Last week, I blogged on the problems that Devo Max may pose for Alex Salmond if he decides to include a 2nd question in the coming referendum. However, I managed to miss out one stonker of a problem that I wonder if the SNP has even considered.Â
What happens if there are two Yes results and there are significantly more Scots in favour of Devo Max than independence?
The SNP will undoubtedly try to frame the first question of independence as taking priority over the second, much like in 1997, but the two referendums are not really comparable.Â
Tax-varying powers was a clear bolt-on to the first question of whether Scotland wants its own Parliament but, as things stand, we will have no means of ascertaining the strength of preference on individual ballots between Devo Max and Independence.
It is safe to assume that those who vote Yes in the first question will also vote Yes in the second but what if a significant bloc, holding at least the casting vote, are really strongly in favour of Devo Max but only in favour of independence on balance? What then?
Of course, the solution to this problem is to have just a straightforward Yes/No on independence or to hold a 3-pronged referendum by STV.Â
What is interesting is that the first of these suggestions is building an unlikely alliance ranging from Tom Harris through to Margo MacDonald and including many SNP members along the way, going by Twitter and the Sunday papers.
By charging forwards, Salmond has exposed a chink in the armour and if he has to backpedal to a one question referendum, then this debate really will be winner takes all. Â Â
One thing’s for certain, the debate over what the result means, let alone what the question should be, is only just getting going.Â
#1 by JohnMcdonaldish on October 25, 2011 - 8:15 am
Unionists and (and that paticularly sad bunch) crypto-Unionists are truly having to stretch every sinew to construct ever increasingly weird arguments to trip up the drive for independence.
The simple truth is they are in this position because they have no valid argument to make for the Union.
You lot wake up. This isn’t some giggly esoteric debate, it’s about the lives and future of real people.
#2 by Rev. S. Campbell on October 25, 2011 - 8:17 am
There’s no problem here at all. If a majority vote for independence, you have independence. Anything else would be absurd. In a Venn diagram of the situation, all the powers of devo max are included within independence, so everyone who votes for it will be getting what they voted for.
The only issue would be if the devo max question was really badly worded, in such a way as to explicitly state a desire for certain things to be run by the UK, and I think we can safely rule out the SNP being that stupid.
And once again – a one-question referendum would NOT represent any “backpedalling”. Contrary to the baffling consensus that’s suddenly sprung up, Salmond has never offered anything else, save for acknowledging a hypothetical willingness to CONSIDER a second question subject to other parties defining and codifying one.
#3 by Rev. S. Campbell on October 25, 2011 - 8:19 am
(And judging by the unanimity of the Scottish Tory leadership candidates on Newsnight last night, the idea of a second question is already dead in the water anyway.)
#4 by Indy on October 25, 2011 - 8:28 am
Are you serious?
Of course the SNP has considered this – go back and read all the documents that have already been published.
There is no difficulty in having two questions one on Devo Max and one on Independence if you think about what those words actually mean. It’s not a question of one taking priority over the other because one option (Devo Max) is actually contained within the other (Independence).
Let’s go back to the draft referendum bill and options for questions which were suggested.
There was a first ballot paper on Full Devolution which was defined as the Scottish Parliament, with certain exceptions, having control of all laws, taxes and duties in Scotland – the exceptions being defence and foreign affairs, financial regulation, monetary policy and the currency.
Then there was a second ballot paper which asked the question about full independence.
The argument, which I heard on the radio as well this morning, that somehow you have to take Devo Max and Independence as being the opposite of each other as it were -so if Devo Max gets 70 per cent and Independence gets 55 per cent we have to settle for Devo Max and ignore the majority vote for indepedence – just seems so illogical to me that I am amazed you are suggesting it as a valid argument.
Logically if you support Indepedence you also support Devo Max. I want the Scottish Parliament to have control over all laws, taxes and duties in Scotland so I would vote yes to that question. But I also want the Scottish Parliament to have control over everything else as well so I would also vote yes to the second question on indeependence.
So, in practical terms, if 70 per cent of people vote Yes to Full Devolution that provides a majority in support of Full Devolution. If 55 per cent of people then go on to vote Yes to Independence that also provides a majority in favour of Independence. It may be a smaller majority but it’s still a majority. Unless you want to rig the referendum by putting in some kind of artificial threshhold a majority is anything over 50 per cent.
If, on the other hand, 70 per cent of people vote Yes to Full Devolution but only 45 per cent of people vote Yes to Independence then that means that there is no majority for Independence and instead of having a mandate for Idependence the Scottish Government goes to the UK Government and says the Scottish people have voted for an extension of Devolution, can we talk about that. Of course we then run the risk of the UK Government saying No but that’s another issue. In terms of the mechanics of the referendum it is surely straightforward enough.
#5 by Stuart Winton on October 25, 2011 - 12:01 pm
So you’re saying that even if it was the most popular option then devo-max would be ignored Indy?
#6 by Doug Daniel on October 25, 2011 - 12:13 pm
Devo max cannot be the most popular option if there is also a majority in favour of independence. It’s basic maths, really.
The most extreme result is as follows: 100% vote YES to the devo max question, and 50.1% vote YES to the independence question. That means 50.1% of the population are saying “yes, I want the bigger prize of independence, but I’ll take devo max if that’s all that is on offer”. That leaves a remaining 49.9% saying “I do not want independence, I just want devo max”.
50.1% is a majority. 49.9% is not. Simple.
#7 by Stuart Winton on October 25, 2011 - 5:21 pm
I see your point Doug, but your logic is a bit arcane, and in particular I think your assumption that everyone will follow your voting logic isn’t wholly tenable.
For example, I could see many voting for devo max but not bothering with the independence question (and vice versa), which would upset your logic slightly.
A lot would depend on precisely how the whole thing was structured, but I don’t think it’s as transparent as you’re positing it.
#8 by Doug Daniel on October 25, 2011 - 7:19 pm
No, because there can only be a majority for one option. If independence gets 50.1% of the vote, then it stands to reason that the very most devo max could get as a first choice is 49.9%. So if devo max gets 60%, at least 10.1% of those people must have also voted for independence, meaning they would have no problem with devo max being “ignored”.
#9 by Observer on October 25, 2011 - 9:31 pm
But Stuart if many people who vote for Devo Max did not bother with the independence question how likely is it that Independence would achieve 50 per cent plus of the vote?
And vice versa.
#10 by Stuart Winton on October 26, 2011 - 7:56 am
Because I’m talking about separate ballot papers for each option, which seemed to be the premise of this part of the thread?
For example – and this is merely hypothetical – say the vast majority voted in only one ballot. Two million vote for devo max, a million against.
Just over half a million vote for independence and a quarter of a million against.
Thus the results are 67% in favour of devo max, but 51% favour independence.
But under the current system suggested by the SNP independence wins.
So a million support devo max, only half that support independence, yet the latter wins.
Doug seems to assume that the million devo max supporters would include a lot of independence supporters, but I don’t think that necessarily follows – in theory the overlap could be nil.
Of course, in practice the overlap is likely to be significantly more, but Doug’s logic seems to dictate that all people vote in both polls.
Say the separate polls show 55% for devo max but 51% for independence. Doug says this means only 4% support devo max per se. But unless the overlap between votes is 100% the reality is that less than 50% could actually favour independence.
I think we’re perhaps all slightly at cross purposes here, thus to that we’re perhaps just confusing each other ;0)
So
#11 by Indy on October 25, 2011 - 12:19 pm
No I am not saying that. I am saying think about what both those terms mean.
Maybe it would be useful to do as the Rev Campbell says an visualise it as a Venn diagram. Inside the Devo Max circle would be stuff like broadcasting, taxation, energy etc – the reserved powers that would be devolved under Devo Max.
Those same powers would also be in the Independence circle OK? Because they would also be transferred to the Scottish Parliament as part of independence.
So Independence and Devo Max are effectively the same thing as they relate to the transfer of powers proposed under Devo Max.
The difference between Devo Max and Independence is that Independence also includes all the other powers like defence, foreign policy etc which would stay reserved under Devo Max.
If over 50 per cent of people vote for that Independence option then it wins. But that doesn’t mean Devo Max is ignored because the transfer of powers under Devo Max would also take place under Independence.
#12 by Stuart Winton on October 25, 2011 - 5:28 pm
So you’re saying that if someone is worried about defence in an indepedent Scotland they shouldn’t worry because they have no problem with fiscal autonomy?
Yes, makes sense!!
#13 by Indy on October 25, 2011 - 9:36 pm
OMG no. I am saying the opposite.
If you don’t want to vote for independence because you are worried about defence then you would vote No to Independence. But if you want other powers transferred you would vote Yes to Devo Max.
On the other hand if you do want Independence you would vote Yes to Devo Max because you want all those powers transferred – and you ALSO want to go the rest of the way to full Independence so you also vote Yes to Independence.
If either proposition gets more than 50 per cent of the vote then they win. They can both win.
#14 by Stuart Winton on October 26, 2011 - 7:18 am
Yes, but earlier you alluded that the defence concerns of the devo max supporters didn’t matter because they would get all the powers they wanted transferred to Holyrood. Clearly I agree with that latter point, but that still ignores their defence concerns.
You said:
“…that doesn’t mean Devo Max is ignored because the transfer of powers under Devo Max would also take place under Independence.”
That’s irrelevant to the questions about defence.
You’re trying to say that because independence includes the powers that would be transferred under devo max then to that extent devo max supporters will be happy, but that’s a non sequitur – they many prefer the status quo to the unknown quantity that is defence in an independent Scotland.
.
#15 by Indy on October 26, 2011 - 9:35 am
No Sturat I really seriously didn’t. Read what I said again.
I am saying that Independence supporters would be happy to vote for Devo Max – not necessarily the other way around.
If people only want to vote for Devo Max that’s all they vote for and they vote No to Independence.
But if more than 50 per cent of people do vote for Independence that is a majority. And a majority wins. It’s that simple – it’s how it works in the vast majority of referendums why should this one be any different?
#16 by Stuart Winton on October 26, 2011 - 10:13 am
So what precisely did you mean by:
“…that doesn’t mean Devo Max is ignored because the transfer of powers under Devo Max would also take place under Independence.”
That’s irrelevant if you vote DM because you’re concerned about defence (say).
Pingback: Yes, No | BaffieBox
#17 by @dhothersall on October 25, 2011 - 8:38 am
I think the only way to choose between three options is to choose between three options! I cannot understand why anyone would propose two choices, with two options each, as a way of choosing between three options. It makes zero sense.
For me the decision on the referendum has always been between a two-option and a three-option vote. Anything else is jiggery-pokery.
#18 by Indy on October 25, 2011 - 9:37 am
Eh? If people don’t want any change from the status quo they just vote No to each question.
I don’t see that we need to put in a question specifically saying do you want no change.
#19 by @dhothersall on October 25, 2011 - 9:48 am
I didn’t suggest that we did. I’m talking about a single question with three possible answers. If there are three possible outcomes, it’s the only sensible way to do it.
#20 by Indy on October 25, 2011 - 9:55 am
There are only three possible outcomes whichever way you look at it. There is either no change, or there is a majority for Devo Max but not Independence or there is a majority for Independence (which by definition also includes the transfer of powers which would come with Devo Max).
#21 by @dhothersall on October 25, 2011 - 10:29 am
By that surreal logic voting for no change by definition also includes the transfer of powers that has already happened. So all options are a subset of independence.
The point is if there are three options we need to allow people to choose between them. Anything else is jiggery-pokery.
#22 by Rev. S. Campbell on October 25, 2011 - 10:48 am
“The point is if there are three options we need to allow people to choose between them.”
And we are. If there’s a two-question referendum and you want devo max but not independence, you vote Yes-No. Want independence? Vote Yes-Yes. Want the status quo? Vote No-No.
Three possible outcomes, three choices. Incredibly straightforward, and any voter too thick to get their heads round that probably shouldn’t be deciding the country’s future anyway.
#23 by @dhothersall on October 25, 2011 - 10:59 am
Or alternatively: “Pick the option you prefer from these three.”
It’s self-evident which is more straightforward, and also self-evident why pro-indy folk don’t want to admit it. I’m embarrassed for you having to make such a transparently false argument.
#24 by Rev. S. Campbell on October 25, 2011 - 11:13 am
Not as embarrassed as I am for your display of transparent sour grapes. I absolutely agree that a two-question vote is more in the SNP’s favour, and make no attempt to conceal that fact. The thing is, *we won the right to conduct things in our favour*. If you wanted a referendum run your way, you had four years in which you could have easily made it happen. You chose instead to deny the people any vote at all. As of May, tough cheese.
#25 by Jeff on October 25, 2011 - 11:21 am
One could of course argue that the SNP won the right to hold a Yes/No referendum on independence on its own terms but this tinkering with Devo Max, while laudable in that it seeks to reflect current public opinion, doesn’t really have a mandate, does it?
#26 by Indy on October 25, 2011 - 11:15 am
No sorry Duncan if you are arguing for a referendum set up along those lines then the question will be pick which option you want – independence or the status quo.
If you want Devo Max to be included as an option it must be done in a way which allows people to register support both for Devo Max and for Independence.
They are not mutually exclusive.
You could do that through an STV election as some suggest or you could do it in the way that the SNP has already set out. That’s what I think we are actually discussing here.
#27 by Rev. S. Campbell on October 25, 2011 - 11:28 am
“One could of course argue that the SNP won the right to hold a Yes/No referendum on independence on its own terms but this tinkering with Devo Max, while laudable in that it seeks to reflect current public opinion, doesn’t really have a mandate, does it?”
One certainly could argue that, except that it’s not the SNP who are tinkering with devo max. They have stated quite clearly that there will be a one-question referendum on independence, but that they’re *willing to listen* to requests for a second question on devo max. The SNP don’t support devo max, haven’t defined it and won’t campaign for it.
#28 by Doug Daniel on October 25, 2011 - 11:29 am
Right, and what happens when the result is 33% status quo, 33% devo max and 34% independence? Good luck convincing die-hard unionists that that would represent a majority.
Or what if it is 49% devo max, 49% independence and 2% status quo? Who wins that one?
#29 by BaffieBox on October 25, 2011 - 11:32 am
Whether DevoMax and Independence are mutually exclusive depends on its definition and the wording of the question. If its within the context of remaining in the UK, they are mutually exclusive; if its about full fiscal autonomy and further devolution of more powers, they are no mutually exclusive.
This who debate needs someone to pick up the DevoMax mantle though, and none of the UK parties want to touch it. So it’s a red herring currently.
If Duncan, or anyone else, things STV is the answer to the constitutional question, they are sadly mistaken. The STV counting will not provide any clear answers and will leave many unanswered questions. It will certainly not kill Independence stone dead, as Im sure Duncan and friends would prefer.
#30 by @dhothersall on October 25, 2011 - 12:04 pm
I agree with BaffieBox that devo max and independence could easily be mutually exclusive depending on the question, and I think it’s entirely likely that, as the SNP policy was until the mid nineties, there will be people for whom independence is the only acceptable option.
I haven’t called for STV, by the way, I’ve called for there to be one question with as many options as necessary, to allow people to choose the one they prefer.
And I have no desire to “kill independence stone dead”. I want the Scottish people to make an educated choice based on a fairly worded question in a democratically organised referendum. I supported the holding of a referendum throughout the last parliament, and I continue to do so.
The dreadful problem we have is that this is now, inextricably, a polarised, partisan, party-politics fight, rather than a chance for Scotland to have its say fairly. The SNP are trying to rig the question in their favour, some Tories and Labour folk are trying to rig it in their favour. And as this debate shows, the chance of an honest question being asked recedes by the day.
#31 by James on October 25, 2011 - 12:11 pm
Doug’s response is of course answered by the “preferendum” approach. My guess is that people who vote status quo first would have devo max ahead of independence for their second preference, so devo max would win.
#32 by Doug Daniel on October 25, 2011 - 12:22 pm
James – you’re quite right, STV would answer my question. However, the proposal Duncan is putting forward here is “select one of the three options”, which is not STV, it’s FPTP. The choice would be straightforward, but the result would be anything but. It would mean that 40% voting for devo max, 49% for independence and 11% for the status quo would not result in a clear winner, the result being we’d keep the status quo, even though it only received 11% backing.
#33 by Rev. S. Campbell on October 25, 2011 - 12:29 pm
“I haven’t called for STV, by the way, I’ve called for there to be one question with as many options as necessary, to allow people to choose the one they prefer.”
Which is what you’ll get, however many questions there are. If it’s a two-question poll, the three options are still absolutely clear. If you want independence, vote Yes-Yes. If you want devo max, vote Yes-No. If you want the status quo, vote No-No.
The Scottish people are not morons, and are perfectly capable of understanding that simple proposition, especially over the course of an extended campaign. They’ve had a two-question, non-exclusive referendum before, after all.
The only reason to object to this is if you wish to split and polarise the more-powers vote in order to reduce the chances of independence winning. Otherwise there’s no justification – in a two-question vote those who want devo max but not independence have every opportunity to fully express that by voting Yes-No. Nobody is being disenfranchised.
You, however, want a fiddled system in which people who slightly prefer devo max but don’t mind independence (or the other way round, which is my own position) are denied the chance to express their desires accurately. I’m in favour of independence but would also happily accept devo max, but you’d force me to effectively vote against the latter. Same old Labour.
#34 by Holebender on October 25, 2011 - 12:32 pm
There has to be a mechanism to provide a clear majority for one of the possible outcomes. Making it a multiple choice question does not produce that result. What if the outcome is 36% for independence, 33% for devo max, and 31% for no change? You couldn’t impose the winning option with such an ambiguous mandate.
STV is one option, but you are now piling complexity on top of ambiguity. Two yes/no questions will produce two decisive results, then all you have left to do is decide which majority takes precedence. We can safely assume that 99.999% of supporters of independence will also vote yes to devo-max, so there is no point saying the outcome with the highest yes vote wins. Why would the Scottish Government sabotage it’s own referendum like that? They wouldn’t. It will be very clear that independence takes precedence over devo-max and that the devo-max option only comes in to play in the event of independence not winning a majority.
#35 by @dhothersall on October 25, 2011 - 1:31 pm
It’s nonsense to say STV piles complexity on top of ambiguity. It removes the ambiguity you claimed! And I’ve never considered numbering things to be terrible complex.
Seriously, this is what I mean about honest debate.
#36 by Jeff on October 25, 2011 - 1:34 pm
I agree Duncan. There has been no argument against STV that I’ve seen other than it decreases the SNP’s chances of winning a Yes vote (to full independence).
#37 by Rev. S. Campbell on October 25, 2011 - 1:46 pm
“And I’ve never considered numbering things to be terrible complex.”
Yet you apparently consider choosing between three clear option via two simple questions to be beyond the wit of the poor simple Scottish electorate.
Not an hour and a half ago, on this very page, you said “I haven’t called for STV”. You went on the clarify that “I’ve called for there to be one question with as many options as necessary, to allow people to choose THE ONE they prefer” (my emphasis), which is unambiguously a description of a First Past The Post system which is horribly flawed in the way I’ve already described.
Now it seems you *are* calling for STV after all, with people choosing a numbered list of preferences rather than a single option. Is this how “honest debate” works?
#38 by @dhothersall on October 25, 2011 - 2:00 pm
Stu, I’m responding to debate. It’s how adults discuss things and move arguments forward. As a matter of fact I have neither advocated nor opposed STV here, but I’m beginning to see it is a sensible solution to offering people a simple choice.
Your idea of debate may be to stick resolutely to one view and defend it in ever louder tones. It is not mine.
#39 by Rev. S. Campbell on October 25, 2011 - 2:20 pm
“Your idea of debate may be to stick resolutely to one view and defend it in ever louder tones. It is not mine.”
I couldn’t be happier if you’re adjusting your positions according to the arguments, old chap. I’m just asking you to be clear on what you’re standing for so that we CAN debate it honestly. If you now want an STV vote, great – in which case, I’ve already explained what I think’s wrong with it, so feel free to argue rather than constantly being in a huff about something or other.
#40 by Erchie on October 26, 2011 - 1:57 am
There is no surprise that this gentleman has problems with the question.
He could not even answer ‘Yes/No’ to the question ‘Is Belgium Independent?’ even when offered frequent opportunities to answer
#41 by @dhothersall on October 26, 2011 - 8:36 am
Ah, so Erchie is Philo the Sceptic on Twitter. I see.
The thing is, I answered the question several times. Just not with a yes or a no. Because Belgium is fiscally independent but monetarily unionist, to select just one example. So neither yes nor no would have been a correct answer.
I did explain this to you, but clearly you’re more interested in scoring points than discussing honestly.
#42 by Jeff on October 26, 2011 - 8:39 am
Good answer Duncan.
There’s not many Yes/No questions left out there any more, including that for Scottish independence too it seems…!
#43 by Rev. S. Campbell on October 25, 2011 - 1:59 pm
“There has been no argument against STV that I’ve seen other than it decreases the SNP’s chances of winning a Yes vote (to full independence).”
The argument against it is that it’s inherently biased in a system where the two main options aren’t exclusive. How many people will vote status quo first then independence second? Almost none.
In a normal election, you can’t easily tell if a Lib Dem or Green voter’s second preference is going to be Labour, Tory, SNP or whatever. STV is legitimate there because it’s a level playing field – the parties don’t exist in a single linear plane. In a poll, however, where the overwhelming majority of losing votes are indisputably going to go one way rather than the other, it’s stacking the deck massively.
It’s possible to make the argument, of course, that if independence is what the Scottish people really want then they’ll vote for it in such numbers as to wipe out that bias, but imagining that ANY party – SNP or otherwise – would actively put themselves at such a huge disadvantage is some way beyond naive and well inside the borders of plain mental. It’d be exactly the sort of fiddle that we saw with the 40% rule back in 1979, and which Duncan piously professes to be against.
#44 by James on October 25, 2011 - 2:03 pm
Really? You know how these hypothetical devo max voters’ second preferences would go?
#45 by Rev. S. Campbell on October 25, 2011 - 2:16 pm
“Really? You know how these hypothetical devo max voters’ second preferences would go?”
No, I don’t. That’s not what I said.
#46 by Indy on October 25, 2011 - 11:07 am
Yes voting for no change also includes the transfer of powers which is already taking place. Because it’s already taking place. You want people to vote for something that is already happening? Why?
Maybe it would be easier if you told us what you think should be on the ballot paper.
#47 by Doug Daniel on October 25, 2011 - 9:46 am
It makes perfect sense. It’s the most straightforward way of avoiding a three-way split. You could use STV or instant run-off or whatever, but it all amounts to the same thing and makes it far simpler to word the questions.
#48 by Colin on October 26, 2011 - 10:32 am
You would, then, agree that Labour’s referendum on devolution (which the 1997 manifesto didn’t state would be two-question) was an example of “jiggery-pokery”?
#49 by Jeff on October 26, 2011 - 10:46 am
Not so. One can be in favour of Devo Max irrespective of one’s view on independence. One can hardly be in favour of a Parliament having tax-varying powers and not in favour of a Parliament!
It is a false comparison that is being drawn between 97 and this potential two-question independence referendum.
#50 by Colin on October 26, 2011 - 11:21 am
I don’t see the difference. In 1997, there were three options on offer: devolution with tax-raising powers; devolution without tax-raising powers; and no change. The hypothetical referendum under discussion would also have three options on offer. If presenting the latter as two questions is an attempt to obfuscate, so was the former.
Of course it’s not possible simultaneously to support no parliament, but tax-varying powers. But it’s also not possible simultaneously to support independence and devo max. Despite that, you could still vote yes to both. You would do this if independence was your first choice, but in the event that vote doesn’t go your way, you would prefer devo max to no change. Same applied in 1997: you would vote no-yes if you don’t want a parliament, but if one is to be established, you want it to have tax-varying powers to prevent it being merely an expensive talking shop.
#51 by Jeff on October 26, 2011 - 11:23 am
You’re just comparing numbers with numbers. Of course 3 = 3 but the difference is more subtle than that and, I maintain, is not a little deal given the importance of the question(s) being asked.
Again, I ask you to compare if Devo Max can occur without independence with whether a Parliament’s tax varying powers can occur without a Parliament.
#52 by Colin on October 26, 2011 - 11:47 am
I didn’t just compare numbers. I responded to your objection. Both referenda contain a combination comprising mutually exclusive options: no parliament plus tax-varying powers; and independence plus devo max. Although these combinations cannot be implemented, you can still vote for them, and I suggested reasons why you may do so.
#53 by Sandy Brownlee on October 26, 2011 - 12:05 pm
I think one could vote “no” to devolution but “yes” to tax varying powers.
Say you’re happy with the UK parly running things, you’d vote no on the first option – but if there “has” to be a devolved parly you’d rather it had some financial accountability for its actions than just being given a block grant with no power to raise money itself. (okay – so in the end the tax varying power turned out to be very limited and unused, but I don’t think that was known at the time)
Pingback: Aye, Aye? Naw! | BaffieBox
#54 by James on October 25, 2011 - 8:46 am
Of course, the solution to this problem is to have just a straightforward Yes/No on independence or to hold a 3-pronged referendum by STV.
Quite. But it appears Salmond won’t dare either of those approaches.
#55 by Indy on October 25, 2011 - 8:58 am
Yes because Alex Salmond is really lacking in nerve lol.
At some point other partiies in Scotland are going to realise that the referendum campaign has already started.
We are not kidding about speaking to every single household in Scotland over the next few years.
Other politicians can continue to go on sniping from the sidelines or they can start doing the same thing and actually speak to real people about what they want for the future of their country because it is the people who are going to decide.
Your choice.
#56 by James on October 25, 2011 - 12:12 pm
If you are able to reassure me that the people will have any say on what form of independence gets offered (i.e. what constitution), or even a commitment that the constitution of an independent Scotland would be written by the people rather than by one party, then yes, the people are going to decide.
#57 by Rev. S. Campbell on October 25, 2011 - 12:18 pm
“a commitment that the constitution of an independent Scotland would be written by the people rather than by one party”
Explain to us how that one would work out in practice.
#58 by James on October 25, 2011 - 12:21 pm
A constitutional convention. It’s not that odd. Here’s one model.
#59 by Rev. S. Campbell on October 25, 2011 - 12:35 pm
Not sure you meant to link to the story we’re already commenting on, unless it was a meta-point far too clever for me. But how would the make-up of this convention be determined? The only democratic way would be according to Holyrood votes, at which point it’s effectively one-party anyway.
#60 by James on October 25, 2011 - 12:39 pm
The story I linked to above is about the Icelandic constitutional process. If the link doesn’t work for you, google that if you like. And if this is a purely party project, as you seem to want, it’ll go down. It needs to be crossparty and inspirational to the many people (including me) who are pro independence but oppose the bulk of the SNP’s other policies. You can’t win a “Holyrood 2011 Pt. 2” campaign on this.
#61 by Rev. S. Campbell on October 25, 2011 - 12:46 pm
No, you link points here, whether in Firefox on PC or Safari on my iPod:
http://www.betternation.org/2011/10/what-does-yes-yes-mean-in-the-independence-referendum/
“And if this is a purely party project, as you seem to want, it’ll go down.”
I see no *practical* way of achieving it other than by the Scottish Parliament (in practice, the Scottish Government) negotiating with the UK government. The Scottish Government should of course listen to any reasonable proposals from the other parties, but at the end of the day they are the democratic authority, having already been elected on a comprehensive manifesto. Otherwise the Tories (for example) could just stall the process until we’re all dead.
What’s the alternative? Another referendum, with 500 questions, debating each individual clause of the independence treaty?
#62 by James on October 25, 2011 - 1:01 pm
Bugger. Misplaced quotation marks. My fault. Sorry.
#63 by @dhothersall on October 25, 2011 - 12:49 pm
This is a key point for SNP folk to digest. This debate needs to transcend party barriers – not least because there are Labour voters who support independence, as well as there being SNP voters who don’t.
#64 by Rev. S. Campbell on October 25, 2011 - 1:12 pm
“This is a key point for SNP folk to digest. This debate needs to transcend party barriers – not least because there are Labour voters who support independence, as well as there being SNP voters who don’t.”
Sorry, but that’s a paragraph of empty gibberish. What does it mean? Labour voters who support independence should vote for it, SNP voters who oppose independence should vote against it. There’s nothing to “digest” – a referendum is a single-issue vote which by its very nature already transcends party affiliation.
There are no party whips forcing anyone to vote against their conscience – you vote according to whether you want independence or not, not according to what your normal party of choice says. Although at present that’s a bit of a moot point anyway, since nobody knows what Labour’s position actually is.
#65 by Jeff on October 25, 2011 - 1:18 pm
It ‘should’ be empty gibberish but are you suggesting Rev that the independence debate thus far has been one that has transcended party lines?
Some parties still want to win the referendum in order to get one over the SNP rather than to actually win something that they believe in. That said, I think it’s something for non-SNP parties to digest rather than the SNP who would obviously welcome any pro-independence politician to their campaign camp, regardless of what party they are from.
For me, to take the political partisan standpoints out of it, there should be what I like to call ‘polo shirt politics’. Take the formality out of the discussion and it becomes less about political ping-pong and more about an open and honest discussion.
For example, the day after Brown got battered in the European election, he stupidly went on Andrew Marr with his top button done and his tie pulled up tight, still trying to talk political gobbledygok to a bewildered audience. He should have turned up in his casual clothes and just did the whole ‘yep, I just got smashed and need to take that on board’ schtick. (I hope that makes sense as a comparison, it does to me at least)
#66 by Rev. S. Campbell on October 25, 2011 - 1:24 pm
“are you suggesting Rev that the independence debate thus far has been one that has transcended party lines?”
I actually don’t think there’s been a debate thus far. Nobody knows what Labour or the Lib Dems stand for, and the SNP and Tory positions have been pretty much set in stone for the last 50 years.
All we’ve really seen so far is Salmond sitting back and watching the Unionists repeatedly blast away at their own feet, eg Michael Moore’s increasingly idiotic interventions such as this week’s one in which he accidentally announced that an independent Scotland would have been tens of billions better off in the last 30 years…
#67 by Indy on October 25, 2011 - 12:50 pm
Get on with it then.
Why is the SNP expected to do absolutely everything?
That’s a genuine question.
We’re expected to decide what Devo Max is and what question should be on the ballot paper, we’re expected to come up with a constitutional convention because you want one, we’re expected to run the country at the same time lol.
Seriously – if you want to set up a constitutional convention then go ahead. Who exactly is stopping you?
#68 by Gryff on October 25, 2011 - 8:58 am
This is a question I last heard discussed in relation to the last strike ballot I participated in.
There were two questions, and whilst I can’t remember the wording the gist was:
Do you want to participate in action short of a strike? Yes / No
Do you want to participate in a strike? Yes / No
Inevitably action short of a strike received more votes, the more conservative option on a two vote paper almost always would, again I can’t remember the numbers but lets say 80%, compared to the second questions 60%.
At the time people asked why the strike was considered to have won, and the answer was that, by a simple majority, the union had voted for strike action. If you unpack the 80% who might have voted for action short of a strike, you can assume, sparing the odd atypical voter, that this included the same 60% of union members who voted for a strike. And so only 20% of voters wanted action short of a strike but NOT strike action.
In a devo max/independence vote the numbers would boil the same way, if devo max had the support of 100% of those balloted, and indy only 50.1% then still those voting for dm who did not also want independence if it was an option, would be less than those who voted for independence.
There may be other political considerations, and it may be worth considering the framing of the questions, to make sure everyone voting knows what they are voting for, but from a simple, what does the vote mean point of view, the situation is entirely straightforward.
#69 by BaffieBox on October 25, 2011 - 9:01 am
While a 3-pronged referendum by STV is “cleaner”, is it really “better”? I think the STV option is even less likely to be endorsed by the Unionists as it has even more chance of returning DevoMax (compared to a two-question referendum) since it champions the “greys” rather than the black and whites.
The result of the referendum needs to be loud and clear. Im not really sure proportional systems like STV give clear verdicts… while punishing worst cases, they are forgiving to least-worst options.
Still, irrelevant if no Unionist party wants to campaign for DevoMax… 😉
#70 by Jean on October 25, 2011 - 9:10 am
The SNP leadership have manoeuvred themselves into a great strategic position.
They can present themselves as opening-up the debate rather than closing it down. Facilitating a devo max option puts pressure on the Labour Party to define what devo max is, whether they’re going to campaign for it, and, if so, agree with the UK Government on theoretical implementation. If you think the Tories are divided over Europe then wait until you see the Labour Party – activists, MSPs, MPs – fight it out on whether to campaign for devo max or the status quo.
All the while, the SNP get on with campaigning on much more easy to understand and present Independence.
As time goes on, perhaps in a couple of years, the pressure may grow to have a straight in-out question only; at which point the SNP will “concede” that, thereby arriving at their preferred position looking magnanimous and having enjoyed free reign to campaign while the other parties tied themselves in knots over devo max.
For Independence supporters, one eventual question or two, is win-win!
James – do you support devo max?
#71 by Doug Daniel on October 25, 2011 - 9:21 am
Going by everything I’ve seen and read about the conference, I get the feeling it’s highly unlikely something so basic will trip the SNP up. Every possible outcome will have been scrutinised to ensure there is no way to screw things up. Remember that we don’t actually know the format yet – it hasn’t even been confirmed that there will be a third option, just that Salmond is open to the idea of having it on there. If the more progressive-minded unionists can’t define devo max adequately, then it would be irresponsible to include it on the referendum anyway.
If it is indeed a two question format, I expect it would be something like this (although perhaps a bit more formally worded):
1. Should Scotland become independent?
2. If not, should we have devo max?
or
1. Should Scotland have all tax raising and spending powers devolved?
2. Should Scotland in fact just have ALL powers devolved?
Style one is basically treating the second question as a fall back in case the first question doesn’t get a majority. Style two treats the second question as leading on from question one. Either way, all that is required is a “YES” majority for the independence question. Surely the only way of mucking up the result would be to have the questions:
1. Do you think Scotland should become independent?
2. Do you think Scotland should be maximally devolved?
That would be a weird way of wording it anyway.
#72 by oldchap on October 25, 2011 - 9:23 am
This is what I mean below. Except better put!
#73 by Jeff on October 25, 2011 - 9:40 am
I do like the obedient mindset of – because something has arisen related to the referendum, it means de facto that the SNP has already thought of it.
Anyway, if the question is what you suggest and (say) I had a strong preference for Devo Max but still preferred independence over the status quo, are you suggesting that I should tactically vote ‘No-Yes’? That just strikes me as odd somehow, but maybe it’s an unavoidable quirk of the question.
I still think STV or a straight Yes/No would give a clearer result.
#74 by Indy on October 25, 2011 - 9:52 am
The SNP patently has already thoought of it Jeff since they have already published a consultation on it.
If you support Devo Max then you vote Yes to that. If you prefer Devo Max over Independence then you vote No to Independence.
Seems pretty simple to me.
#75 by Jeff on October 25, 2011 - 9:57 am
Fair enough, but STV would eradicate any confusion and the 2007 election showed quite clearly the levels of confusion that can arise north of the border.
It strikes me that the SNP is trying to maximise its chances of winning the 1st vote at the expense of the fairest, clearest possible result.
And furthermore, if the result for independence was 50.1% and the result for Devo Max was 95%, would you still say that was a mandate for full independence?
#76 by BaffieBox on October 25, 2011 - 10:12 am
Will STV deliver a clear result though? Its all very well talking about support for DevoMax being above the 90 percentile, but is that likely given hostility of that option from the main parties. Once you introduce STV, the referendum is reduced to a hue of grey’s – not something thats likely to bring closure to the constitutional debate.
Also, given the lucid commentary already on this issue, is 50.1% and 95% a realistic outcome? Once this debate gets underway, why on earth would the electorate give Independence a majority but also vote overwhelmingly for a DevoMax option that keeps us in the UK.
The Unionists are revelling in making up numbers they think suits their agenda… because they dont have one. Their question is just as relevant if 50.1% vote for Independence and 50.1% vote for DevoMax-in-the-UK. Someone needs to support and define DevoMax for any of this to have relevance.
#77 by Indy on October 25, 2011 - 10:15 am
Yes.
If 50.1 per cent of people voted for Independence that is a majority.
#78 by Doug Daniel on October 25, 2011 - 10:54 am
Ha! Not obedient as such, I just feel Salmond and his team have earned the right to generally be given the benefit of the doubt (although perhaps more by party members than by other people), and basically the slickness of the SNP campaigning machine suggests it would be surprising if such a fundamental problem hadn’t been thought of already.
I see what you’re saying now in terms of someone having a preference for devo max over independence, but being happy enough for independence to come about if that’s what happens. The STV mechanism would allow for preference to be indicated (although it still wouldn’t differentiate between someone who really prefers devo max over independence and someone who just slightly does), however, how would a single yes/no question represent the views of this person any better than the two questions? Besides, I think the campaign for independence will be such that, by the end of it, you’ll either be very much in favour of it, or you won’t be.
Devo max is a poor man’s independence, and I think that will be made abundantly clear by the time people go to vote, regardless of how many questions there are. I would suggest that anyone who doesn’t want the current set up and would settle for independence – but really thinks the ideal scenario is half-arsed independence – would be in a minority.
#79 by James on October 25, 2011 - 12:14 pm
Hilariously, might this anxiety lead some die-hard nationalists to vote yes to independence and no to devo max so the final result looks more clear?
#80 by Doug Daniel on October 25, 2011 - 12:25 pm
Possibly! I suspect the most die-hard of die-hards won’t even be doing it for tactical reasons – they simply will not accept devo max…
#81 by Gryff on October 25, 2011 - 3:31 pm
You wouldn’t be asked to express a preference between the two, and there would be no way of doing so. That may be a shame, but it is not because the questions is unclear.
If you prefer devomax to the status quo, you vote yes in that question, if you prefer independence to the status quo you vote yes in that one.
#82 by Jeff on October 25, 2011 - 3:37 pm
So I vote Yes, Yes even if I have a strong preference for Devo Max? Someone told me earlier I should vote No, Yes.
I agree this problem is not because the questions are unclear, but it is as a result of the questions not being flexible enough to reflect the full range of public opinion out there. The power that be (the SNP) can ensure that that range of opinion is reflected or it can’t. Simple as that.
#83 by oldchap on October 25, 2011 - 9:22 am
It’s good that the possibility of another question is there – I’m all in favour of giving people as much choice as possible in having their say. Of course – take that far enough and it’s a pretty big ballot paper.
I think it would depend on how the questions are put. If the questions were 1. independence? 2. devomax?, then one might take the view that it is similar to the 97 referendum in that: question 1 asks whether there should be a change, then question 2 asks whether that change should be taken further. Of course – as Jeff says – this is a bit different, though I imagine any vote result on this will be contested by the losing side. This is why the wording of the questions are critical – it has to be highly explicit what people are saying yes or no to.
Maybe it could just be clear that devomax is a fall-back option, so the questions are 1. independence? 2. in the event of a “no” to 1, devomax? Though possibly more wordy than that 🙂
#84 by Indy on October 25, 2011 - 9:27 am
A draft referendum bill has already been published chaps. Start from that basis. Of course it is suscepible to change and since other parties are currently engaged in internal debates about devo max etc the position what the devo max question would actually say is as clear as mud. But the structure of how the questions could be asked has already been put out to consultation.
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Government/Elections/rbc/
#85 by Malc on October 25, 2011 - 9:52 am
Jings. The world might end. I agree with Indy!
The SNP started talking about 3 options (Indy, Devo-Max & Status Quo) as far back as the original 2007 National Conversation White Paper. They’ve got the thing thought out already – its just the likes of Tom Harris didn’t actually read the stuff when it was published and now they’re trying to play catch-up.
Its all there already. Whether you agree with their methods/ strategy/ plans or not is a different thing entirely I will grant you – but they’ve clearly thought this through. They’ve had four years of thinking on it.
#86 by setindarkness on October 25, 2011 - 10:20 am
I like this guy – he should do a guest post or something!
#87 by DougtheDug on October 25, 2011 - 9:55 am
There seems to be a failure to understand that the SNP can’t unilaterally put a Devo-Max option on the ballot paper. There’s simply no point because they can’t implement it if it is chosen.
The only parties who can write that Devo-Max option are the Conservatives, Labour and the Lib-Dems acting in concert because they are the only parties who can deliver it in Westminster and unless it can be delivered then it’s just a wish-list.
The SNP could put in a Devo-Max question which only leaves Defence and Foreign Affairs to Westminster but if Westminster decides they don’t like it then it won’t happen. As long as Scotland is still part of the UK under Devo-Max then the Westminster Government will look at Devo-Max in the context of the UK and in terms of what they want out of it not in terms of what Scotland wants.
Since there have been no formal or informal talks between the three British parties on what powers they want for Devo-Max or even if they want it at all it looks like a dead-duck option to me. It’s not going to happen.
#88 by Jeff on October 25, 2011 - 10:02 am
The SNP can implement independence just as easily as they can implement Devo Max so I don’t take your point that the SNP is powerless to add Devo Max is an option. It simply wants the unionists to do it because it puts them in a difficult situation, which is perfectly valid and reasonable.
#89 by Indy on October 25, 2011 - 10:23 am
The difference is Jeff that successive UK Governments have said they will accept a Yes vote in a referendum on Independence as a mandate for Scotland to become independent.
They have not said the same thing about Devo Max.
There’s also the minor point of course that we support Independence and that’s what we’ll be campaigning for. We can’t really campaign for Devo Max as well and I just don’t see how it could work in practical terms if we include an option of Devo Max on the ballot paper and there’s no-one out there campaigning for it and all the devolution parties and the UK Government is agin it. It would just be a bit silly.
#90 by DougtheDug on October 25, 2011 - 10:40 am
Jeff:
The SNP can implement independence just as easily as they can implement Devo Max
No. They have a right under international law to implement independence but no powers whatsoever within the Union to implement Devo-Max.
Article 1 in both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)[14] and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).[15] Both read: “All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.”
Nothing is ever certain, but under the above quote the SNP have a right to negotiate independence if the independence question wins the referendum.
If the Devo-Max option wins then it’s up to Westminster to decide if they want to implement all, part or none of the powers defined in that option.
The SNP have all the power they like to add Devo-Max to the ballot paper as it’s their referendum but it is simply a wish list unless the three Westminster parties agree to it. Independence can be taken, Devo-Max is in the gift of Westminster.
The SNP can put what they like in the Devo-Max option but they do not have the power to implement it and therefore it is simply pointless to put it on the paper as a second unionist option in addition to the status quo.
#91 by Rev. S. Campbell on October 25, 2011 - 10:43 am
“The SNP can implement independence just as easily as they can implement Devo Max”
Eh? Of course they can’t. The SNP has no power to implement devo-max at all, because you can’t unilaterally impose terms on a union while remaining within it. They CAN, however, implement independence, because the Scottish people are sovereign and if they express their will to leave the Union then the Parliament is fully empowered to implement it. Westminster has no right in law whatsoever to reject Scotland’s withdrawal from the Union, but it has every right to refuse to accept dictated terms for remaining within it.
#92 by Jeff on October 25, 2011 - 10:50 am
Yes, and how would that work in practice?
Right Mr Cameron, we’ll have the oil money thanks, and 10% of the assets and liabilities and a big cash lump sum for our share of nuclear weapons, DVLA, the BBC and all other British icons out there. It comes to £40bn, a cheque will be fine.
No chance. A theoretical right to self-determination is one thing. Negotiating decent terms is quite another and would be as likely, probably less likely, to come to a decent solution as negotiating FFA while still within the UK would.
#93 by Rev. S. Campbell on October 25, 2011 - 10:59 am
The niceties are irrelevant. The UK government has already accepted the principle that a vote for independence means independence (because it has no choice). If the electorate vote for it, it will happen, whether amicably or messily.
The UK government has no obligation of any kind to accept a vote for devo max, though. It can simply turn around and say “Sod off”, which is more or less what it’s already done. In May, with an overwhelming mandate, Salmond went to Westminster and asked for a variety of powers, every one of which was backed by a majority of the electorate (because everything he asked for was supported by at least one of the Unionist parties as well as the SNP). Cameron rejected all but one of them out of hand, and was perfectly within his rights to do so.
There will be no devo-max option unless it is accepted in advance by the UK government, and the chances of that happening are close to nil.
#94 by Jeff on October 25, 2011 - 11:03 am
“The niceties are irrelevant. The UK government has already accepted the principle that a vote for independence means independence (because it has no choice). If the electorate vote for it, it will happen, whether amicably or messily.”
It is unthinkable for the same to not be the case for Devo Max if it received a clear majority. Cameron would have no option but to cede to the Scottish public, whatever the result, if someone, somewhere has the will to include it on the ballot slip which, I agree with you, there is no guarantee of at all.
#95 by Rev. S. Campbell on October 25, 2011 - 11:08 am
“It is unthinkable for the same to not be the case for Devo Max if it received a clear majority. Cameron would have no option but to cede to the Scottish public, ”
As I’ve just illustrated, he absolutely wouldn’t. He’s already demonstrated that exact thing in the face of a clear democratic mandate. If he thinks something is against the interests of the UK as a whole, it’s not only his right but his DUTY to refuse it, regardless of what a small minority of the UK population (the Scots) wants.
So long as we vote to remain within the UK, we have no special rights. Our wishes will be weighed against those of the 60 million UK inhabitants who AREN’T Scottish, and quite properly so.
#96 by Jeff on October 25, 2011 - 11:13 am
Fair enough, I certainly follow your logic. I guess I’m just giving the Prime Minister more credit than you are and, quite possibly, more than he deserves.
#97 by Rev. S. Campbell on October 25, 2011 - 11:21 am
On the contrary, I’m giving him plenty of credit. His duty is to all of the 65 million people of the UK, and if he acts in what he perceives to be their interests rather than those of the small fraction of them who are Scottish, I have no complaints at all with that, even if it means his rejecting powers I think the Scots should have and which the Scots have voted for.
I mean, he hasn’t waived all rights over reserved matters just because the Tories and Lib Dems were overwhelmingly rejected in Scotland in 2010, has he?
#98 by Indy on October 25, 2011 - 11:21 am
It would work in practice the same way that it has worked in every other country which has become independent.
It’s not like Scotland would be the first ever country to do that.
But the political point that I don’t think you’re getting is that a vote for independence is a vote to return sovereignty to Scotland. A vote for devo max is a vote to keep sovereignty at Westminster.
It is really not unthinkable for Westminster to say No. They probably wouldn’t say No to everything but equally they would be highly unlikely to agree to everything.
#99 by Jean on October 25, 2011 - 12:25 pm
Jeff I have to add my voice to those that say that devo max is not something for Scotland to decide alone.
If the Unionist parties, in particular Labour, develop a formulation for devo max it has to be with the agreement of Westminster that, broadly speaking, such a settlement is acceptable to them. Having all revenues – including oil & gas – going to Scottish authorities within the UK while retaining foreign, military and monetary affairs at Westminster is not something to which I think a majority of English MPs would agree. It would require fundamental change to RUK governance structures.
On-the-other-hand, I feel certain that the UK Parliament would feel obliged to negotiate in good faith on Independence.
Here I think we have to realise our trump-card and prepare expectations among SNP supporters. The RUK will likely wish to retain nuclear weapons but the facilities to host them simply do not at present exist outwith Scotland. Part of the negotiation will involve the question of how long the Scottish Government allows an RUK naval base on the Clyde to remain while other facilities are built (imagine the furore in the south of England when they realise they are the next best place!).
I suspect a deal for a transition period of about a decade will be agreed before nuclear weapons are transferred. If the RUK try to push unduely harsh terms the Scottish Government can say “OK, then remove the nuclear weapons immediately.” RUK would be in an impossible position.
In addition, independence negotiations will attract very significant international interest and sympathy generally lies with the under-dog. The RUK would be loath to pursue terms that reflected badly on it when it will be at it’s weakest ever internationally and open to challenge – think UN security council seat.
The bottom line is that when it comes to negotiations both governments must act in good faith.
#100 by Jeff on October 25, 2011 - 1:25 pm
Jean, very good points. I agree with the trump card and agree that international sympathies would be on our side.
I don’t agree that the unionist parties necessarily have to square Devo Max with their ‘London masters’ (sorry, went all Alex Salmond for a moment there). There’s nothing to stop the question being asked within Scotland and then leaving what happens next as an open-ended unanswered question.
I suppose, now I think about it more, there is no distinct meaning of ‘Devo Max’ and can cover quite a few eventualities so it would be good to know that in advance but, well, you could say the same about independence which could take many, many forms and it seems unlkely that we’ll know in advance of the referendum what Scotland would end up with.
#101 by Rev. S. Campbell on October 25, 2011 - 1:37 pm
“There’s nothing to stop the question being asked within Scotland and then leaving what happens next as an open-ended unanswered question.”
Technically there isn’t, since it’s only a consultative referendum anyway, but in reality such a move would be crippled by a massive credibility gap. Given the attitude David Cameron’s already displayed towards being asked nicely with a democratic mandate – which you and I have already discussed elsewhere on this thread, and is a perfectly legitimate thing for him to do – who’s going to vote for an option which is nothing more than wishful thinking, and will with near certainty be refused?
You might as well have a referendum with these three options:
1. Status quo
2. Independence
3. Write to Jim’ll Fix It and hope for the best.
#102 by DougtheDug on October 25, 2011 - 1:39 pm
There’s nothing to stop the question being asked within Scotland and then leaving what happens next as an open-ended unanswered question.
I’m sorry Jeff, that is possibly the maddest proposal I’ve heard so far.
It’s like the cargo cults in the Pacific building ritual airstrips and aircraft in the hope it would attract the military back to the islands after the Second World War.
If we list the powers in a Devo-Max question, they will come. They will come.
#103 by Jean on October 25, 2011 - 2:30 pm
Unfortunately we disagree Jeff. I think the question of what it means to be an independent European state is reasonably well defined – and the SNP in particular and Scots in general are more comfortable with post-Westphalian sovereignty than RUK… witness yesterday’s HoC EU debate. Where we agree is that devo max has, as yet, no distinct meaning.
If you like you can read my comment at #51 – I think the Unionists (especially Labour) will be lost in a Labyrinth in search of a devo max definition whilst simultaneously fighting against their own fraternity (Mr Harris and his ilk) about whether to even some down in favour of it or stick, resolutely, to the status quo.
In the end, I suspect there will be one in-out question on the ballot paper with the pro-independence campaign way ahead by the end of 2014. Tempus fugit
#104 by Indy on October 25, 2011 - 10:19 am
Yes that is true – it is up to them and it’s not looking all that good right now.
But we are talking in principle about how we could include a question on Full Devolution or Devo Max or whatever in a referendum and I think we could do it in a fairly straightforward way which would be easily understood by voters.
#105 by Stuart Winton on October 25, 2011 - 11:52 am
Alex Salmond is using devo-max to hedge his bets. He’ll wait to see which way the wind is blowing before he decides on it.
If classic independence looks winnable he won’t undermine that possibility by offering a third option.
However, if it doesn’t look winnable then he’ll include the devo-max option because that very probaly will be winnable.
Hence the reason he’s non-commital at this stage and the onus is being put on the unionists to come up with a devo-max proposal – if he wants such an option then he’ll just go for it, while if he doesn’t then it’ll just be the usual trick of saying the unionists are crap, hence so is their devo-max proposal.
Of course, all the Nationalist rhetoric at the moment is about devo-max giving Scotland a choice, but that choice will be offloaded as soon as if it looks like hindering the SNP’s preferred option.
Good question about a double-yes victory though Jeff.
#106 by Holebender on October 25, 2011 - 1:06 pm
It’s amusing how all the losers of May’s election “know” what the winners are going to do without the tiniest scintilla of evidence. Despite the evidence, in most cases.
#107 by Alexander Belic on October 25, 2011 - 12:01 pm
Just playing devil’s advocate (stirring) here, but if the SNP (and the Greens, SSP et al) support independence and theUnionists agree on a Devo Max option then why even have the status quo as an option when no party will be campaigning for it?
Why not have one question Yes means independence, No means Devomax?
#108 by James on October 25, 2011 - 12:18 pm
Good point! Worth a guest blogpost?!
#109 by DougtheDug on October 25, 2011 - 12:25 pm
It’s an interesting idea but there will be the same problem with the Devo-Max option as before.
Unless it is
a) set out clearly what Devo-Max actually means in terms of powers, and
b) That the three Westminster Parties guarantee to implement those powers
then it will be nothing more than a wish-list and not worth the paper it is written on.
#110 by Doug Daniel on October 25, 2011 - 12:37 pm
I’ve wondered about this before, where the country has clearly reached a consensus that something has to change, but giving the public the option to say what that change will be.
However, I think you’ll find there will be no problem finding people to campaign for the status quo – remember that the Tories do actually exist in Scotland, they’re just not very popular. Same goes for Tom Harris.
#111 by Rev. S. Campbell on October 25, 2011 - 12:39 pm
It’s a fun thought, but as all four prospective Scottish Tory leaders last night unanimously and unequivocally rejected a devo-max question, that’s all it is.
#112 by Indy on October 25, 2011 - 12:54 pm
Because people who want to retain the status quo have a right to be able to vote for that. You can’t set up a referendum which would give people the option of two forms of change placed against each other but no option not to change.
#113 by Don McC on October 25, 2011 - 7:13 pm
Well, for starters, the Unionists don’t agree on Devo Max. Not a single Unionist party is in favour of it or even willing to define what it would mean. In fact, they’re all demanding Salmond defines it.
#114 by Indy on October 25, 2011 - 12:03 pm
The outcome of a vote of 33 per cent for the status quo, 33 per cent for devo max and 34 per cent for independence would mean that the status quo would prevail – and I would argue that you don’t need a question on the status quo because if both devo max and independence are rejected then the status quo remains.
If the outcome was 49% devo max, 49% independence and 2% status quo then again the status quo would remain in place as no option for change had received over 50 per cent of the vote. But I would say that outcome would be highly unlikely.
Whatever the case whatever option received above 50 per cent of the vote would win. So if devo max got above 50 per cent of the vote it would win and if independence got above 50 per cent of the vote it would also win. Perhaps that is what people have an issue with but it’s perfectly logical as I see it.
Doug Daniel:
Right, and what happens when the result is 33% status quo, 33% devo max and 34% independence? Good luck convincing die-hard unionists that that would represent a majority.
Or what if it is 49% devo max, 49% independence and 2% status quo? Who wins that one?
#115 by Doug Daniel on October 25, 2011 - 12:40 pm
It is indeed perfectly logical. However, it wouldn’t be the first time unionists had a problem with logic when it comes to Scottish independence.
#116 by Indy on October 25, 2011 - 12:43 pm
How can Devo Max and Independence be mutually exclusive?
Whatever transfer of powers was put together under the heading of Devo Max – let’s say for example the transfer of broadcasting, energy, taxation, benefits and pensions – those powers would also be transferred under Independence.
So they are not mutually exclusive. If you want to see those powers transferred from the Westminster Parliament to the Scottish Parliament you vote Yes.
If you also want to see the transfer of every other power – e.g. defence, foreign policy, monetary policy etc – then you would also vote Yes to independence.
On the other hand if you want to see those powers retained by Westminster then you would vote No to independence.
If you don’t want to see any change you vote No to both questions.
I think the idea that people would get into some kind of tactical haze where they wanted to retain the status quo but then voted for devo max because they preferred that to independence is a piece of nonsense. If you want to vote for the status quo vote No to both Devo Max and Independence. Nobody should end up voting for something they don’t want or believe in.
Equally the idea that you have to choose between voting for Devo Max or Independence. you can’t vote for both, is wrong-headed in my view. You should be able to vote for both, it shouldn’t be an all or nothing approach.
#117 by Rev. S. Campbell on October 25, 2011 - 1:19 pm
“How can Devo Max and Independence be mutually exclusive?”
They CAN be, but only if the question is deliberately worded that way (ie the devo-max option is “Do you want Scotland to have extra powers X, Y and Z but remain within the UK?”). I think it’s safe to say that the chances of the SNP allowing that to happen are somewhere in the realm of Scotland being invaded by Westerm Samoa tomorrow.
The professed objections of unionists like Duncan are inescapably founded on the presumption that the Scottish electorate is comprised in substantial part of morons, incapable of understanding two questions with four (in reality three) possible permutations of answers. I have more confidence in my people than that.
#118 by @dhothersall on October 25, 2011 - 1:53 pm
Stu, you need to stop this belligerent attitude and most of all this tendency to put words in the mouths of others. Nowhere have I suggested or implied anything you claim. I have said that if there are three options the natural solution is to offer people a choice between them.
You yourself have identified that the two-question alternative is unnecessarily complex: “two questions with four (in reality three) possible permutations”. Why not just present the three possible permutations?
I say again, more honest debate please, and less misrepresentation.
#119 by Indy on October 25, 2011 - 2:08 pm
We are presenting the three possible outcomes and saying that if either Devo Max or Independence receives more than 50 per cent of the vote then it wins.
This you describe as jiggery pokery, transparently false arguments and claim that ” The SNP are trying to rig the question in their favour.”
If we wanted to do that Duncan it would be a straight yes-no. Independence or status quo. And that is probably how it will end up.
#120 by Rev. S. Campbell on October 25, 2011 - 2:13 pm
“Why not just present the three possible permutations?”
For the reasons I’ve already explained to you. A three-way exclusive choice forces artificial decisions which may not represent people’s true views. A two-question referendum, on the other hand, allows everyone’s views to be expressed precisely and completely.
(Although perhaps you can clarify for us whether you actually DO want a three-way exclusive choice, or an STV fiddle? You seem to be moving the goalposts around a lot on that one.)
“Nowhere have I suggested or implied anything you claim.”
You described a two-question referendum as “jiggery-pokery”, which clearly implies it’s designed to bewilder people into voting for things they don’t want. In fact it’s the simplest way possible in logic of allowing people to accurately express their positions.
#121 by Jeff on October 25, 2011 - 2:16 pm
Two questions is not the clearest way. If a person’s preferences are Devo Max, then independence and then the status quo, you would have them vote No-Yes but they would be voting No to independence when they actually prefer it over the status quo.
In STV, this same person can just rank their preferences 1, 2, 3 and they can be safe in the knowledge that their views are being fully met by the voting system.
Ne c’est pas?
#122 by Rev. S. Campbell on October 25, 2011 - 2:27 pm
In principle you’re absolutely right, but we all know this is a two-way fight not a three-way one, and in this particular scenario – specifically, where one of the two “real” options is a wholly-enclosed subset of the other one – STV is a totally rigged deck.
People can of course ask for it all they want, but expecting the SNP to deliver it is tooth-fairy stuff, and it would be the same with any other party in charge of any similar vote. Anyone suggesting otherwise is deluded at best, and intelligence-insultingly dishonest at worst.
#123 by Indy on October 25, 2011 - 2:27 pm
Yes it is the clearest way Jeff when you are providing people with more than two options.
With very few exceptions referendums present voters with a proposal for a change, whether to the constitution or anything else, and they have the option to vote yes or no.
If we have two proposals on the ballot papetr (or ballot papers if you prefer) one for full independence and one for enhanced devolution then we are suggesting that voters are given the option of voting yes or no to both of those options and if either one or both achieves over 50 per cent of the vote then it is passed.
You and others here seem determined that thios should not be allowed, that the referendum should be designed so that there can only be a single winner out of a multiple choice. Why you are so determined to do this I have no idea but it’s not going to happen.
#124 by Holebender on October 25, 2011 - 3:21 pm
How on earth can we change the constitution without a clear majority? Your suggestion could lead to the winning outcome getting 33.334% of the votes. Do you really think Westminster would accept breaking up the UK on the basis of 33.334% of the votes cast?
Surely you can see that clear majority outcomes are preferable to the mess your proposal would produce? Two questions with binary yes/no results will guarantee unambiguous majorities. The only question then to settle is how you rank those outcomes, and the only logical way is to say independence trumps FFA. Why? Because every independence supporter will have also voted FFA, so you would really have to subtract those votes to see the true support for FFA only. Also, and this is an equally valid reason, this will be the SNP’s referendum so, like it or not, the SNP gets to make the rules and the SNP will say independence trumps FFA – May’s result assures that.
#125 by Holebender on October 25, 2011 - 12:44 pm
Type your comment here
What evidence do you have that Salmond won’t dare either of those approaches? Did you actually listen to his speech on Saturday? Have you read the transcript? There’s no ambiguity, it is laid out very clearly; there will be a yes/no referendum on independence. If someone can make a convincing case for devo-max, and can define it, the government will consider favourably the idea of including that as an option, but that is for others to champion.
There is no indication anywhere of drawing back from the yes/no independence referendum. It will be held, and campaigning has already begun. You ignore that at your peril.
#126 by Doug Daniel on October 25, 2011 - 1:20 pm
“There is no indication anywhere of drawing back from the yes/no independence referendum. It will be held, and campaigning has already begun. You ignore that at your peril.”
Indeed. The dangling of an as-yet undefined devo max option that splits unionists as to whether they should be campaigning for it or not is a pretty slick move. By the time they’ve decided what to campaign for, managed to come to some sort of agreement as to what devo max would look like and gotten assurances from the UK government that they would indeed transfer whatever powers were specified under devo max, the SNP will have been campaigning for the more straightforward option of independence for months, if not years. By that point, devo max will probably look like old hat anyway, and the general consensus will be that there is no point putting it on the referendum.
Genius.
#127 by Jean on October 25, 2011 - 2:54 pm
When you’re right, you’re right!
#128 by Indy on October 25, 2011 - 1:16 pm
There is this thing called the Independence Convention for people who support independence on a cross-party basis. There could easily be a Devo Max Convention or a Constitutional Convention or whatever else people want to consider options for devolution or to draw up proposals for a written constitution or whatever else they want to contribute to the process. But people really need to do that for themselves. We are actually a political party, we are going to be campaigning for independence and indeed have already started. I am not really much of a one for the Braveheart stuff but I do feel the quote attributed to William Wallace before the Battle of Stirling Bridge is somewhat appropriate – what was it again, I have brought you to the ring, now see if you can dance. We in the SNP have brought us to the referendum ring but now people have to dance their own dance.
#129 by Holebender on October 25, 2011 - 3:29 pm
Actually, Wallace said those fine word before the Battle of Falkirk. I think it was a reference to the new shiltroms he had just introduced to his army – they had done the training but had never actually tried it in battle before.
#130 by Bugger (the Panda) on October 25, 2011 - 2:44 pm
Question 1
Do you want Devo Max with Scotland being responsible for all internal administration and tax powers, External affairs and defence will be the responsibility of the UK Gov.
Question 2
Do you want Devo Max plus full responsibility for external affairs and defence,? That is to say, independence.
#131 by Bugger (the Panda) on October 25, 2011 - 2:54 pm
By the way, can someone define DevoMax to me, in clear and simple terms, and are we sure that this will be the definition of what we will be offered or indeed will be supplied?
#132 by DougtheDug on October 25, 2011 - 3:32 pm
By the way, can someone define DevoMax to me, in clear and simple terms
No
and are we sure that this will be the definition of what we will be offered or indeed will be supplied?
And no again.
#133 by Jeff on October 25, 2011 - 3:39 pm
With Devo Max, English people still have to support Andy Murray at Wimbledon, with independence they are relieved of that duty and we get him to ourselves. Same with Sir Chris Hoy but just a little less so.
I think that’s right anyway.
#134 by Indy on October 25, 2011 - 2:55 pm
It’s quite funny the way this debate has gone because I remember back in 2008/2009 there were great howls of protest when the SNP did discuss preferential voting in the referendum and the argument was made that this would be completely wrong because it would mean that independence could be achieved without majority consent. Accusations of jiggery pokery and rigged referendums abounded. I recall the blogger Scottish Unionist getting particularly agitated.
And then as I recall we kind of accepted that – well we didn’t accept that the proposal was rigged but we accepted that maybe we needed majority support. And now we are back to getting accused of wanting to rig things because we are saying no we are not looking at a preferential referendum but for the proposal or proposals to achieve majority support.
Le plus ca change le plus c’est la meme chose. I guess whatever option we go for we will be accused of trying to rig the result.
Maybe it would be easier just to do a straight yes no to independence after all.
#135 by Jeff on October 25, 2011 - 4:29 pm
I didn’t suggest STV was jiggery pokery back in the day and I would rather hope that those seeking independence would be able to argue down alternative voting methods on the argument’s merits rather than based on ‘well, you said you didn’t want that a few years ago’. Scotland deserves the fairest voting system and, for me, that’s STV.
I seem to remember the SNP won a council by-election by STV, beating the Tories (who won most votes after every other round of voting) in the final round. Are you now suggesting that the SNP candidate wasn’t the most popular option across the piece for that area?
#136 by Holebender on October 25, 2011 - 5:03 pm
STV is great for electing candidates from a list of several, but pointless for making a binary choice.
The constitution is too important to risk even one person accidentally voting as he/she didn’t intend. Yes/no is much more straightforward.
#137 by Jeff on October 25, 2011 - 5:26 pm
But it isn’t a binary choice if Devo Max is added into the mix. There are three options with six permutations of preference. The two questions approach only provides four permutations.
Also, why are Scots more likely to “accidentally vote” for the wrong choice with STV rather than two referendums? One is not more complicated than the other. Indeed, I’d genuinely think STV is easier to understand as it removes the need for tactical voting if one feels strongly about Devo Max.
#138 by Indy on October 25, 2011 - 2:57 pm
Indeed perhaps it would be apt to quote SU’s words to me back on March 2 2009.
“Hypothetically, if as little as 25% of people selected “Independence 1†but if it tipped over into anything over 33.333% after second preferences were added, you would expect the rest of us to accept that as a mandate. Dream on!”
Lol yet now that is what Duncan is arguing for!
#139 by BaffieBox on October 25, 2011 - 4:06 pm
This is exactly what I was alluding to earlier. Using STV for this is a Pandora’s Box that could actually cause many more problems than it solves for everyone involved. While the two-question proposal has the problems Willie Rennie and Jeff have highlighted, Im not really sure they have the same potential for carnage as STV.
The example of 50.1% versus 99% Yes/Yes has little chance of ever happening in the real world – if DevoMax is worded in the context of remaining in the UK, wouldnt 49.1% of the population (at least) have to enter the toll booth and vote for Independence and then vote for remaining in the UK? That is, the entire SNP and Independence vote (give or take the 1%) also voting to stay in the UK?!
That has no chance of happening in reality. Unionists are tying themselves in knots about this stuff when they really should be organising their campaign. Salmond must be sitting sniggering to himself.
#140 by Indy on October 25, 2011 - 4:29 pm
I know. If we seriously went out saying we are going to do this by STV so we could potentially win independence without an overall majority there would be people threatening to take us to court and all sorts. It would be pandemonium lol.
#141 by Jeff on October 25, 2011 - 4:34 pm
How is winning a referendum through STV not winning it with a majority? The whole point of STV when there are more than two options on the table is to find the majority preference!
#142 by Indy on October 25, 2011 - 4:58 pm
Yes OK Jeff – I am not arguing that point. Although in point of fact I do personally believe that it is better to have a straight yes/no format on independence with the majority winning because on an issue as important as that I think you do need to be able to say that most people support Scotland becoming independent rather than it potentially being a combination of 1st and 2nd preferences.
But even leaving that to one side I don’t think it’s a politically acceptable argument. It was floated and well and truly shot down and I think there would be concerns raised about the validity of the ballot if there was a possibility of independence emerging as the winning option if it only got, for example, 35 per cent of 1st preference votes.
Sorry it’s just a non-starter.
#143 by BaffieBox on October 25, 2011 - 4:53 pm
I certainly dont disagree with what you are saying Jeff, but I have reservations that the Unionist bloc would accept a result where first preferences were very close and below 50%.
For example, Independence could win overall, despite DevoMax winning the first preference (if a large proportion of DevoMax voters place Independence as 2nd preference). Very messy and would be interested in hearing Willie Rennie et al indicate how comfortable they are with such a possibility?
I dont have a problem at all with the theory of a STV vote, but I dont think we’d be doing anyone any favours if we encouraged such a vague result.
If it’s going to be beyond the Unionists to define and support DevoMax in the context of a two-question referendum (or trust the electorate to understand the permutations), the only sane outcome is for the Unionists to get a move on and define the fallback position/status quo and we revert to a single question. But even this is fraught with problems – the current status quo will not be the status quo in 2/3 years time, and with some form of fiscal responsibility expected in the near future, they need to try and formulate a vision of Scotland within the UK that might win the vote.
No matter what way you cut this, the Unionist bloc have a hell of a task on their hands. Distracting themselves with the date of the referendum, 2 questions or 1, STV, etc is only undermining their own campaign.
#144 by FDR on October 25, 2011 - 5:58 pm
Jeff I’ll level with you I didn’t read the article ( iPhone is acting up) but from the headline I can tell you the decision to hold a referendum by stv is the worst idea ever! Even worse than the time Richard Attenbourgh made a theme park with live dinosaurs!
#145 by Jeff on October 25, 2011 - 6:26 pm
Well FDR, maybe your thinking is…. ‘prehistoric’.
*pause for laughter*
Seriously, you’re welcome to your view but without any explanation as to why you hold it then I’ll be holding onto mine for now.
There’s been a lot of arms thrown up in the air about STV and yet noone (that I have seen) has put forward a calm, logical rebuttal.
#146 by Rev. S. Campbell on October 25, 2011 - 10:49 pm
Well, the rebuttal is that it’s never going to happen (because it stacks the vote against the SNP and the SNP are the ones making the rules), so whatever any of us think about it we’re just bumping our gums. As several people have said, if independence wins overall on STV but only gets, say, 35% of first-preference votes, you’d be able to hear the Unionists whining from Neptune.
#147 by Steve on October 25, 2011 - 6:09 pm
Very interesting debate everyone.
I agree that STV (although isn’t it AV?) is a non starter, we need to see clearly and unambiguously that a majority support independence in the referendum if we’re going to use it as a mandate for that.
I think Indy and others miss something about devo max though, and that is it is not wholly contained within independence in a Venn diagram kind of way. This is because one of the characteristics of devo max is that we remain a part of the union. And of course independence doesn’t contain that characteristic by definition.
So while there is massive overlap between devo max and Independence, both have features that the other does not have, and so it is not right to say that with independence you get devo max.
For that reason I can see why there is an issue around what if you get 51% in favour of independence and 60% say in favour of devo max.
My solution would be to have one ballot paper, two sided with the independence Y/N question on one side and the devo max vs status quo question on the other.
In the event that there’s a majority for both devo max and independence, we deduct the papers that are pro independence from the devo max score, and go with the winner after that.
#148 by Indy on October 25, 2011 - 9:50 pm
Yes to some extent that is true. If I vote for Devo Max I am definitely voting for second best – Indepedence is my ideal outcome.
But you know I worked pretty hard to get a Yes Yes vote in the 97 referendum even though it wasn’t my ideal outcome either..
We’ve got to use a bit of common sense here.
By including a Devo Max question we would be allowing all those who want that option to vote yes while also allowing all those who want Independence to vote yes. Or no as the case may be. And we get a very clear answer in both cases to the specific proposition that is being put.
#149 by Observer on October 25, 2011 - 7:30 pm
Interesting debate, although I started off thinking it was quite simple really, & still do! What the referendum is testing support for is change. It’s a bit like the devolution referendum when we, those who favoured change, voted yes/yes, or yes/no to how mucb power we wanted the Parly to have. However it looks very much as if we are going to get a straightforward yes/no vote on independence, as the Labour Party are not coming out to play. If no one champions FFA then it’s off the agenda.
#150 by Don McC on October 25, 2011 - 7:31 pm
I think we can take it as read there will be NO Devo Max option in the referendum. Salmond is playing it so cutely right now that most Unionists don’t even realise they’re being played like a sax on a jazz open mike night. You only need to read the likes of Ian Smart (isn’t that a misnomer?) over on LabourShame and his assertions that Salmond is running scared of the referendum (do you really think so?) to know that there all falling into a trap here, ensuring there will be only a straight yes/no question on the referendum because the Unionists themselves are all ruling out any “third-way” compromise.
Labour supporters might all kid themselves on that the SNP would lose such a straight referendum but if the upper echelons of Labour actually believed that, we’ve have already had the referendum to shut Salmond up “for a generation”. Instead, the Unionists are the ones having to repeatedly change their underpants. Short of doing a Gaddafi (too soon?), the Unionists have no answer to Salmond, or the SNP. Perhaps that’s why we have the likes of Labour’s Ian Davidson allegedly threatening to give SNP MPs a “doing”.
#151 by Barbarian on October 25, 2011 - 7:50 pm
I’ve said previously that the wording and choices on the referendum paper must be crystal clear.
STV is asking for trouble here, and for reason – confusion.
Most voters are used to voting for one choice, not scoring their preferences or transferring votes.
The ballot paper could read as a straightforward choice – Full Independence
Devo Max
No change
There will have to be an explanation – written in plain English – as to what each choice means.
The voter then selects one only.
Now this is unacceptable to those in favour of full independence, since it makes it harder to achieve the desired result. However, using STV makes it easier, but then opponents can argue – with some justification – that the pro-nationalist camp are trying to fix the election by confusing your average voter.
The advantage for the nationalist side with a straight chouice is that it leaves the opposition with no comeback on the result.
The other concern is that using STV is the media, who will saturate the news that Alex Salmond is trying to fix the referendum, and that could sabotage the entire campaign.
There is a problem with a straight three choice – what happens if there is not a clear 50% in any of the options? Highly likely and then it complicates things with regards to the result. This then makes the straight two choice paper more acceptable, but then that will upset both camps since one side is definitely going to lose!
It’s a highly complicated state of affairs, however I believe that the voters must not be in any doubt for what they are making their decision on. There has already been one almighty cock-up in the 2007 election. To have one in the referendum would be ridiculous and could potentially void the result if things start getting all legal.
#152 by Doug Daniel on October 26, 2011 - 12:39 am
Well, after catching up with last night’s Newsnicht and watching tonight’s episode as well, it seems to me that Devo Max is dead in the water. None of the Tory leadership contenders will go for it, if Iain Gray and Jim Murphy speak for the rest of Labour then they won’t be going for it (and it would now be completely hypocritical for either of them to suddenly become champions of it), and it seems not even the party who came up with the idea – the Lib Dems – want to back it.
There’s a major problem with devo max: nobody actually wants it. For nationalists, it’s a runners-up prize; and for unionists, it would just be a means of clinging onto the union a bit longer. I suspect not even the average punter asked in an opinion poll actually wants it – after all, how could they when we don’t even know what it would look like?
Devo max was just a gimmick for the Lib Dems to pretend to look progressive. Their bluff has been well and truly called though, and every time it is brought up on a show like Newsnicht, unionists make themselves look like fools. It just enhances the image of them being ultra-unionists, unable to see that perhaps people want more for Scotland than the present union provides.
#153 by Alwyn ap Huw on October 26, 2011 - 2:42 am
What if 95% vote in favour of independence in the first question and 96% vote for Devo Max in the second question?
Would that suggest that more Scots want enhanced devolution, rather than independence – so devo max wins?
That appears to be the suggestion being made by some on this thread.
#154 by Jeff on October 26, 2011 - 3:27 am
Well, the argument still theoretically holds that more Scots might prefer Devo Max to independence under that result but I think it’s fair to say that that is unlikely and 95% support for independence would be more than sufficient to be deemed the clear result.
#155 by Alwyn ap Huw on October 26, 2011 - 7:00 am
Yes it is theoretical and unlikely, but what is the cut off point?
To me a vote of 50.01% is a majority in favour of independence, and is good enough even if 99% vote for devo max too. If Independence only gets 49.99%, tough luck!
Unless the referendum has a 1979 type “high jump” clause, a majority of one for independence is a majority. Doubting that a simple majority for whatever reason smells like a back door attempt at a 1979 type high jump clause!
If you are in favour of a high jump clause – fine, say so loud and clear, don’t try and hide your true position under a devo-max bushel!
#156 by Jeff on October 26, 2011 - 7:33 am
Well, it’s only natural that you’d see it that way since independence is your out and out preference. It’s important to be objective. Would a strong proponent of Devo Max see it the same way? Not necessarily.
I don’t think there should be a line and I’m definitely not talking about a high jump clause. I’m just pointing out weaknesses in the proposed method and saying that STV is more preferable than what looks most likely to take place.
I respect your alternative view and, going by the many earlier comments, you’re certainly not alone but no need to get so angry about it…
#157 by GMcM on October 26, 2011 - 9:15 am
Jeff, I think you have articulated your position quite well.
I think it is clear that the two question referendum would have problems giving a clear winner. You CANNOT assume the way people are voting based on the numbers at the end. That is why there are accussations of jiggery pokery.
This should be a clear yes/no question ONLY regarding independence. No party has a mandate for a Devo-max referendum do they?
Unlike Calman, which is a small step forward in Devolution compared with Devo-max, Devo-max would also require a referendum. These should not be fudged into one super referendum.
This is only my opinion and I know there will be many on here who disagree with it, but I think Salmond feels that he has a great chance of losing the independence referendum and would like his fall back option to come into play so that he can say he is listening and will incorporate all ideas etc etc
Ian Smart has an excellent piece on the Devo-max section of Salmond’s speech to conference being omitted on LabourHame. I think his analysis is pretty accurate (as you would expect from him).
#158 by Indy on October 26, 2011 - 9:46 am
I think it is looking less and less likely that there is going to be a Devo Max question, not least because whatever proposal the SNP puts forward we would be accused of trying to rig things to our advantage.
That’s a shame for all the people who do want to test public opinion on Devo Max, which includes many in your party.
And I’ll make this prediction. When the Scottish Government publishes the referendum bill and if it has no question on enhanced devolution the same people who attacked us for wanting to have a question on devo max will attack us for not wanting to have a question on devo max.
It’ll happen.
#159 by DougtheDug on October 26, 2011 - 9:52 am
Ian Smart’s analysis is based on what he thinks was cut from the speech not what was in the speech which is interesting but is speculation not analysis.
Even his reason for believing that there was something cut is more wishful thinking than anything because he claims there was a jump in the narrative which shows a cut. I listened to the speech and heard no jump in the narrative and going back over the written copy I still can’t find any jumps.
#160 by GMcM on October 26, 2011 - 11:47 am
You can’t see any jump?
I heard the speech and I didn’t notice it either – this is because it was masked by applause when he made fun of Murdo’s position on his party.
When you read the speech there is absolutely no link between those two paragraphs.
#161 by DougtheDug on October 26, 2011 - 3:29 pm
When you read the speech there is absolutely no link between those two paragraphs.
There is a perfect link. That section of the speech is all about the Scotland Bill and how the Government has ignored all representations on that Bill combined with a joke about how Murdo Fraser wants to disband the Tories.
Alex follows that up with a comment on how the SNP’s rejected proposals for the Scotland Bill would have made it so much better.
There was no discontinuity when it was said and still no discontinuity when it is read.
Ian Smart is starting to see things that aren’t there to back up his belief that the SNP want a second option.
Here’s the actual section:
The Scotland Bill isn’t even enacted yet it lies in the past. Unloved, uninspiring, not even understood by its own proponents.
The UK Government haven’t even gone through the motions of considering the views of the Scottish Government, the Scottish people, the last Scottish Parliament Committee, the current Scottish Parliament Committee -total negativity to even the most reasonable proposal to strengthen the Bill’s job creating powers.
THE RESPECT AGENDA LIES DEAD IN THEIR THROATS
This is Westminster’s agenda of disrespect.- not of disrespect to the SNP but of fundamental disrespect for Scotland..
The Tories and their Liberal frontmen have even taken to call themselves Scotland’s other Government. A Tory Scottish Government?
If Murdo Fraser thought such a notion was conceivable then he would’t be trying to disband the Party!
In contrast fiscal responsibility, financial freedom, real economic powers is a legitimate proposal. It could allow us to control our own resources, introduce competitive business tax, and fair personal taxation.
All good, all necessary but not good enough.
#162 by Gaz on October 26, 2011 - 8:29 pm
This would be the same Ian Smart who dismissed the Independence section of the SNP manifesto because it was attributed to an SNP backbencher (who, free from the collective responsibility of government, would be able to argue for Independence with impunity).
Problem with that is that the section was attributed to Angela Constance, Minister for Skills and Lifelong Learning at the time. Pretty accurate stuff right enough.
And, by the way, Mr Smart does not even consider the possibility that the alleged cut was made because after feeling the vibe at Conference, ‘Eck’ and his advisors convinced themselves that they could and would win the Independence Referendum.
His analysis is flawed because he cannot countenance the notion that Scotland will vote for Independence and assumes that everyone else accepts that as a certainty.
We don’t.
#163 by Malc on October 26, 2011 - 9:09 am
There’s always what I’ll call the “New Zealand option” (and no, that’s not only being able to win a World Cup on your own soil)…
In the early 1992, they held a 2-question referendum on voting reform: the first asked “should we change the electoral system from FPTP to something else (84% voted yes), the second question asked “to what should we change it” with 4 options (MMP, STV, SM and AV) with 70% for MMP. The following year they held a binding referendum with 2 options: change to MMP or stick with FPTP, which the former won 54%-46%. And, incidentally, they’ll have another referendum on the issue later this year.
Point is – we could have 2 referendums here, which could solve the problem of having lots of options. Have 3 options (Indy, Devo-Max, Status Quo) on first ballot, then, when none of them get over 50%, lose the least popular option, and go again with just two – which means one would be guaranteed over 50%, which solves the legitimacy issue.
Suspect some people might see a couple of flaws in this plan however…
#164 by Indy on October 26, 2011 - 10:11 am
I think the whole issue here is that people like Jeff are loking at this as a multi-option referendum which can only produce a single outcome.
Whereas the way it has been proposed is as two separate propositions – both of which can be passed if more than 50 per cent of people vote for them.
I genuinely don’t see the problem with that and I see enormous problems even if we just propose a preferential voting system to decide on independence – we got a wee taste of that when the idea was floated a number of years ago. I think if we were to adopt that proposal it could potentially undermine the whole process frankly so it’s just not going to happen.
So if there is going to be significant opposition to the idea of two separate questions, each with a yes/no answer, each of which can win, then it is regretfully another reason to start thinking this Devo Max question is just not going to happen.
And that’s something I do regret because although there is no political support for Devo Max there is good evidence that there is significant public support for it and it means that those people are not going to have the chance to vote for their preferred outcome. Which also leads me to think that there is something wrong with our politics when that can happen.
Maybe Scotland even needs another party, one which is prepared to make the Devo Max case and is prepared to work with the Scottish Government to allow the question to be asked. But I don’t see much of a window of time to allow that to happen.
#165 by Doug Daniel on October 26, 2011 - 12:04 pm
Losing options until only the two most popular remain – sounds an awful lot like instant run-off/AV to me. Wouldn’t it be simpler to just have a referendum using AV?
#166 by BaffieBox on October 26, 2011 - 9:42 am
Malc, I was thinking the very same thing this morning.
Why dont we separate the two? It’s quite clear the status quo/Calman is a dead-duck. The Scotland Bill is a disaster and the public obviously want much further devolution of powers.
Why dont the Westminster parties bring forward a referendum for 2014 that asks Scotland whether they want DevoMax? This removes the running of the referendum from the SNP, doesnt have to touch Independence and will satisfy Westminster’s need to have control of some aspect of the constitutional debate.
Furthermore, the SNP could schedule a further referendum on Independence one year later. It will be a single Yes/No question between Independence and whatever was decided in the referendum the year before.
The benefit for the Unionists is that they get to ask their question in isolation, can take an opportunity to establish what is deemed the settled will early and hope that it quenches the thirst for Independence. The drawback is that they have to accept DevoMax as an option and concede the Union as we know it is finished.
The benefit for the nationalists is that its very likely they get the insurance of DevoMax which, lets face it, is unlikely to be rejected. They also satisfy fundamentalists who want a single question on Independence.
Problems:
– There’s no chance of DevoMax being implemented in a year, especially with Independence a possibility, so its unlikely anything would happen between the two campaigns.
– There are quirks: it could be that the SNP are the only champions of both DevoMax and Independence if Unionists really dont want it, but thats unlikely. At least one of the major parties will eventually support a federal UK.
– Do parties want to fight two campaigns?
So, how about:
1. A Status-Quo/Federal UK referendum in 2014 run by Westminster.
2. An Independence/system decided by question 1 referendum in 2015 run by Holyrood.
#167 by Indy on October 26, 2011 - 10:56 am
That’s an idea but it would need Westminster to agree.
I suspect though that we have all been getting a bit carried away with this Devo Max/federalism stuff chatting about it online.
Political parties are quite conservative, they rarely change their fundamental positions quickly and fundamentally none of the UK parties seem to want to adopt a radical extension of devolution or some kind of federal model.
#168 by Topher Dawson on October 26, 2011 - 9:15 pm
Interesting article by Iain Macwhirter on why Labour should back DevoMax, quoting Douglas Alexander.
http://iainmacwhirter2.blogspot.com/2011/10/labour-has-no-option-but-to-adopt-devo.html#more
I’m inclined to agree with both that DevoMax is the least untenable position for Labour.
#169 by Chris on October 27, 2011 - 3:42 pm
If DevoMax means what it says on the tin then a great opportunity will be lost. I am happy fto look at proposals to extend devouiltion. But there has to be a logical stopping point for a devolved administration short of max. Does it really mean creating lots of duplicated structures – separate tax authorities, DVLA, DSS, different benefit levels, different highway code and speed limits, different rural payments agency, separate international development department?
I am for maximum devolution of services as a good democratic principle. But DevoMax as it is written on the tin would be subject to ridicule.
I think the independence referndum will fail because once the proposal is put under severe scrutiny , and is no longer an emotional response, support will fall ( as evidenced by the drop in support for independence at each election when it is scrutinised more). A devomax proposal with the same inherent drawbacks of indpendence could be a lost opportunity.
#170 by Doug Daniel on October 28, 2011 - 1:54 am
On the contrary, I feel that many people, once they truly understand what independence means, will be far more open to the idea than they currently are with all the misinformation fed to them through the press and by unionists.
On the other hand, the union’s “benefits” will not withstand much scrutiny. It relies on people assuming that because it’s there it must be the right way of doing things. once people understand how an independent Scotland could do things better, the union doesn’t stand a chance.
#171 by A Cairns on October 27, 2011 - 4:58 pm
I tend to agree with Chris.
If Devo max is closer to a beefed up Calman+ proposal then it may just about be feasible perhaps but I wouldn’t quite say it’s federalism as there’d have to be a UK wide realignment for that and I can’t see that happening for at least 30 years now.
Still this needs to be discussed properly.
#172 by JUDY FORSYTH on November 7, 2011 - 8:44 pm
what is Devo max?