Thread by @NashSGC

There is no divine or natural reason why the United Kingdom as currently constituted should exist. History did not end with the creation of the United Kingdom. Other polities may yet still be imagined.

We grow up believing that we live in an ancient country. Yet, the United Kingdom as currently constituted is less that one hundred years old. This is rarely discussed. We do not teach it in schools. Few of us know that our United Kingdom was created in 1922.

Of course, today’s United Kingdom did not simply leap out of the void. It was preceded by another, larger, United Kingdom, which was in turn, preceded by a further, smaller, United Kingdom.

The United Kingdom is a great accordion of a state, expanding and contracting over time, constantly changing, with each iteration having a lifespan of roughly a century. And here we are, on the cusp of change again, ninety-nine years after this version of the UK came in being.

As the centenary of UK 3.0 has grown larger on the horizon, government has found it increasingly difficult to resist asking major constitutional questions.
On three occasions in the past 10 yrs, government has gone to the people, by way of a referendum, in search of their will.

In 2011, the Coalition dipped its toes in the water, & asked the public if it wanted to change the electoral system.

Faced with a choice between the “alternative vote” and the far more dynamically titled “first-past-the-post” system, the public decided that it did not really care either way. Only 42% of voters participated. They decided to stick with what they knew.

Buoyed by this success, the government decided to up the stakes in 2014, and put the unity of the country on the ballot.

There was no lack of interest in the question of Scotland’s independence, at least amongst those who were eligible to vote.

An intense and impassioned campaign demonstrated the potency of the change proposition, and while it briefly took the lead in at least one poll, the “Yes” campaign could not win the one that counted. When it came to the crunch, Scotland was not ready for change.

And so, a new government, confident in the public’s commitment to the status quo, rolled the referendum dice one more time in 2016 and the people (or to be precise, 51.89% of the people) blew everything out of the water.

The decision to leave the European Union has created a political and constitutional shockwave.

Numerous political party leaders have been unable to survive the impact. The institutions of state have been placed under unprecedented pressure as politicians have battled over how (and whether) the UK should the leave the EU.

The independence of the civil service has been challenged. The role of judges questioned. The effectiveness of Parliament as a decision-making body brought into doubt, & opaque parliamentary procedures bent to the point where the government has been found to have broken the law.

The five years since “the” referendum have been chaotic. And yet, the country is still standing. The question is, for how much longer?

If the 2014 referendum on Scotland’s independence was meant to settle that issue for a generation, Brexit put it right back on the table.

When Scotland voted against independence, it voted for Scotland to remain in a UK that was in the EU. Since 2019, support for independence has gradually grown, driven by remainers who opposed independence in 2014, but would vote for it if they were asked again today.

Taking the UK out of the EU, when Scotland voted to remain in the EU, has significantly increased the likelihood that Scotland will take itself out of the UK.

In Northern Ireland, Brexit has put a delicate peace on the line. The Protocol leaves Northern Ireland’s constitutional status within the UK unchanged, but it does change the practical relationship between Northern Ireland and Great Britain.

The realities of Brexit have been more evident in Northern Ireland than in any other part of the country. There has been serious disruption. Life is not as it was before.

Some of the practical challenges and everyday annoyances resulting from Brexit could ease in time but they will not go away. And nor will dissatisfaction with the new settlement amongst a proportion of the unionist community.

Divisions and tensions in Northern Ireland did not end with the signing of the Good Friday Agreement, but they did ease. Brexit has re-energised them. Now, a settled peace is making way for a renewed dispute about Northern Ireland’s status within the UK.

Divisions in Wales are not accompanied by anything like the tension seen in N. Ire, but there are divisions, nonetheless. And while the independence debate is not as advanced as it is north of the border, it is accelerating at a rate far greater than we have seen in Scotland.

A linguistic divide is now accompanied by an identity divide not least over the question of Brexit, with those who primarily identify as Welsh voting remain, while those who primarily identify as British voting leave.

Competing visions for Wales’ future are beginning to emerge. One British and Welsh, one Welsh and European. One pro-Union, leaning towards being anti-devolution; one pro-devolution and increasingly indy curious.

It is against this backdrop that support for Wales’ independence has grown, and while it seems unlikely that Wales will suddenly leave the Union, the question of its status within it is definitely live.

Then there is England. Divided by Brexit just like every other part of the country. However, unlike Wales (and Scotland) where those who primarily identify as British voted leave, in England, they voted remain.

It was voters who primarily identify as English who provided the weight of numbers needed to bring about the decision to leave the European Union.

As the leave/remain divide recedes, it leaves in its wake, an identity divide, and politicians in England scrapping over ill-defined notions of patriotism and Englishness.

The decision to leave our continental union, and the way that that decision has been executed, has brought into serious doubt the continuation of our home Union in its current form.

Identity politics have been unleashed. Distinct, and often competing, polities are now embedded across the four nations. The United Kingdom is a house divided.

The Conservative government’s response to these extraordinary circumstances has been wholly inadequate.

In Scotland, they are engaged in defeatist obstructionism.

Unsure of how they can break their losing habit north of the border, the Conservatives have concluded that the best way to save the Union is to obstruct Scotland’s pathway towards independence and deny a second referendum that it is convinced it would lose.

Rather than engage with the issues that are behind growing support for independence, or make a positive case for the Union, this Con govt would prefer to ignore the will of Sco’s voters, and deny them their right to self-determination...

...no matter how great support for a referendum or independence might be. This approach is a strategic dead-end.

In Northern Ireland, the approach has been marked, not by defeatism, but negligence.

For this government, Brexit matters above all else, and it has pursued it with a careless disregard for the possible consequences for Northern Ireland.

No thought was given to what Brexit might mean for Northern Ireland before the referendum.

No concern shown for lying about the consequences of the deal the government agreed.

No consideration given to the practical challenges that would result from agreeing a deal on Christmas Eve and bringing it into force of New Years’ Eve, leaving business and consumers with no time to adequately prepare.

The rocky road that Northern Ireland now finds itself on was laid by this government with little regard given to where that road would lead.

As for Wales, it barely seems to register on this Conservative government’s radar.

Presumably, Wales will benefit from some of the infrastructure money the government plans to spend in its attempt to save the Union, although it is unlikely to receive anywhere near as much as Scotland (and perhaps considerably less than it used to get in EU structural funds).

However, we tried constructive unionism in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries – it did not work then, and it may not work now.

This just leaves England. Having recognized the political potency of Englishness, & defeated the only other English party (UKIP/The Brexit Party), the Cons now aim to hold power by maintaining a coalition of those who primarily identify as English and those who voted leave.

It will do this by promoting “muscular” Anglo-centric British nationalism and reigniting the leave/remain divide when it is advantageous to do so.

This approach will continue to alienate many voters in Scotland and Wales, and a fair few in England as well, although not enough for this not to be an effective strategy at the next general election.

This government’s approach to identity and the Union may well keep it in power, but it will also deepen divides, make a split in the Union more likely, and make that split much more acrimonious.

If this is not the government’s desired outcoming, it needs to radically change its approach. At present, this seems unlikely, but were the government to choose to do so, here are three reasonable steps that it could take.

First, change objective.

The government should prioritize peace and prosperity above all else; not saving the Union, not delivering a purists Brexit.

Were it to do so, the govt wouldn't position itself to oppose a second referendum on Scotland’s independence just because that would save the Union, since ignoring the will of Sco’s voters, and denying them their right to self-determination, is an oppressive, not a peaceful, act.

In addition, a government that prioritizes prosperity would not sacrifice Northern Ireland on the altar of Brexit.

Instead, it would try to unlock the economic opportunities bestowed on Northern Ireland by the Protocol, which leaves it in the uniquely advantageous position of being in the UK, whilst also having privileged access to the EU’s market.

A government that prioritized prosperity would be pragmatic in its implementation of the Protocol, and levelheaded in its pursuit of sovereignty, because that is the only way to make a success of the Protocol, which would, in turn, boost prosperity in Northern Ireland.

Second, prepare for change.

Govt shld operate on the assumption that major constitutional change will come, even if it hopes that everything will remain the same as it is today. Only by preparing now, can govt ensure that if, or when, change comes, it is properly managed and is not acrimonious.

Government should prepare clear pathways towards change. As part of this, it must learn from the past decade of referendums, which were, by international standards, amateur, especially for referendums on matters of such constitutional significance.

Future referendums should have minimum turnout requirements; they should set higher thresholds for the change option; & they should be legally binding. This will ensure genuine, not wafer thin, majority support for change, and avoid any ambiguity about the status of the results.

Government should begin work now to draw up clear rules for future constitutional referendums, and it should do so in partnership with all major political parties and the devolved administrations.

Government must also prepare for the most delicate and controversial referendum that is likely to be held in the coming decades – a border poll to determine whether Ireland shld be reunited.

Unlike any referendum that may take place regarding Scotland’s independence, or Wales’ position within the Union, a border poll will not just be a UK affair. The Good Friday Agreement requires Ireland to hold a referendum as well.

Managing these parallel votes and navigating all the sensitivities and risks that will accompany them, will require years of joint thinking and preparation with Ireland. This should begin now.

Third, give the people control.

The question of the UK’s continuation in its current form is too great to only be discussed in political circles. The country may be divided, but voters are united in their desire to have their voices heard and to have control over the decisions that affect their lives.

This means more than just giving the people a vote on those decisions. It means engaging them in the debate and creating space for the people to imagine a new future for themselves.

Government should facilitate this and listen to what the people have to say. If change is to come, it should be driven from the bottom up and the people should own it. It will be much more durable if they do.

We are on the cusp of the most significant period of change for the UK since the end of empire.

This should be viewed as an opportunity, not to exploit division in pursuit of votes, but to renew our democracy, restore positive relations between the peoples of these isles, and revitalize our union, not matter what form it may take.

This can be achieved if we combine an empowered and engaged population, with a focus on peace and prosperity, and a willingness to plan for, and embrace change as and when it comes.

The alternative is to live in a divided country as it gradually, but irreversibly, drifts towards its breaking point.