Home > Alex Massie

Thursday 23 February 2012

Salmond: Scotland Free By 2016?

Wednesday, 25th January 2012

So, the game is afoot. The Scottish government today published its consultation document on an independence referendum to be held in the autumn of 2014. You can read it all here though I should warn you that most of it is entirely unobjectionable. If Mr Salmond is the salesman he hopes he is, the next Scottish parliament - due to be elected in May 2016 - will be the first to govern an independent nation since that auld sang ended in 1707.

I notice, however, that the favoured question proffered by the SNP has changed. As recently as last year it proposed asking for a mandate to open negotiations. This has become a simpler, more direct question: Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country? No "maybe" box is provided for responses. This appears to satisfy everyone's desire that the matter be put clearly. Nevertheless, one is struck by the problem that "independent country" is, these days, a matter of degree as well as taste.

Be that as it may, this kind of question makes it clear there'll only be one referendum. There will be no going back, you know and no plebiscite to welcome or reject the outcome of any negotiations between London and Edinburgh.

Will it be legal? The Scottish Government make it plain they desire a Section 30 order amending the Scotland Act that would transfer to Holyrood the power to hold a referendum of this ilk in ways unlikely to agitate our learned friends at Parliament House. That is as dandy as you could hope and all might be well but for the problems of conditions and, indeed, a second question. The consultation document is not perhaps as convincing as it might be on this. Apparently:

A wide range of opinion has been expressed about whether or not the Scottish Parliament has the power to hold a referendum consulting the Scottish people about independence. The Scottish Government's February 2010 paper set out a referendum question asking whether the powers of the Scottish Parliament should be extended to enable independence to be achieved. The Scottish Parliament has the power to legislate for a referendum as long as that would not change any reserved law or relate to those aspects of the constitution which are reserved by the Scotland Act 1998. The referendum question proposed in 2010 was carefully phrased to comply with that requirement. Much independent legal opinion supports the Scottish Government's view.

What is beyond any question is the ability of the Scottish Parliament to legislate for a referendum about changes to the powers of the Scottish Parliament within the framework of devolution. Legislation to hold a referendum on "devolution max", for example, is clearly within the existing powers of the Scottish Parliament.

Perhaps. I am not sure that Her Majesty's Government, far less the courts, necessarily agree with the second paragraph here. Is it really "beyond any question" that a secondary referendum on "devolution max" is "clearly" within "the existing powers of the Scottish parliament"?

This is where the battle will be: one question or two? Two questions on one day or a fortnight apart? Apples or oranges only or will the (putatively more popular) option of bananas be offered the public too? Who can tell? This consultation document says the Scottish government will work with Westminster provided Westminster recognises the limitations of its purview. This is not a view liable to be shared by all.

As for other matters, the SNP have sensibly conceded it is fine for the Electoral Commission to oversee the plebiscite. Their opposition to this never made any sense and must, I think, be seen as a ploy to allow them to seem reasonable when retreating from a manifestly bogus, trumped-up objection.

The consultation repeats the SNP view that the franchise be extended (for all elections) to 16 and 17 year-olds. Having thought about this for a while, it seems a reasonable modification to the existing regulations. If they are permitted to marry they can surely be trusted to blunder at the ballot box too? True, you might also think they should be permitted to purchase a pint or a packet of fags too but that's another matter.

Who else may vote?

British citizens resident in Scotland, Commonwealth citizens resident in Scotland, citizens of the Republic of Ireland and other EU countries resident in Scotland, members of the House of Lords resident in Scotland, Service/Crown personnel serving in the UK or overseas in the Armed Forces or with Her Majesty's Government who are registered to vote in Scotland.

Again, this seems sensible even if it produces the curious reality that a good number of the men representing Scotland in rugby and football will not be eligible to vote on their country's future. I see few easy ways round this, however. Perhaps it would be possible for all those who can demonstrate they were born in Scotland to enjoy a vote; evidently this would increase the cost of the plebiscite. Even then, many with close and dear connections to Scotland and who consider themselves Scots would not be eligible to vote. It is not likely to be possible to produce an electoral roll that satisfies everyone and the restrictions suggested in the consultation document are at least clear and reasonable even if, like any alternative, it can't be perfect.

How you get to a second question, however, remains the biggest of all the unresolved issues. Perhaps, since we're all being consulted, the simplest approach of all would be a multi-option referendum run on the Single Transferable Vote in which the options were:

1. Independence
2. Devolution Max
3. What We Have Now
4. Abolition of the Scottish Parliament

Filed under: 2014 (2 more articles) , Salmond (75 more articles) , Scotland (468 more articles) , Scottish independence (40 more articles) , SNP (195 more articles)

Previous Back to Alex Massie Next

Blogs: Martin Bright | Susan Hill | Melanie Phillips | Coffee House | Faith Based

Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (14)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

andrew kerins

January 25th, 2012 4:37pm Report this comment

The joy of a multi-choice 'referendum' is that the result is likely to leave more people dissatisfied than any other option.

Tiberius

January 25th, 2012 5:02pm Report this comment

A truly objective question would be, "do you wish Scotland to be an independent country?" The question above trumpets the bit missed out - "do you agree [with the Tory-hating fat fool] that Scotland should be an independent country?"

Any move to the so-called devo max must be accompanied by a referendum in England which states "do you wish to pay a greater subsidy to the Scottish Parliament?".

Arthur

January 25th, 2012 5:11pm Report this comment

Or alternatively: would you like to stop subsidising the rest of the UK?

Kittler

January 25th, 2012 5:41pm Report this comment

Should the question not be " Do you agree that Scotland should be a DEPENDENT country.
What sort of person would vote yes?

Kittler

January 25th, 2012 5:51pm Report this comment

Tiberius, the subsidy, is that something you 'just know to be so' or is there evidence for this.

Philip

January 25th, 2012 6:41pm Report this comment

One thing that no one ever seems to point out is that although it may be true that Scotland is not actually subsidised at the moment.....it has been for at least 75% of the Union's history......given this fact surely it is not unreasonable that the tax revenue from the oil income has been shared with the rest of the UK ince it came on line.....and that it should continue to be shared until complete restitution is made....if this could ever happen with what remains of the resource and the tax raised from it. I should think this might be how a modern devorce would be settled!

George Shepherd

January 26th, 2012 9:29am Report this comment

Sorry @Philip but pre- 1960's Scotland's coal mining and heavy industry meant it subsidized the rest of the UK to an even greater extent than during the oil years - (the same could also be said of the NW /NE of England and of course Wales)

The fact remains that Devo Max will be the outcome and that will be a great thing for tax and spend transparency

It will mean Scottish taxpayers no longer have to subsidize care homes in Sunderland and nursery places in Somerset but it will throw an interesting spotlight on how much the wealthier parts of Scotland are willing to spend on Glasgow !!! Interesting times

Barry

January 26th, 2012 11:55am Report this comment

If the people of Scotland genuinely believed that their country subsidised the rest of the UK in a meaningful way, they'd vote overwhelmingly for independence.

They reason they won't is that they know that passive reliance upon a declining resource in the North Sea, allocated to Scotland by treaty, is not in quite the same category as exporting ships, cars, TVs or whatever. The UK is not Germany, and Scotland certainly isn’t.

Tiberius

January 26th, 2012 1:41pm Report this comment

Kittler: I personally don't count the money transferred in or out, but if you google "England's subsidy to Scotland" you'll find plenty of authority to support my view (Heffer pitches in at £22bn pa in 2009).

As Barry says, the polling on independence amongst Scots suggest they believe that they gain, and Salmond himself wouldn't be modest about the matter if he believed Scotland was a net contributer.

Kittler

January 26th, 2012 1:43pm Report this comment

Barry, yesterday at Westminster, Conservative Grandee, Nicholas Soames MP initiated a debate on the Oil.

Here are some of this words :-

"enormous economic importance"
"as crucial to the economy as the City of London"
"a goose that lays a golden egg"

If that is so, then it must be ten times more valuable to Scotland.

Barry

January 26th, 2012 2:33pm Report this comment

Kittler - I think you've missed the point. Relying on oil is passive, and when it runs out, you'll have nothing.

I also underestand that some of the "oil revenue" is actually from gas, which is not exclusively Scottish.

Kittler

January 26th, 2012 2:55pm Report this comment

Tiberius, the authority I have consulted is the Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland (GERS) reports, prepared by civil service statisticians and economists.
I have not conducted an audit of their work and cannot verify the veracity of their conclusion that the recipient of a "subsidy" (small), is England, but think it may be more robust than your google sources.

Kittler

January 26th, 2012 3:02pm Report this comment

Barry, check out the Governments Gross Value Added (GAV) reports, there's much much more than the oil, that is the bonus, the cherry on the cake.

Barry

January 26th, 2012 4:19pm Report this comment

Scottish economy analyst Paul Teasdale said: "As London has become perhaps the most important city economy in Europe and has led growth in the UK, this appears to have had greater benefits for the economy of Scotland than for the English regions."

You can find opinion to prove anything. The question remains, why are so few Scots in favour?

Post comment