Our government proposes to hold a referendum to ask us whether we wish Scotland to become an independent nation. A problem, highlighted recently by the editor, is how to frame the question. Kenneth Roy invited readers to submit their own versions of an appropriate question and was disappointed that so few of the 20,000 readers responded. I had decided it was too difficult to reach a conclusion in the relatively short time available. Instead, I pondered it awhile.
My main scientific interest has been in epidemiology, trying to discover why people fall ill in order to determine ways of preventing disease and disability. This usually involves asking questions of large numbers of people and these questions often arise as a result of some observations by members of the general public such as workers in a factory.
For example, someone might notice that several fellow workers have developed cancer and they have an understandable wish to find out whether this was caused by the work or workplace; they tend to think it was. Their question is ‘Does my work cause cancer?’ This is not a simple question, as it asks subsidiary questions such as ‘What is it about my work that could cause cancer and what sort of cancer could it cause?’.
The epidemiologist therefore has to agree with interested parties a form of questioning that is susceptible to scientific testing and, in doing so, has to avoid any bias that could lead to a misleading result. The same is true of asking questions of a population about independence. One thing is clear about this important question; it should be designed by independent social scientists, since if it is designed by a political party it is almost certain to be biased.
Like all apparently simple questions, that concerning independence conceals several complexities. What I want to know is whether a majority of the citizens of Scotland wish the country to leave the United Kingdom and become a self-governing nation. Some people, such as Nicola Sturgeon, clearly do wish for this, while others, such as Alistair Darling, do not. Most of us, I suspect, see advantages and disadvantages to both options and see the balance of these shifting over time depending on such matters as the world’s and Europe’s economies, the colour of the Westminster government, the competence and corruptibility of our politicians, and our perceived ability to maintain our own supplies of food, water and energy.
Ms Sturgeon may wish to ask a question such as ‘Do you agree (with me, implied) that Scotland should be an independent country?’.” Mr Darling might ask ‘Do you agree (with me, implied) that Scotland should remain part of the United Kingdom?’. These are obviously biased questions, which invite us not to think of the issues but to trust the judgements of two respected politicians who have considered all the evidence and come to firm but opposing views. Thus considerations other than the important one come into play. So let’s go back to what we really want to know; whether a majority of citizens of Scotland wish the country to separate from the United Kingdom and become a self-governing nation. Where are the complexities in this simple question?
Who are the citizens of Scotland? This has been partly clarified in terms of residence and voter registration, though some people may reside in both Scotland and England and could theoretically change their registration as a voter. Of course there are many Scots not currently resident in Scotland, and many other British people who are resident here, who may feel strongly on the subject. Citizens of the US living abroad have voting rights. There are also those non-Scots living in England, Wales and Northern Ireland to consider, since their countries would be affected by our independence, yet they are disenfranchised.
While these matters have been settled they are certainly a consideration for voters. Do we wish to ensure that the people of northern England, for example, are subjected to a built-in Conservative majority at Westminster? How would an independent Scotland affect the economies of Tyneside and Merseyside? The rest of the United Kingdom must have its views and since they do not have a vote, we should consider their interests. Finally there is the question of voting age. We can be sure that great interest will be taken in the voting preferences of 15 to 17-year-olds over the next year.
What exactly does separation mean? This is the big uncertainty. It seems we would retain our monarch and her heirs, though some feel uneasy about this. We would retain, use and trade our own geographic and human resources. Would we have our own army, navy and air force, but without nuclear weapons, or rely on the state we have left? Our government’s aversion to all things nuclear would see us manage without generating nuclear power; would we try to become a very green nation in terms of energy production, or would we have to rely increasingly on imported nuclear and our own CO2-generating fossil fuels to maintain our economy?
We need to know, without equivocation, the terms of our future relationship with Europe. Whatever our personal views on Europe, and they differ as widely as our views on independence, we need to know before we vote. Allied to this is the matter of our currency. Would we use the pound, and if so would we be independent of Westminster, the Bank of England and the Treasury?
What exactly is a self-governing nation? I suppose the best examples are the Nordic countries, which seem to do pretty well, in or out of the EU. New Zealand is an example of a country that is effectively self-governing yet still retains a fairly strong attachment to the monarchy and has an appropriately Maori governor general, representing the Queen. Perhaps we would have a governor general. Any suggestions? But, seriously, the European question and the currency are far and away the most important issues in the self-governing debate. The way we seem to be heading is towards a constitutional monarchy, so we need to be familiar with a proposed constitution that takes into account the role of the monarch.
Ultimately those of us living in Scotland on the day of the referendum will have to make our minds up on the basis of the information given to us, the biased opinions of adherents to one or other view, and our own personal decisions on whether we, our families and our country would be better or worse off independent. And if we decide we would be better off, would that mean that our neighbours would be worse off? At present I suspect very many, like me, are on the fence, something which biases the cautious to stick to the devil they know and the adventurous to be swayed by tales of glory to come. Events between now and then will help us to decide.
Since we have been informed that it is the desire of our government not to become a republic, and assuming that the Queen accepts this, my question would be:
Do you wish Scotland to separate from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and become an independent constitutional monarchy? Please answer Yes or No.
Professor Anthony Seaton is an emeritus professor in the school of medicine and dentistry at the University of Aberdeen
