ambivalence towards the national question. They said 55% ‘no’ to independence in the referendum held in 2014. Eight years later, polls fluctuate but still mostly indicate that Scots are roughly split down the middle.
However, it is in this uncertain context that Mr.me Sturgeon — a shrewd politician, a prominent figure in the Scottish National Party (SNP) since 2004, who became prime minister in the aftermath of the 2014 referendum — decided to go for it last June, hoping to have met the “winning conditions”. First by setting the date for a second popular consultation on October 19, 2023. Then by asking the British Supreme Court to approve the legality of the organization of this referendum by the Scottish government without London’s approval.
The fact is, on the one hand, that it is at the very least unlikely that the Supreme Court will acquiesce, as constitutional matters are exclusively a matter for the Parliament of Westminster. Hearings on this are scheduled for October. For the time being, on the other hand, there is absolutely no question for the Conservative government of Mme Truss to grant Edinburgh the right to proceed, as David Cameron agreed to do in 2012.
Faced with this manifestly anti-democratic posture, Mr.me Sturgeon already has a plan B: to make the next British general election, in 2024, a referendum election. A strategy which, like any strategy, is risky, but which proceeds from an implacable mathematical calculation: since 2007, the SNP has won all the elections in Scotland, where the Conservative Party does not have a solid base.
This therefore announces for the next two years a showdown and inevitably tortured debates in which Quebecers will recognize themselves.
Above all, we wish the Scots that these debates will be useful to them – as rational and as little demagogic as possible. Because London, like Ottawa yesterday, will not hesitate to exploit, inflation helping, the fear of economic insecurity in all its forms and to highlight the consequences of a rupture on their interdependent economies.
Nevertheless, the fault lines are indisputable. First there is Brexit, which Scots voted 62% against in the June 2016 referendum — and which is still not their cup of tea. The SNP makes this a main argument. So that the Yes referendum would also be a “yes” to the reintegration of Scotland into the European Union (EU). Truss’ visceral hostility to the EU provides grist for the mill.
Another fault line: Scottish social democracy vs. the right in power in London. This gap will widen with the arrival of M.me Truss, this new “Iron Lady”, a modern version of Thatchero-Reaganism, moreover insensitive to environmental issues. And who, to sum up an analysis of The Economist, won the leadership of the party by convincing Conservative activists that the future was bright in the UK under his ultra-liberal leadership. They delude themselves, blinded by power.
In this sense, the decision of the Sturgeon government to go all out and force the discussion will not only bring back the question of the right to self-determination. It will also highlight the social and democratic setbacks that a succession of reproducing Conservative governments has caused the country to suffer.