Michael Russell: Elections can be just as definitive as referenda

The former Scottish Government minister was delivering the Thomas Muir Lecture at Glasgow University on Thursday night, named after the 18th century radical martyr known as “the father of Scottish democracy” who championed voting rights for all.

With the title ‘”It shall ultimately prevail”: pursuing the "good cause” of democratic consent’, the lecture examined the link between democratic consent and campaigns for independence in a variety of places, including Scotland.

Russell also argued that Westminster's refusal to outline a clear route to constitutional change in Scotland “deepens the constitutional divides and perpetuates the tensions that have grown exponentially in recent years. It also undermines democracy.”

He said: “There is little possibility of it. But that should not stop us from asking a fundamental question. Surely clarity on the circumstances in which a referendum - the testing of consent - could be held would be beneficial to both sides of that divide? Surely it would strengthen not weaken democracy?”

READ MORE: Portrayal of Angus MacNeil’s actions and intent is brazenly dishonest

Russell, who is now an honorary professor in the college of arts and humanities at Glasgow University, also argued that the “national movement in Scotland” is now largely agreed that with Westminster blocking any route to a referendum, a majority of seats at an election is the trigger.

It comes after SNP members backed an independence strategy based on the party winning a majority of seats at the next General Election, which would then empower the Scottish Government “to begin immediate negotiations with the UK Government”.

He said: “Elections can be every bit as much of a definitive expression of opinion regarding consent as referenda can be, no matter how hard those who don't want one try to argue the case.

“They have a clear pedigree in that regard. Those who win elections have an obligation to implement what the people have voted for. Consequently a clear plan of how such an expression of national will might take place needs also to have alongside it a clear plan of what happens after such a vote has taken place and the inclusion of that in the recent conference decision by the SNP is welcome. It is taking us closer to that required route map based on consent.”

Russell paid tribute to Thomas Muir throughout, saying democratic consent was “at the heart of Thomas Muir’s arguments, for which he gave his life”.

Muir was a former University of Glasgow student and his reform activities led to his trial for sedition and exile to Australia.

He escaped to America and revolutionary France where he died in 1799 at the age of 33.

Russell concluded his lecture: “[Democratic consent] remains at the heart of our constitutional dilemma and will go on doing so unless we recognise the need to place consent and clarity in the midst of what often seems like perpetual governmental and constitutional confusion and disagreement.

“Failure to do so has consequences , not least the alienation of our fellow voters from the current system of government which in turn leads to an increase in support for anti-democratic extremes.

“I agree that it is hard to see a way in which we can resolve this issue, but if we could - if we could bring clarity to the processes that the UK doesn’t want to acknowledge are even possibilities - then we would not only have better government, we would also be better governed and capable of achieving so much more. In those circumstances, we would be living in a society that was preparing to move forward and had laid the groundwork to do so despite the fact that the exercise of consent has been and is being increasingly marginalised.

For ultimately, in any democracy, marginalising consent is a foolishly corrosive and self harming thing to do. It is a step away from democracy, and no country should be taking any such step. In fact it is the opposite that is required, world-wide.”