Michael Moore’s statement to the House of Commons on the question of how a referendum on Scotland’s constitutional future may be held was clear, composed, sensible and modest. In other words it was everything that the last few days have not been. The Prime Minister in particular – as bemoaned here, here and here – has not distinguished himself in recent times. Perhaps it is fairer (it is certainly kinder) to presume this was just as innocent a cock-up as any Prime Ministerial cock-up can be; regardless is was a desperate piece of floundering that made Mr Cameron look something of a chump.
The Secretary of State’s consultation paper makes no provision for differentiating between binding and advisory referendums (sensibly enough since this, though briefed and trailed, was always a nonsense). Nor does it suggest there must any “sunset clause”. Rather, it proposes passing the right to legislate for a referendum to the Scottish parliament. The chief reason for doing so, as Moore made clear, is that doing so will make it possible to hold a referendum immunised against any legal challenge. This is a sensibly modest proposal and one with which it is difficult to quibble.
As the paper explains:
The UK Government believes that using this order making power presents a good way to deliver a legal referendum on independence. It is sensible to make provisions to allow for a Bill providing for a referendum to be brought forward by Scottish Ministers, as it is the Scottish Government that seeks to change Scotland’s constitutional status. And the UK Government believes that it would also be sensible for the Scottish Parliament to consider and approve the eventual referendum Bill – within the parameters of the powers devolved by the UK Parliament. Members of the UK Parliament will have a strong interest in the issue of independence – both because of its implications in Scotland, and because of its implications for the UK as a whole. The process of approving the Order would ensure that both Houses of Parliament debate and consider the powers to be devolved.
As for the timing:[…] An Order can be delivered relatively quickly; within a few weeks if early agreement is reached on the terms of the Order.
In my view this section should remain blank. There seems no need for the Westminster government to make an issue of this. Doing so can only complicate a question which everyone claims they want to keep as simple as possible.The UK Government’s firm view is that the question of Scotland’s constitutional status should be resolved sooner rather than later. The UK Government believes that the continuing uncertainty about Scotland’s future is damaging to Scotland and that until this issue is resolved this uncertainty will remain and grow. The draft section 30 Order (Annex A) includes provision for a date by which the referendum should be held. This section is intentionally left blank; we have not set out a view on a specific date for a referendum in this paper and we welcome views on the date by which a referendum should be held.
What may be more difficult to resolve is the consultation’s evident preference for a simple Yes/No vote. As the draft suggests:
As a legal matter this makes a degree of sense; as a political concern it is a little trickier.There must be only one ballot paper at the referendum, and the ballot paper must give the voter a choice between only two responses.
Nevertheless, in as much as the consultation – at present – is concerned with resolving the potential for legal challenges it is welcome. There is no need for the orders to go any further than making it clear to all that Holyrood can pass a bill to hold a referendum.
So, after a weekend of hopeless Tory spin that’s damaged the Unionist cause, today’s consultation was marked by a low key measure of Lib Dem calm and even, good lord, sense.
Comments