Kenneth Roy Eck’s literary luvvies Jim Swire An…

10.01.12
No. 498

John Cameron

Stephen Hawking turned 70 on Sunday – an achievement almost as extraordinary as his contributions to cosmology.
     For 30 years he was a professor of mathematics at Cambridge University and is best known for ‘A Brief History of Time’, the least-read best-seller in literary history. His key work involved the gravitational singularities of general relativity and the prediction that black holes should emit radiation, now known as ‘Hawking radiation’.
To the delight of the media he is prone to stray into other fields where he makes saloon-bar comments on theology and controversial prophecies about humanity’s future.
     As his illness has advanced he has become profoundly pessimistic suggesting that we will be wiped out by a virus (possible), nuclear war (unlikely) or global warming (joke). He now believes we have no long-term future on earth and that the survival of the human race requires the space programme to be restarted with a view to mass travel and colonisation.
     In a BBC Radio 4 programme to mark his 70th birthday Hawking answered some listeners’ questions which provide an insight into his current thinking. He is highly sceptical of the results of the CERN experiments which appear to show neutrinos travelling faster than light because they are not supported by parallel research.
     The existence of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe is statistically inevitable but he warns the outcome of any interaction will resemble Europeans arriving in the Americas.
     The media often refer to Hawking as ‘the greatest physicist since Albert Einstein’ which I suppose means superior to all those who have been around since his death in 1955. However to claim his contributions were more significant than those of the likes of Bohr, Born, Dirac, Feynman, Heisenberg, Landau, Pauli and Schrödinger is just ridiculous.
     I value him as an indomitable human being and treasure his reflections on his condition: ‘It is a waste of time to be angry about disability. One simply has to get on with life’.

A majority of registered

voters should be required

for independence

Andrew Hook

Will 2012 be the year of the referendum? Probably not. I suspect that the betting man’s choice is 2014: conveniently late in the government’s term of office, and on 24 June, the 700th anniversary of the Battle of Bannockburn which, as we all know, sent the English home to think again.

     Braveheart Scotland in a blaze of patriotic emotion will vote overwhelmingly for restored independence. Still, that is more than two years away. In the meantime I suggest that 2012 is a good time to launch a debate on the independence referendum itself.
     Initially at least most of us are inclined to regard referendums as archetypically democratic. They make it possible for the voice of the people to be heard directly. Whatever the issue, a referendum, we assume, clearly establishes the general will. In relation to questions of constitutional change in particular, however, referendums have had a somewhat chequered history. In the past bad people – Hitler and Mussolini among them – have exploited them to consolidate their power. Today dictators, heads of one-party states, and elected leaders determined to remain in power, continue to use referendums to give a veneer of democracy to their usurpation of power. Referendums, that is, may well be manipulated by governments for their own ends.
     Perhaps more relevant to the Scottish case are other possible objections to the use of referendums to settle constitutional issues. James Madison’s identification of the danger of ‘the tyranny of the majority’ is particularly relevant in the case of referendums. A yes/no referendum is undeniably a somewhat blunt decision-maker, unresponsive to the rights of minorities. More serious are the issues of timing and wording. In our present circumstance, both of these will be in the hands of the Scottish government.      Our first minister continues to insist that referendum legislation will not be introduced until late in the current parliamentary session. Why? Because he wishes to hold the referendum at the time when he has the best chance of winning it. And the same circumstance applies to the wording of the question (or questions) asked. The issue here is whether this is an appropriately fair and democratic way of proceeding.

If on the other hand the majority of voters reject the independence option, what is the consequence? Virtually nothing. The Scottish National Party suffers a setback, a loss of momentum, but that is all.

     Most serious of all is the enormous gap between the consequences flowing from a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’ vote in the referendum itself. A majority ‘yes to independence’ vote, however narrow, produces change on a monumental scale: 300 years of Scottish history are reversed and the United Kingdom is no more. If on the other hand the majority of voters reject the independence option, what is the consequence? Virtually nothing. The Scottish National Party suffers a setback, a loss of momentum, but that is all. It continues its campaign for independence, and hopes for a better result next time round.
     In 1980 the Parti Quebecois’ referendum on Quebec’s secession from Canada was defeated by a margin of 59% to 40%. However, 15 years later, a second referendum was lost by the narrowest of margins, 50.58% to 49.42%. (Since then the Parti Quebecois seems to have imploded.) A constitutional referendum, that is, readily morphs into a ‘never-end-um’. To my mind at least, this lack of finality in a constitutional referendum is an issue that has to be recognised and addressed.
     How can these difficulties surrounding the referendum issue be overcome or mitigated? I suggest the following proposals are worth debating:
     1. The Scottish Government should agree to discuss the timing of the referendum and the wording of the question (or questions) with a representative body similar to the old Scottish Constitutional Convention.
     2. Given that the issue is of such revolutionary importance, consideration should be given to requiring something more than a simple majority of those choosing to vote, for independence to be endorsed. A majority of registered voters might be a more appropriate requirement.
     3. If a majority for independence is achieved, a second referendum confirming that decision should be held within six months by which time a detailed account of everything involved in the dissolution of the United Kingdom will have to have been laid out.
     4. If the initial referendum results in a ‘no to independence’ vote, then the issue should be legally off the table for at least another generation – say 40 years.
     Of course the reconstituted Scottish Constitutional Convention could make recommendations on these and no doubt other points. But the debate should begin now.

Andrew Hook is a former professor of English literature at
Glasgow University