The Scottish independence referendum need not include the rest of the UK, even though they are affected
Scotland’s decision in the upcoming independence referendum will have serious implications for the whole UK. It has been argued that all UK citizens outside Scotland should therefore be entitled to vote on Scottish independence, in line with the ‘all affected interests’ principle of democratic theory. Ben Saunders asks whether we should apply this principle to the referendum, concluding that it is not necessary for the result to be considered legitimate.
Should the rest of the UK be entitled to vote in the Scottish independence referendum? Credit: Callum Black CC BY-SA 2.0
As previously discussed on Democratic Audit, the coming referendum on Scottish independence raises a number of important constitutional issues. However, it also raises some more fundamental moral questions. Point four of the Scottish Government’s policy memorandum states that the referendum should “be (and … be seen to be) a fair, open and truly democratic process”, but this invites discussion about what it is for a decision to be taken democratically.
The term ‘democracy’ derives, etymologically, from the Greek demokratia, which translates as something like people (demos) power (kratos). This isn’t much help without some account of what people-power means though; for instance, whether democracy requires that the people themselves exercise power directly or whether it is consistent with power being delegated to their elected representatives. One particular puzzle that has exercised theorists of democracy, since at least the 1970s, is just who the ‘people’ in question are – what’s come to be known as the ‘boundary problem’.
Often it is taken for granted that ‘the people’ refers either to the citizens of a given state or residents of a given territory (or perhaps those who ‘live and work’ there), though these conditions can come apart when we consider expatriate workers and the like. Either understanding of ‘the people’ has struck many commentators as inadequate though, when it allows the members of one ‘people’ to take decisions with profound effects upon outsiders.
One popular answer to this puzzle has been that everyone who is affected by a decision should be granted a say in it. In other words, ‘the people’ consists of everyone with something at stake in a decision. This is known as the all affected principle. It has found favour because of its inclusivity; democracy has always stood for the rule of the many, rather than the few (as in monarchy or aristocracy). This inclusivity is often justified on the grounds that the people should be able to protect their own interests, rather than relying on the good will of others. It seems natural, then, to conclude that all those with interests at stake should be entitled to participate, in order to defend those interests.
If democratic principles require that everyone who is affected by a decision is able to participate in it, then nation-state decision-making is often undemocratic, except where the decision affects only members of that nation or state. Advocates of the all affected principle often embrace this conclusion, arguing that the British have no right to decide to build coal-fired power stations that pollute Scandinavia. Some, like Bob Goodin, go so far as to propose that the best way to satisfy democratic principles is to enfranchise everyone on all decisions.
What relevance does this have to Scottish independence? Well, if everyone affected must be entitled to participate in order to confer democratic legitimacy on a decision, then it seems that a decision made only by the Scots cannot be democratic. There have been popular calls to allow the English (and presumably those in the rest of the UK) to vote on Scottish independence (see here and the petitions here, here, and here). Even this, however, would not go far enough.
While the EU membership of an independent Scotland is currently unclear, what does seem clear is that Scottish independence would have knock-on effects for the rest of the EU. In particular, if Scotland successfully secedes from the UK then this may inspire other separatist movements, such as the Catalans. But, if all these groups are affected by the decision, then perhaps they too should be included in the referendum, if it is to be truly democratic.
While the all affected principle does support claims that non-Scots in the rest of the UK should have a say over Scottish independence, it also requires that a say be granted to many outside the UK too. Thus, this principle cannot support the position that all and only those in the UK should decide on the future of the UK. It is not, therefore, as helpful to those calling for an English/rest of UK say as might be supposed.
All of this, however, presupposes that the all affected principle does accurately capture the requirements of democracy: that there is something undemocratic about any group making a decision that affects outsiders without their input. However, this principle seems less sound than its adherents believe. In fact, I think we have good reasons to reject the all affected principle as a requirement of legitimacy. (That is, either the all affected principle does not tell us what democracy requires or it tells us what democracy requires but democracy can justifiably be overridden in pursuits of other values, like people’s rights. The relation between democracy and substantive rights is also a matter of considerable academic debate.)
Consider a contractual relationship. Both parties must agree to the contract in order for it to be binding. Usually, however, either party can unilaterally choose to terminate the contract in line with the terms set out in it. Both parties must consent to a marriage, but only one need file for divorce in order to signal that that mutual consent is no longer ongoing. It even takes two to establish Facebook friendship (one clicks ‘add friend’ and the other accepts the request), but either one can later remove the friendship.
We might say that all these examples illustrate the principle that it takes two to tango, but only one to stop. If one party no longer consents to the relationship in question, then they have the power to dissolve it unilaterally. Note that this is so even though their doing so will invariably affect the other party. Admittedly, it may be that they have this right only because granted it originally by the other party – that is, because it was part of the contract that they entered in to – but this doesn’t change the point.
I’ve not argued that the Scottish people in fact have a right to terminate their relationship with the rest of the UK. If any group could secede from a larger unit, then perhaps northern England would also wish to secede; indeed we might face a chain of smaller and smaller breakaway units. But if the Scots have such a right, then they’re entitled to exercise it, without needing to consult or enfranchise the English or anyone else. That the English are affected by the exercise of such a right does not mean that they must be entitled to vote in the referendum.
—
Note: This blog post summarises the argument of an article originally published in Politics. It represents the views of the author, and does not give the position of Politics, Democratic Audit or the LSE. Please read our comments policy before commenting. Shortlink for this post: https://buff.ly/1gB170z
—
Dr Ben Saunders is an Englishman who has lived and worked in Scotland since 2010. He is Lecturer in Philosophy at the University of Stirling, specializing in moral and political philosophy, particularly democratic theory and the work of John Stuart Mill.
Similar Posts
Subscribe
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
Democratic Audit's core funding is provided by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust. Additional funding is provided by the London School of Economics.
The English may or may not want to leave the UK, but the only way to find out is to ask them.
There were only ever a handful of SNP in 1997 and no clamour for a Scottish parliament. Nevertheless, they were handed a referendum on a Scottish parliament within three months of Scots-led labour coming to power.
There was no appetite for a Welsh assembly either, but the Welsh were given an Assembly on the back of a gerrymandered referendum result. They had no desire for increased powers, a mere 35% of Welsh voters turned out for a referendum in 2011. Of these 63% voted ‘yes’ which was equivalent to 22% of the total electorate. The assembly was given increased powers, all the same.
On that basis we English would certainly get our own parliament, as all reputable polls show. We would possible gain our independence if the same rules were applied as to the Scottish referendum. However, we are never asked what WE want. We are only asked what English-hating British politicians want us to want, like Police and Crime Commissioners, referenda on city mayors and the regional carve-up of England (and then only a part of England was asked).
Meanwhile we have to put up with hearing what Scots want until next year’s referendum and no doubt beyond, as if we give a flying jumbo.
“we are never asked what WE want”
You’re right about that, though I didn’t address the issue of whether there should be a popular referendum at all, rather than leaving matters to elected politicians (who, as you say, may or may not do what the electorate want). My focus was simply who should be included in this decision, given that there’s to be a referendum. I don’t take any stance on the merits of having a referendum, though I think it’s clear that we can’t put everything to a referendum.
Sorry for the delay in responding to these comments – I wasn’t expecting them to come in at this point, though I’m pleased to see that the post has retained interest.
“[W]e English would like a referendum on English independence.” (Stephen Gash)
By all means, the English should have equal entitlement to decide on England’s place in the Union too. Though since the English are the dominant force within the UK, I don’t think it so likely that they would want out.
“[W]e English should have no say that will force them to stay but are entitled to say if we want them to remain in the union” (Fred).
I don’t see what gives the English the right to exclude the Scots unilaterally. If the English don’t like the Union with the Scots in, then I think they should be free to leave it themselves, but not to expel the Scots against their wishes. Why should the English be unable to impose union on the Scots against their will, but able to impose separation?
“Wales and NI will have to come to terms with the English when the British parliament is ultimately disbanded as Britain will constitutionally cease to exist” (David Allen)
I think it unlikely that the British parliament will become an English parliament, excluding Wales and NI. But, in any case, this is some way off yet – we don’t know which way Scotland will vote yet.
“When will the English be consulted on England?” (@Wyrdtimes)
An interesting question but, despite some disgruntlement, I don’t think there’s really much popular support in England for a break-up of the union. An English parliament with power over English-only affairs, maybe (the Scots already have that), but not full English independence.
“Though since the English are the dominant force within the UK, I don’t think it so likely that they would want out.”
With respect, the reason we are not asked is because British politicians (there are no English politicians) get lost in their own thoughts about what the English want.
When Power 2010 asked the public want they wanted to have presented to prospective MPs going into the 2010 general election, an English Parliament came top by a long way. Then, led by the Scot Helena Kennedy and Welshman Alan Trench, the organisers “informed” those members of the public invited to select from the list the five topics to be presented, that an English parliament was undesirable.
So, the chances of England-hating British politicians asking English people actually how they want England to be governed, has about a snowballs chance in hell.
Meanwhile the British establishment and media continue to massage Scottish ego, just as they have done over the last miserable, long 306 years and six months.
The Scots have their own parliament, but that’s not what the independence referendum is about: Scottish independence means leaving the UK. So I took it that by ‘English independence’ you meant not an English parliament, analogous to what the Scots already have now, but English secession from the UK. I did make this distinction in my original comment (though to @Wyrdtimes, not in the bit addressed to you).
That there’s appetite for an English parliament, I accept. What I doubt is that there’s much appetite amongst the English for England withdrawing from the union. In both cases though I’m just going by my personal experience, which surely isn’t representative, and media reporting, not by any scientific polling. But, in any case, evidence that the English want their own devolved parliament is not evidence that they want to secede from the union altogether, as the Scots may do.
72% of people in England consider themselves to be English only. Most care as little about Scotland as, evidently, Scots do about England. Therefore, we English would like a referendum on English independence. We certainly want a referendum about an English parliament. However, we English are never asked because we would vote ‘yes’ to both.
I agree. Scotland should not be forced to remain in a union that they do not want. BUT!!! Neither should England.
England should have no say in forcing them to remain in the union but we should have a say in whether we want them to stay in the union.
We are entitled to the answer to the same question they are asking ‘What’s in it for us?’
In other words we English should have no say that will force them to stay but are entitled to say if we want them to remain in the union.
Why is it that many people who support the claim that the Scots have to leave he union follow on with the breaking up of England into regions ploy. If Scotland goes. England becomes its own Kingdom again. Attempts to balkanise England have failed spectacularly and as English nationalism grows, Wales and NI will have to come to terms with the English when the British parliament is ultimately disbanded as Britain will constitutionally cease to exist.
It is entirely wrong that the Scots and The British government have horse traded the devolution process without English consent. Not many Englishmen I know support the idea of the Bank of England being lender of last resort without our say. That is not independence. The democratic imbalance has been thrown into relief by cack-handed bigotry and has served to harden many English attitudes towards the British, anti English government in Westminster and Edinburgh. As you work in a Scottish university I can see why your arguments are couched as they are. As we English get more fed up your life as an Englishmen in Scotland will only get worse. Good luck mate.
Clearly Scottish independence is for the Scots to decide and no-one else.
When will the English be consulted on England?