Mr. Martin Docherty-Hughes:

I thank the Chair and Members of Seanad Éireann for allowing me the privilege of addressing them in this historic Chamber. As the grandchild of Irish emigrants from Ballinglen in County Mayo and Stralongford in County Donegal, it is a personal honour. If my grandparents were alive, they would, like me, recognise the unique privilege I have in being with Senators today.

I believe that my personal history has some resonance with the committee's deliberations. My grandparents were born before the birth of an independent Irish Republic and had family on both sides of the constitutional debate as it unfolded during their lifetimes. While Scotland is another country, the entire island of Ireland and Scotland share a unique familial relationship which few other nations do. I am mindful of the words of the President of Ireland when he addressed the Scottish Parliament on 29 June 2016. The President said:

You might even say that, given our shared and complex history, it has often been difficult to say where ends and where begins, or the other way around. Fundamentally, we are all intermixed migrants, whose shared existence owes more to the transience of our migrations than to the sedentary experience of possessions or property.

That overlapping history and connection may have relevance for the deliberations of the committee, as I said. We hope to share some of our experiences about the almost three-year period of the most recent Scottish independence referendum between 2012 and 2014. From my perspective, there are three main learning points. First, there should be no shortcuts to democracy when it comes to constitutional change. Central to us in the pro-independence position was, and continues to be, international recognition, which cascades from a range of points. There must be recognition of a valid process. If the parties involved do not consider the process valid, no other states will. Such a situation would have devalued the entire process for those being asked to participate.

Further to that is the agreed process and the requirements for frankness and transparency. The philosophy of the pro-independence campaign from 2012 to 2014 was one of relentless positivity and an inclusive, outward-looking philosophy which sought to change the views of citizens on the question of where Scottish sovereignty is held. I look back to the campaign for a yes vote on the question of equality in marriage which led to a change to the Constitution of the Republic. In some ways, it mirrored a positive message. It is about openness and transparency, engagement and deliberation.

Profound change in the existing structure means that there will inevitably be difficult questions which require answers. Indeed, the interplay of the aftermath of the Brexit referendum in the UK is a case in point as rash promises made in the heat of a very short campaign proved to be entirely undeliverable, poisoning the well both at home and abroad. That has meant a reassessment of how to approach seemingly intractable issues. It could be argued that this lack of deliberation and community-led engagement has been at the core of the UK's constitutional, political, social and economic crisis since the Brexit referendum. Community deliberation was a core element of the Scottish referendum debate. Events were held by faith groups, environmental organisations, trade unions and local community organisations, such as community councils. Associational autonomy enables deliberation and discussion away from the limitations of ingrained party political and Government structures, which we politicians may not like to hear. In the independence referendum, small and medium-sized community organisations were at the forefront of the debate, challenging both sides on their positions.

The difference in lengths between the Scottish independence and Brexit campaigns, nearly three years and less than 12 months, respectively, was seen by many as contributing to the tangible differences in the way the substantive issues were treated in both campaigns. The Scottish constitutional conversation has been ongoing since 2016 in the aftermath of the Brexit result. Therefore, the second independence referendum campaign and its considerations have been ongoing for a considerable amount of time, not only since the recent submission made by the Scottish Government to the Supreme Court of the UK to enable another referendum.

The Brexit campaign of less than 12 months gave little opportunity for deliberation and reduced the debate to mere sound bites, which, for some, became easily manipulated to fit certain positions, notably via the use of big data. There was no real community engagement or leadership. There were few public meetings and a challenging media process. What is marked on the Brexit results is the clear split across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as Scotland and Northern Ireland both voted heavily to remain while England and Wales voted to leave. This continues, as Senators will appreciate, to influence the political and economic relationships across these islands. Therefore, the short and stunted Brexit campaign has had a profound impact on the political life of these islands. If there is a learning process, I am of the opinion that the three pillars of the Scottish debate were not replicated in the Brexit referendum. Indeed, the Brexit process is from a playbook of failed positions, which I think many on these islands know only too well. From what we have seen in recent weeks in the UK, it continues to have grave social and economic consequences for the UK and Northern Ireland.

Frankness and transparency are important, particularly in respect of complicated constitutional issues, to build trust with citizens. There is a requirement for a robust and historic civil society as an integral pillar of democratic life to enable deliberation. A long and open-ended deliberation or, as I like to say, a conversation, can be good for solidifying a coherent national debate. I look forward to hearing from the rest of the speakers and engaging with the questions from Members of Seanad Éireann.