31st August 2026
Twelve years ago, Scotland went to the polls and answered a very simple question: “Should Scotland be an independent country?”
The answer was No. By 55.3% to 44.7%, Scottish voters rejected independence, with a remarkable 84.6% turnout. More than 3.6 million votes were counted. It was one of the biggest democratic exercises Scotland had ever undertaken.
Now, in 2026, the independence question is back on the political agenda.
The Scottish Government has published draft legislation for another independence referendum. First Minister John Swinney says the world has changed since 2014 and that Scotland and the UK have changed with it. But there is an important qualification which is easily lost amid the political arguments. Publishing a Bill is not the same as having the legal power to hold the referendum.
The Scottish Parliament cannot simply decide to hold another legally authorised independence referendum whenever it wishes.
That was made clear by the UK Supreme Court in 2022. The Court ruled that legislation for an independence referendum relates to matters reserved to the UK Parliament, including the Union between Scotland and England. Consequently, Holyrood does not currently have the legal competence to legislate for such a referendum.
The Scottish Parliament's own constitutional committee has subsequently acknowledged the position. For Holyrood to legislate for an independence referendum, there would need to be a transfer of legislative competence, either through a Section 30 Order or through primary legislation passed by the UK Parliament. The 2014 referendum was conducted under precisely such an arrangement.
That means the current political argument is not simply about whether Scotland should have another referendum. It is also about who has the constitutional authority to decide whether that referendum can take place.
And that brings us to something else which deserves much more attention as twelve years have passed.
A whole generation has moved through the electorate since 2014 and those who were 16 or 17 at the time are now approaching 30. Those who were 10 or 11 in 2014 are now old enough to vote. Many thousands of people who were living elsewhere in the UK or overseas have since moved to Scotland. Others who were already here in 2014 have become politically engaged for the first time.
There is therefore a perfectly reasonable argument that a new generation should have the opportunity to express its view.
But there is an another important point in that if another referendum takes place, it should not be treated as though it were simply a repeat of 2014.
The country has changed and he economy has changed. Brexit has happened and Governments have changed. Scotland's relationship with the rest of the United Kingdom has changed. The European Union has changed. Energy policy has changed. Public finances have changed. Immigration has changed. The NHS faces different pressures. Defence and international security look very different.
And, crucially, the electorate has changed and we arenot in the same place as 2014.
I suspect there are plenty of people, young and old, who have a general opinion about independence without having looked seriously at what independence would actually mean.
That is not a criticism. Most people have jobs, families, bills to pay and lives to lead. Constitutional politics is complicated, and it is perfectly understandable that someone who is not particularly interested in politics does not spend their evenings reading government papers about currency arrangements, pensions, national debt, taxation, defence, trade, public spending and the division of assets and liabilities.
But if Scotland is offered another vote on independence, those questions cannot simply be brushed aside.
The question on the ballot paper may once again be remarkably simple: “Should Scotland be an independent country?”
The consequences of answering Yes would be anything but simple.
The consequences of answering No would also be significant, particularly if the result were closer than in 2014.
There is another important misunderstanding worth clearing up.
Even if Holyrood eventually obtains the power to hold a referendum and the result is Yes, that vote would not automatically make Scotland independent the following morning.
There would then have to be negotiations and legislation dealing with the practical separation of two countries which have been part of the United Kingdom for more than three centuries. Issues would include national debt, public assets, pensions, taxation, currency, borders, trade, defence, energy, regulation, social security and the future relationship between Scotland and the remainder of the UK.
Some of those issues could probably be negotiated successfully. Others could prove extremely difficult.
That does not make independence impossible. Nor does it make it undesirable.
It simply means that voters deserve to know what the proposed destination actually looks like before they decide whether they want to travel there.
The same principle applies to remaining in the United Kingdom.
It would not be sufficient for the No campaign simply to say, “Everything is fine as it is.”
Clearly everything is not fine. Scotland has economic problems, demographic problems, pressure on public services and a political system that many people believe needs reform. The UK as a whole faces enormous challenges.
A proper referendum debate should therefore not be a contest between romantic visions of an independent Scotland and romantic visions of a United Kingdom that somehow has no problems.
It should be a comparison of two realistic futures.
What would Scotland gain from independence?
What would it lose?
What additional responsibilities would an independent Scottish government have?
What would happen to public spending if Scotland had to finance all of its own services?
What currency would be used?
How would pensions be protected?
How would Scotland manage its share of UK debt?
What would happen to trade with England, Wales and Northern Ireland?
What would happen to the border?
What would independence mean for businesses operating on both sides of that border?
What would happen to defence and Scotland's strategic position in the North Atlantic?
And perhaps most importantly, what would the first five or ten years of independence actually look like for an ordinary household?
Those questions should be answered by both sides.
There is a danger that constitutional politics becomes a battle of slogans. “Independence means freedom” is a slogan. “Better together” is a slogan. Neither tells a voter what will happen to their mortgage, pension, tax bill, business, job or public services.
The next referendum, if it happens, should be better than that.
There is also an uncomfortable democratic reality for Westminster.
If a clear majority of Scottish voters repeatedly vote for parties promising another independence referendum, simply refusing to discuss the issue indefinitely may not make the question disappear. It could instead strengthen the argument among independence supporters that Westminster is ignoring Scottish voters.
But there is a corresponding responsibility on the Scottish Government.
Winning an election on a promise to pursue independence is not the same as demonstrating that independence itself has majority support.
The two things should not be confused.
That is why another referendum should be about the actual proposition, rather than being treated as a proxy battle between the SNP and Westminster, or between the Scottish Government and the UK Government.
The 2014 referendum was unusually successful in one respect. Whatever one's political position, millions of people engaged with the question. Turnout reached 84.6%, and 16 and 17-year-olds were allowed to vote for the first time in a nationwide Scottish poll.
If there is another referendum, we should try to achieve that same level of engagement, but with an even greater emphasis on understanding.
People should not be expected to become constitutional experts.
They should, however, be given enough reliable information to understand the choice.
And that information should come before the vote, not after it.
Twelve years ago, Scotland was asked whether it wanted to become independent.
The answer was No.
Twelve years later, another generation has grown up, circumstances have changed and the argument has returned.
That is perfectly legitimate.
But if we are going to ask the question again, we owe the electorate something better than another campaign dominated by political slogans, social media arguments and promises that everything will somehow work out.
This time, Scotland should insist on seeing the numbers.
Not just the numbers that support independence.
Not just the numbers that support the Union.
All of them.
Because whatever Scotland ultimately decides, it will be the people who live here who have to live with the consequences.
If a yes vote was close there may be many years to follow where the no voters begin to rally for reunification. The question may not be settled with the vote no matter which way it goes.
The economic consequences could be dramatic one way or another.
Draft Independence Referendum Bill