It is time to have a look at the Scottish referendum.
So, assuming the main concern of the parties was the sovereignty over the territory,
in our case the sovereignty over Scotland and all that it means in terms of
territory−e.g. natural resources−, people, government, and law; what options
should be considered for referendum?
The referendum in September will only have one
question. In what is important here it will read:
“Should Scotland be an independent
country?” and voters will choose yes or no.
For more details about the actual referendum, dates,
and question see:
There are two points (at least) to be made:
Firstly, the referendum’s “value”. It is indeed
important we are going to have a referendum as expression of democratic values
and basic liberties. And it is also a way to start breaking the status quo Scotland
has had for so long.
Secondly, the importance of the actual question.
Because of the way is written and current international and local scenario,
there could be but one answer. So, we all can foresee its result. That does not
mean that the actual referendum is of no value. As stated before, it is a
crucial moment−as it was the Falkland’s referendum in 2013. And it also
ratifies the fact that Scotts can make use of their right to self-determination
at any time and propose any other referendum and solution.
Why does the question have problems? The answer is
simple, because although it may seem as if it offered a choice, it does not in
reality. If the Scotts answered NO, they would still be considered as British Territory
and hence would know what to expect−to continue living the way they live with
the government and the law they know and all that this implies. However, if
they answered YES, the consequence is but one: uncertainty. And who is going to
choose uncertainty over something already known? Human beings are by nature
conservative and between an uncertain situation and one that they already know;
most go for what is within their knowledge, their experience (I am not saying
that is wrong; I am only stating a fact).
Let’s compare the situation with a different and
current example. Let’s suppose that the U.S. government proposes a referendum
in relation to the private use of weapons. And they use the following question:
Do you want the law for the private ownership and use of weapons to be amended?
YES/NO? The question is very simple, yet tricky because either in favour or not
of private ownership and use of weapons, if we opted for YES, the government
may actually prohibit any private use and ownership of weapons. But they can
perfectly do the opposite and actually permit any individual to own and use any
weapon under any circumstances. And both these interpretations may be against
what we really wanted. What is the problem? The way in which the question is
written and the possible choices.
In this case as it happened
with the Falkland’s referendum, it is not clear what
the “alternative options” are. Therefore, there is a degree of uncertainty. In
any case in which we have several options and some of them with uncertain
result, how many of us are going to go for an uncertain future? Thus, even more
skeptical if we have to think of the ones that may be affected by our
decisions−e.g. our children.
The next post: we will discuss a possible way of addressing
the indeterminacy and offer a clearer question. The intention is to actually
let the referendum fulfill its objective, that is, be a democratic tool for
self-determination rather than a tool for validation of predetermined and
foreseeable decisions.
