Quebec, 1995 and Scotland, 2014: A Crisis of Clarity in the Old World and the New

It was 1707 when the United Kingdom coalesced as one with the Act of Union. This followed the death of the childless and unmarried Queen Elizabeth I, who, via the law of hereditary succession, was replaced on the throne by her cousin James VI, King of Scotland, now James I of a united Great Britain (UK Parliament). A mere half-century later, a more forced union took place in British North America with the annexation of France's Canadian colonies by way of King George III's Royal Proclamation of 1763 (UBC Indigenous Foundations). Both territorial amalgamations led to perpetual demographic tensions that often simmered in the backdrop of everyday political life; in the British Isles themselves, the English had to compromise with the Scots on issues of local and global concern, whereas in the former New France, Britain attempted to overwhelm the French majority with a constant influx of English Loyalist settlers, as well as refugees escaping the American War of Independence (Mintz et al., 27-28). Since these 18^th century annexations, both Scotland and the former New France, now the province of Quebec in a federalist union with Canada, have pondered, petitioned, and protested regarding and for political independence, with supporters of secession feeling pushed to the margins in terms of accurate political representation. Supporters of both secessionist movements express a strong Scottish and Quebec nationalism, respectively, with Scotland having held two successful referendums on political devolution to a separate Scottish Parliament, and one referendum in 2014 on independence which failed on a relatively narrow margin of 44.7% for secession, and 55.3% against, with a 84.59% voter turnout (BBC). Even closer were the results of Quebec's second referendum on independence in 1995, which saw 49.4% for secession from Canada, and 50.6% against, with a 94% voter turnout (Mintz et al., 106). This essay will compare and contrast the Quebec referendum of 1995 with the Scottish referendum of 2014, and establish that both are indeed inextricably connected, as well as explore the most important of said connections, the so-called “clarity ethos” which, originating in Canada, ruled, and still rules, both regions quests for sovereignty.

The first and most important distinction between the 1995 Quebec referendum and the 2014 Scottish referendum is the stark contrast in the clarity and succinctness of the questions presented to voters. The “clarity ethos,” as it's called, roots from Canadian politician Stephane Dion's heavy criticism of the question posed in 1995. On the ballot, Quebecer's were asked: "Do you agree that Québec should become sovereign, after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership, within the scope of the Bill respecting the future of Québec and of the agreement signed on 12 June 1995?” (Gall). This, in contrast to the straightforwardness of what was asked of voters in Scotland: “Should Scotland be an independent country?” (Verrelli et al., 197). In pursuit of procedural clarity, the Canadian federal government of Jean Chretien posed a series of reference questions to the Supreme Court of Canada to establish three things: if Quebec could secede from Canada on a unilateral basis; if Quebec had a right to automatic self-determination under international law; and, if there was some sort of conflict between domestic and international law in regards to secession, which set of laws would take precedence (Supreme Court of Canada). In a 2013 session of the House of Commons, Dion asserted that many Quebecer's voted 'yes' without a clear grasp of what a 'yes' victory would entail, arguing this was due to the obscure nature of the question (Verrelli et al., 196). In 1998, the Supreme Court rendered its judgment, and came down on the side of Dion and the federal government. Essentially, the Court established that Quebec could not unilaterally effect its own secession from Canada, but were a referendum held and a 'clear majority' of Quebecer's supported independence, then the federal government would be legally obligated to negotiate with the Quebec government in good faith (Supreme Court of Canada).

Both the federal government and provincial government of Quebec stated that they were satisfied with the ruling. The ruling did not, however, provide a definition of a 'clear majority,' opting to leave such a definition in the hands of politicians. In “Exporting the Clarity Ethos,” authors Nadia Verrelli and Neil Cruickshank note, “even if the democratic threshold (i.e. a majority) of fifty per cent plus one is met [...] in favour of Quebec sovereignty, it may not be enough to initiate the secession

process” (Verrelli et al., 197). This infers that some sort of supermajority would have to vote 'yes' to independence on a ballot that posed a very simple question. This inference became law when the Canadian House of Commons voted to pass the Clarity Act after final reading in 2000, which used the Supreme Court reference case as its basic template (Clarity Act, 3). As expected, Quebec railed against the Act, passing a law of its own the same year to counter the federal legislation known as Bill 99, or “An Act respecting the exercise of the fundamental rights and prerogatives of the Québec people and the Québec State” (Bill 99, 1). Bill 99 also claimed to use the Supreme Court reference as its basic template, taking advantage of the undefined character of what constitutes a 'clear majority' despite the Clarity Act's stipulation that it was the federal government alone that had the ability and right to decide what constituted both a clear question and a clear majority (Clarity Act, 4).

The clarity ethos became a precedent to be followed in future referenda, not only in Canada, but also in the case of Scotland's 2014 vote. It is no coincidence that Alex Salmond, head of the SNP (Scottish National Party), as well as Prime Minister David Cameron of the United Kingdom, both pushed for a clearly worded question which was also “comprehensible [...] in terms of the political consequences one should associate with a ‘yes’ vote” (Verrelli et al., 196). Even in Scotland, however, a bare majority for 'yes' may not have been enough to push Scotland across the divide of ambiguous clarity far enough to define a mandate for independence, and would likely have been heavily contested by both the British people and the British government were there not some sort of supermajority, just as in Quebec. It must be noted that the push for clarity is not simply a push for a clear question; it also requires a resoundingly clear answer to the question. This is a prejudice that Nadia Verrelli and Neil Cruickshank argue is “not only [...] impossible to achieve, but unfairly puts the ‘burden of proof’ on the side asserting national self-determination” (Verrelli et al., 196-197). The push for clarity is a sensible one, though probably impossible. This means, unfortunately, that the clarity ethos can essentially thwart all movements for independence by referendum, but this doesn't mean a referendum is an empty or useless gesture as it does reveal the true magnitude of those with a passionate desire for greater representation, thus forcing the powers that be to negotiate and often leading to notable concessions. In Canada, concession and compromise with Quebec is a staple of political life. In 2006, former Prime Minister Stephen Harper rejected the idea of an independent Quebec, but introduced a motion that officially recognized Quebec as a distinct nation within the nation of Canada (CBC News). As is obvious, similar pressures are what led to the devolution of some powers to an independent Scottish Parliament, effectively making Scotland a de-facto province of the United Kingdom.

The question of each referendum's legitimacy—both in terms of the results, and in terms of the right of Scotland or Quebec to self-determination under both domestic and international law—is resoundingly complex, hence the centuries of debate. Relative to the ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada, it can be argued that both the 1980 and 1995 Quebec referendums were illegitimate due to the hazy and verbose wording of the questions posed on the ballots. Due to this verbosity, it's unlikely that the federal government would have accepted either result, even if the proportion of 'yes' voters reached the undefined realm of a supermajority. As well, both referenda questions did not make it clear if what was being voted on was full secession, or a re-negotiation of Quebec within Confederation from provincial status to sovereignty-association. With this being the case, it's more likely than not that neither referenda would have resulted in independence, regardless of the results.

Scotland, having learned Quebec's lessons vicariously, stood a much better chance at secession and political independence, as the wording of the question was both simple and concise. Had there even been a narrow win, the mandate would have been clear, even if it didn't result in full sovereignty. If, however, there had been a clear supermajority—the clarity of which would likely have been defined by Westminster—there was a real chance for unequivocal results and, thus, legitimate secession on a multilateral basis. In all regards, the clarity ethos defines the parameters of the debate, paradoxically leaving no room for ambiguity by imposing a gilded monopoly on the ambiguous definition of clarity.

As it stands, both independence movements are alive and well, and both, though winded, are still pursuing their relentless crusades to nationhood. In more recent months, however, there has even been a greater push for secession and full political independence in places such as Catalonia, which has been struggling for partition from the greater Spanish nation in recent decades (BBC). Perhaps it can be expected that the clarity ethos will blanket the debate in Spain. If this happens to be the case, let's hope that the political definition of clarity can be given some basic clarity.      

PLEASE NOTE: THIS WORK WAS ORIGINALLY WRITTEN AS A RESEARCH ESSAY FOR MY CLASS ON CANADIAN GOVERNMENT. 

IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE CITATIONS, PLEASE POST A COMMENT BELOW PROVIDING AN EMAIL ADDRESS AND I WOULD BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO SEND AN ELECTRONIC COPY FOR FACT-CHECKING.