In defence of Self-Determination & Mandates

At the heart of the current political squabble between Holyrood and Westminster is, as usual, an issue of rights.   Rights are, of course, legally defined – in this case is it legally safe for Holyrood to issue some sort of referendum on Scotland’s future within the Union?   I would suggest there is a more basic level than the 1998 Scotland Act at which this question will be resolved.   There is certainly a right to self-determination, but is that right one you must be given (the Westminster option) or one you may autonomously exercise (the Holyrood option)?

Constitutional experts have already pointed to the examples of ex-Soviet and –Yugoslav states exercising self-determination for independence without the consent of their national government – indeed in the face of considerable opposition, both political and military.   History, it seems, is on the side of exercising, as opposed to granting self-determination.

All that being said, self-determination is, on the face of it, a tricky one for a Christian.   It raises questions about the origin of so-called fundamental human rights – arguably a product of Enlightenment.   Would it be safer to see the Christian’s responsibility in doing God’s will as it is revealed in the Bible?   The Christian can certainly live that way; and live as far as possible at peace with all people – Love God with all your heart, mind and strength, and love your neighbour as yourself.   End of.

But I am sure we can go further – if we are good Calvinists.   Abraham Kuyper, in his Stone Lectures, quotes American historian George Bancroft: “The fanatic for Calvinism was a fanatic for liberty.”   It might not be to everyone’s taste, but Calvinism places God at the top, as the one who invests the civil authorities with power to be exercised for the good of the people.   There is a contract between a people and her government a contract which, incidentally, finds expression in the Declaration of Arbroath and the US Declaration of Independence (to which Bancroft was referring)

“we should exert ourselves at once to drive him out as our enemy and a subverter of his own rights and ours, and make some other man who was well able to defend us our King” – Declaration of Arbroath

“Governments are instituted among {NB not “by” but “among”} Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” – Declaration of Independence

The state must have a mandate to govern.   Bancroft and Kuyper shaw this in connection to the purposes of God in seeking to alleviate the effects of sin and the Fall.

The Calvinist’s love of liberty is not at odds with the right to self-determination.   In fact, in any other sphere, we would abhor its denial.   Suppose a citizen of North Korea desires to make profession of Christian faith – ought he to have the liberty?   But we also ought to reject its unnecessary limitation.   Suppose a citizen of China desire to make profession of Christian faith – ought he to have the liberty do so out-with the prescribed state-governed church?   Self-determination is a liberty we must contend for – whether we decide it as a fundamental right or not.

As a Calvinist, I must assert that it is not for any government, other than one elected with such a mandate, to set out for the people of Scotland when, where, who and how they exercise their collective right to self-determination.   That is not to deny Westminster’s legitimate governance – Cameron’s coalition was delivered by the will of the people.   But they were not delivered with a mandate to set out the terms of this referendum.   (In fact, to witness the shameful treatment of Nationalist MPs at Westmister shows the contempt in which the desire to exercise this self-determination has thus far been held.)   For the Coalition to dictate  any such terms now is an assault on liberty – they are acting beyond the will of the people who elected them.   Scotland’s self-determination is, according to Westminster, a right we will be given.

But the people of Scotland have already begun to exercise their right to self-determination, in electing – for whatever reasons – a government who committed to run this referendum.  Holyrood’s path is therefore legitmate, and Westminster’srole will be to react to the will of theScottish people post-referendum.

And the courts will agree.