Today’s announcement from the SNP includes a significant piece of information regarding how First Minister Alex Salmond intends to run the forthcoming referendum – the question to be posed. That question is as follows:
“Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?”
I personally think it is a terribly worded question to be asking, far too open to misinterpretation. As many on the unionist side are keen to point out, how independent is Scotland if it shares a monarchy, currency and defence force with England? Does this question ask if we want to draw the line inside or outside of these issues?
So, for me, there is one obvious answer to that question and it isn’t no and it isn’t yes, it is ‘define independence’.
We can’t go into such an important decision as this with so much confusion hanging over what the question means and, to be honest, I fear the SNP is giving itself a bit of a handicap here because there may well be Scots who would be keen to vote Yes to Salmond’s original question regarding ‘negotiating a settlement with the UK’ but will decide to vote No to the above. The question paints a Scotland as too isolationist, too much like the Norways and the Icelands who sit outwith the European Union rather than a Scotland that is inclusive and seeking to be a part of the British isles and a part of Europe at large.
There must be a way to ask the necessary question while making it clear that currency and monarchy will, at least in the short term, be shared.
There is a reason why Ladbrokes are offering a massive 9/1 on Scotland being independent from England by the end of the decade. After all, Scotland could vote Yes in 2014 and the bookies could still have a strong argument for not paying out.
#1 by Alex Buchan on January 25, 2012 - 3:13 pm
Definitely agree the previous question on entering into negotiations was easier to win.
#2 by Dr William Reynolds on January 27, 2012 - 1:36 pm
It is possible that a question about entering negotiations might have been easier to win.However,I believe that the question proposed by Alec Salmond is the correct question.Alec Salmond gave a very succinct answer yesterday during First Ministers questions when Johanne Lamont asked him to define what independence means.I recommend that anyone confused about what independence means should view yesterdays FMQ.
#3 by commenter on January 25, 2012 - 3:17 pm
The exact same accusation could be thrown at any question asking whether the people want independence, regardless of the wording.
Are you saying that stuff like EU membership, currency, etc should be embedded directly in the wording of the question?(!)
#4 by Duncan on January 25, 2012 - 3:32 pm
Jeff,
I think this is to misunderstand completely. Independence is what it says on the tin – the ability to make decisions that affect that people of Scotland, in Scotland. Sometimes those will be in concert with – on the basis of shared sovereignty – other nations, and sometimes they won’t. The argument for a purist, no ties, position is to stick one’s head well and truly into nineteenth century political sand. So if I take your point about Iceland and Norway, are you really suggesting that France and Germany (currency) are not independent? Or Australia and Canada (monarchy)? or any of the countries currently in NATO (defence force)?
In the twenty-first century, independence and interdependence are closely related. The point is to engage in interdependence on our own terms. And the consultation process will help to define what those terms are.
#5 by Jeff on January 25, 2012 - 4:05 pm
I fully agree that France and Germany are independent Duncan, it is your turn to misunderstand the point I am making. I am not saying that the SNP should, or indeed that they are, calling for full independence but that is precisely how the question could be construed (resulting in less Yes votes than you would perhaps deserve).
Don’t get me wrong, I appreciate that these next few years are not the time and place to decide Scottish membership of the EU or whether we should have the Queen as the Head of State, but there is a duty to the public to make very clear what ‘independence’ will mean in the short and long term.
One could quite fairly argue that every last Scot will be subject to information overload over the next 32 months and will be perfectly aware of what they will be voting on. That may or may not prove to be the case but I think it’s complacent to not come up with something a bit tighter than this.
#6 by Aldos Rendos on January 25, 2012 - 4:10 pm
Yes, agree with Duncan, the question is clear cut, ‘negotiating a settlement with the UK’ is a bit wishy washy. This in theory could encompass everything from devo-max to an outright Scottish Republic with it’s own currency. A yes vote “Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?†would give a clear mandate to run Scotland as an independent country.
I wouldn’t take too much notice of the bookies at this stage. At one point in the lead up to the 2011 Scottish elections the same bookies were offering odds of 8/1 on an SNP victory and we all know how that ended.
#7 by Iain Menzies on January 25, 2012 - 5:00 pm
NATO doesnt impact on national independence, and the monarchy issue with OZ/Canada isnt that simple.
The Euro is a pooling of sovereignty so in that respect France is less independent than the UK.
#8 by Indy on January 25, 2012 - 3:39 pm
Jings, so many people complained about the wording in the referendum bill as originally published and built up all kinds of conspiracy theories around the way it was written (which was dictated by the need to stay within the terms of the Scotland Act) and said why can’t we just have a straight yes/no question on independence.
Now – thanks to the UK Govt’s kind offer to make sure it’s all unchallengable in a legal sense – we can have a straight yes/no question on independence.
And now you are saying we should go back to what it was!
I think they should just stick with the simpler version.
None of the issues you have cited are really relevant – Scotland would be no more or less independent than any other country on the basis of these things.
If we share the Queen as head of state we’ll be sharing her with – what is it? – another 15, 16 independent countries.
If we share a currency, well so do all the independent countries who are in the Eurozone nation.
If we cooperate closely on defence, well so do lots and lots of countries. For goodness sake Britain and France are going to share their aircraft carriers. If the English and French can work together so can the English and the Scots.
#9 by BaffieBox on January 25, 2012 - 3:52 pm
I agree with commenter – if the accusation of ambiguity can be levelled at this question, it will be levelled at any question. I think the previous proposed question was along lines of:
“The Scottish Parliament should negotiate a new settlement with the British government, based on the proposals set out in the white paper, so that Scotland becomes a sovereign and independent state.”
It still has the word “independent” and is long winded and explicit about referring to the white paper.
Ultimately, there will be a white paper that outlines the exact proposal for what constitutes independence and sovereignty. Argueing about definitions at this stage will form a major front of the Unionist attack, and that tells you all you need to know about it. It’s p***ing in the wind in the absence of anything better to say (nae offence).
The question is short, sharp and to the point. I like it. This kind of argument is akin to the devolution referendum question having to provide an embedded definition for the hard of thinking.
#10 by Una on January 25, 2012 - 3:58 pm
Don’t you mean Alex Salmond is asking the wrong question on whether we want to enter into negotiations on all sorts of constitutional possibilities?
#11 by Nikostratos on January 25, 2012 - 4:04 pm
“Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?
Or
“should Scotland be an independent country”
Seems to me the snps question was probaly designed by a Psychologist do you agree is a prompt to influence people to reflect before voting.
Wheras the second question is a quick yes or no for those who have already decided (like me) others who could waver may at the last moment change their mind.
And as all the polls at present suggest Independence will be rejected decisively at the Ballot.
Anyways thats my theory you got a better one?
#12 by Indy on January 25, 2012 - 4:13 pm
Well you know when the first draft referendum bill was published all the unionists went into overdrive complaining about the proposed format of the question saying it should be a straight yes/no question on whether they support independence. Now that we have that, you are coming up with a new theory. Lol.
#13 by commenter on January 25, 2012 - 4:19 pm
Better wording:
“Here. Sit down. Biscuit? Backrub? You’re looking well today. Anyway, do you agree etc”
#14 by Aidan on January 25, 2012 - 4:35 pm
It’s fairly leading isn’t it? I suspect “Agree” will be replaced with “want” as it was for the AV referendum or “think” as in the 1970s EU referendum.
#15 by Alec on January 25, 2012 - 4:40 pm
Would like, Aidan! I want never gets!
#16 by Indy on January 25, 2012 - 4:45 pm
Conveniently overlooking the fact that people “agreed” that there shold be a Scottish Parliament and “agreed” that the Scottish Parliament should have tax varying powers, are we?
#17 by Aidan on January 25, 2012 - 5:08 pm
Good point.
#18 by John Ruddy on January 25, 2012 - 5:13 pm
The difference then, surely was that the act of parliament had laid out precisely the forms of devolution, what powers would be had, etc.
We havnt had that from the SNP, and we wont even get to vote on the outcome of the deal that Salmond gets. he might not get a good one.
#19 by Indy on January 25, 2012 - 5:45 pm
? Don’t get that point really. The additional powers that would come with independence can be laid out pretty clearly can’t they? Basically everything in Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act.
#20 by Aidan on January 25, 2012 - 6:21 pm
Except monetary policy which would still be decided by London.
#21 by Indy on January 25, 2012 - 6:30 pm
Yes that’s true.
#22 by Aidan on January 26, 2012 - 1:04 pm
well, also quite possibly some aspects of fiscal policy as well such as borrowing…
#23 by Iain Menzies on January 26, 2012 - 7:10 am
and possibly immigration control too.
#24 by Galen10 on January 25, 2012 - 4:48 pm
I think you’re wrong about the question Jeff; even if this sin’t the “final” wording, I think it should be something simple along these lines.
People will respond better to something without lots of sub-clauses and wooly words. It SHOULD be short and to the point; people aren’t stupid, they know what independence means, and the referendum question isn’t the place to be trying to define it! There are at least 2 years to have that debate surely?
#25 by Iain Menzies on January 25, 2012 - 4:59 pm
Ive been following scottish politics for a good 10 years now, and this blog since it started, and SNP tactical voting before that……I’M not clear on what the SNP mean by independence.
#26 by Galen10 on January 25, 2012 - 5:08 pm
As I said above, there are 2 years of debate to flesh out what people think independence “means”… there are lots of variations. However, it’s hardly rocket science for people to work out that independence =/= devo-max, and also =/= the status quo.
An independent Scotland would “mean” the same as an independent Irish Republic, Estonia, Norway etc. etc. The devil may be in the detail, but working out the details, and the settlement between Scotland and the rest of the UK is hardly outwith the ken of man.
#27 by Indy on January 25, 2012 - 5:47 pm
Same answer to you as to John Ruddy. Read Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act. Then chuck it in the bin cos that’s what independence will do.
#28 by Dr William Reynolds on January 27, 2012 - 4:54 pm
Ian,I think that people who live in independent countries would be very puzzled if asked what independence meant.However,if you are confused about the basic components that designate an independent nation,I think you will find that Alec Salmond delineated them very clearly during yesterdays First Ministers Question.I recommend that you listen to what he said.
#29 by Alex Buchan on January 25, 2012 - 5:00 pm
Does the choice of question tell us anything about whether Alex Salmond is looking to negotiate with David Cameron. I would have thought this question is definitely ultra vires, whereas the last question could have been seen as within the Parliament’s powers, i.e. not asking an opinion on independence but on what the public wants the Scottish Government to do. It could also be argued that under the last question if the UK Government was minded to let it pass without a section 30 order there is a good chance that they would have insisted on a second binding referendum on the outcome of negotiations, clearly they couldn’t do that with this one.
I am surprised nobody has ventured to speculate so far on what this question tells of about the Scottish government’s attitude to a Westminster legisated referendum or a court challenge to a referendum without a section 30 provision.
#30 by Indy on January 25, 2012 - 5:56 pm
Yes it totally needs a section 30 order to be able to ask a direct question on independence so they are clearly assuming the UK Government will agree.
#31 by John Ruddy on January 25, 2012 - 5:11 pm
Its interesting to note that while the consultation document accepts the role of the Electoral Commission in overseeing the referendum itself, it precludes it from deciding upon the wording of the question.
As Jeff says, this could fail the test of simplicity and understanding that the commission normally applies. They even changed the AV question that Clegg wanted.
A simpler question could be:
“Do you want Scotland to leave the United Kingdom”
It avoids all the things about “how independent are we going to be” etc, and would be understood by everyone. I can see why the SNP wont agree to it, however, and i can see how the current question is also loaded. Thats why its best to let some independent (!) experts decide these things.
#32 by Indy on January 25, 2012 - 5:52 pm
This is where it gets complicated though isn’t it? Because what is the United Kingdom? Independence would not end the Union of the Crowns which is what united the kingdoms of Scotland and England under the same monarch. But it would end the Union of Parliaments which brought the two kingdoms under a common government. So it is complicated.
You could say Do you want to end the Union of the Parliaments? But that’s a bit archaic – people might not know what that means. And the Union of the Parliaments has arguably been changed anyway by the process of devolution.
Altogether it’s simplest and most easily understandable I think to just say do you agree that Scotland should be independent.
#33 by Alex Buchan on January 25, 2012 - 6:28 pm
“Do you want Scotland to leave the United Kingdom” is just as loaded as “Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?†You cant say one is more acurate, or one is fairer. If the electoral commission proposed the former it would clearly be seen as biased and therefore its credibility to run the referendum would be open to challenge.
#34 by Indy on January 26, 2012 - 6:48 am
I don’t think it is valid to say that it is a loaded qustion. The referndum to set up the Scottish Parliament asked two questions with a yesno answer.
Firstly:
I agree that there should be a Scottish Parliament.
I do not agree that there should be a Scottish Parliament.
Secondly:
I agree that a Scottish Parliament should have tax-varying powers.
I do not agree that a Scottish Parliament should have tax-varying powers.
If that form of wording was acceptable in setting up the Scottish Parliament I don’t see why it should not be acceptable now. The only real difference is that the question starts off “Do you agree that……” ratherthan simply “I agree that …..” and I don’t think there is much that can be made of that.
As for the issue of people not knowing what independence would mean in practice – the same applies with devolution. The powers that the Scottish Parliament would have were clearly set out in the run-up to the the devolution referendum, just as the ppwers that the Scottish Parliament would have under independence will be clearly set out – basically everything in Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act( except monetary policy as Aidan pointed out).
But, just as nobody could know for certain what the devolved Scottish Parliament would do with its powers, nobody can know for certain what an independent Scottish Parliament would do with its powers. What we were voting on in the referendum for devolutioj was whether there should be a Scottish Parliament. What we wanted the Scottish Parliament to do with its powers was decided in the 1999 election. Just as what we want an independent Scottish Parliament to do will be decided at the general election that will be held following independence.
#35 by Alex Buchan on January 26, 2012 - 12:49 pm
Indy, I said “just as loaded”. Polling experts state that the words used in questions affect peoples’ voting preference. Independence carries positive connotations and separation carries negative connotations. So to use either loads the question in one way or the other. My point is that there is only so many ways you can ask this question and that given the circumstances in relation to the electoral commission (no Scottish members on its board by the time of the referendum) if they were to rule that it is framed as “to separate from” or “to break away from” then they would run the risk of being accused of bias. So the chances are they would be forced to use the word “independence”.
#36 by Doug Daniel on January 25, 2012 - 8:16 pm
So you’ve not listened to anything Alex Salmond has said today then? Because he’s made it absolutely clear on several occasions that the electoral commission will indeed be looking at the actual wording of the question itself. It was just deemed to be obviously implied from the fact that the document already says they’ll be overseeing the referendum.
When it comes to writing a document you expect ordinary members of the public to read, it’s possible to go into too much detail.
#37 by Iain Menzies on January 26, 2012 - 7:17 am
No one who reads a consultation document is ordinary.
not that not reading one makes you ordinary either….
#38 by Craig Kelly on January 25, 2012 - 5:21 pm
Mr. Menzies; are you suggest that this question be posed, followed by an introducing paragraph defining the terms of the question? i.e. ‘independence in this context is understood by the Scottish Government to mean… etc etc.’ It’s not possible to define independence effectively on a ballot paper. Surely that is what the white paper is for?
For me, the proposed question is clear and plain? A yes vote would transfer reserved powers to Holyrood. The rest – whether we continue with the pound, the Queen as head of state, and so on and so forth – will be, and should be, worked out post-referendum. It seems to me that the SNP have been abundantly clear on their position and any attempt to murk the waters is a cynical ploy by those who are intrinsically opposed to independence.
Alex, can you honestly imagine a court challenge to the result of the referendum? If you can, then you succeed in thinking Westminster to be more ignorant to possible eventualities than even I do. Give them a bit of credit.
I agree with Nikostratos. ‘Do you agree’, is very leading. I would hazard a guess that psychologically people are far more likely to vote ‘yes’ with this opening gambit.
All in all, I think it is a good, precise, and coherent question – if a little leading.
#39 by Alex Buchan on January 25, 2012 - 6:06 pm
Hi Craig
I’m not opposed to this wording,but it ups the stakes, ecause it means that the Scottish government has given up on their original idea of going it alone. With this question they need the UK government to pass a Section 30 Order given them temporary powers, but they’ve previously said they won’t accept any strings attached to such an offer from the UK government. So either Cameron backs down or Salmond backs down over the number of questions.
If the Scottish government decided to go it alone without a Section 30 Order the legal challenge would be before the vote and there would be no way that the Scottish government could proceed to have the referendum till the court had ruled it was legal to do so.
#40 by Craig Kelly on January 26, 2012 - 9:00 am
Hi Alex,
That seems fair. In that eventuality – which I concede seems likely – then I accept you are right. I just feel that, as you say, one or the other are likely to back down.
With the current trajectory of events, then I would hazard a guess that it is more likely to be Cameron to be doing the clambering down.
#41 by Barbarian on January 25, 2012 - 7:08 pm
The question does not ask voters if they WANT Scotland to be independent, rather “is it is a good idea?”.
It is a leading question and an appalling effort by the SNP.
#42 by Doug Daniel on January 25, 2012 - 7:34 pm
I totally disagree here Jeff. We are embarking upon a 1,000 day campaign in which every possible angle will be covered, and I really do mean every angle. Already we’re witnessing unionists going apoplectic, demanding to know the answers to questions both banal and ridiculous. It’s almost admirable how creative they are in their endeavours to uncover that most holiest of holy grails: the unanswerable question. So I am completely confident that, come Autumn 2014, there will not be a single facet of independence which will not have been answered to the satisfaction of all but the most belligerent and stubborn unionists.
Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on how much fun you think politics is), we are in for two and a half years of arguments over the most tedious minutiae. It’s happened today already with Labour in the chamber today demanding to know if the electoral commission would also oversee the defining of the question, and Big Eck having to tell them that he thought it was obvious from the earlier mention of the electoral commission that this was indeed the case. If it’s not written down in black and white, unionists will pick at it, so clearly there is no such thing as something being “blatantly obvious” or “clearly implied”.
So yeah, if people still need to ask what independence is by the time the referendum comes along, then you would have to wonder where they’d been for the past 1,000 days.
#43 by Indy on January 26, 2012 - 7:00 am
It is ridiculous. I have thought back to 1997 and I really don’t remember many people asking, during the devolution referendum campaign, what the Scottish Parliament would do with its powers. I don’t remember anyone saying I demand to know whether the Scottish Parliament will freeze the council tax or privatise the NHS or abolish Cattholic schools or whatever and I absolutely demand to know that otherwise how can I possibly know what devolution means!
I do recall the Tories and the CBI et al saying that devolution would lead to uncertanty, higher taxes, economic collapse etc but I don’t recall them saying that, unless you can set out exactlly what a devolved Scottish Parliament will do with its powers, we will not understand what devolution means.
This whole I demand to know every single detail of what independence would mean is simply a ploy by people who are opposed to independence. What we need to remember however is that the Scottish people weren’t baboozled into voting on whether or not they agreed with having a Scottish Parliament and they won’t be bamboozled about voting on whether or not they agree with independence.
#44 by Iain Menzies on January 26, 2012 - 7:20 am
politicians lie.
wee eck is a politician
if its not down in black and white…..it is a reasonable question to ask why not
i love how nats are jumping up and down and wondering how people who dont agree with them question the integrity of a politician…..
#45 by Indy on January 26, 2012 - 12:35 pm
That’s not really a pertinent point. In what sense could Alex Salmond “lie” about what is in Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act. As Aidan has pointed out the only thing that you could argue would continue to be reserved while Scotland remained in a currency union with England would be monetary policy and that is fully acknowledged by Alex and everyone else. The rest would be transferred. Unless you are suggesting that Alex Salmond might later turn round and say ha ha I was only kidding, I’m really a unionist I don’t see what he could actually lie about. Perhaps you could explain?
#46 by Doug Daniel on January 26, 2012 - 2:12 pm
Right. So presumably we’ll start hearing questions like “will English people be banned from entering Scotland? It’s not written down that they won’t, so it’s a reasonable question to ask. Will elections be stopped to retain a permanent SNP government? It’s not written down anywhere that they won’t, so it’s a reasonable question to ask.” And so on.
And before you say I’m being ridiculous, I’ve seen idiots on Twitter and on blog comments claiming both will happen.
#47 by Topher Dawson on January 25, 2012 - 7:47 pm
I’ve just been on Ladbrokes and far from the 9/1 you quote, Jeff, it’s currently 5/2.
I have always thought that watching the bookies’ odds is a better way to see which way the wind blows than political polls. After all the people who answer polls have not backed their opinion with their own money!
#48 by Andrew Combe on January 25, 2012 - 7:59 pm
A mute point, but I wouldn’t describe Norway as isolationist just because it’s outwith the EU. It’s more engaged with both the EU and the rest of the world than most countries.
On a more substantive point, I would agree that the question is disappointingly vague…I would be concerned over how strong the mandate would be even after a decisive ‘yes’ vote.
#49 by R.G. Bargie on January 25, 2012 - 9:07 pm
Oh, not this again.
Independence means one thing and one thing alone: the government of Scotland will be elected by the people of Scotland, not the people of Scotland, England, Northern Ireland and Wales.
Everything else is policy, and will be decided in elections, not the referendum.
#50 by Iain Menzies on January 26, 2012 - 7:21 am
Totally agree (on the policy point),
would be nice if the SNP would be honest and just say that they DONT KNOW what an independent scotland would be like in any number of ways.
#51 by Indy on January 26, 2012 - 1:26 pm
Yes it would be nice if the SNP could say we don’t have a crystal ball and cannot predict every decision that will be taken in Scotland over the next 50 years.
But that would just join the list of great “unanswered questions! wouldn’t it?
We’ve had the currency, the Queen, the EU, NATO etc.
I reckon pretty soon we’ll be down to questions like what will the speed limit be, what will the frequency of bin collections be.
By the time we get to the referendum itself they will be asking us who is going to win the Scottish Junior Cup.
#52 by Doug Daniel on January 26, 2012 - 2:19 pm
Or unionists could just stop asking daft questions like “what level will the corporation tax be at?” where the answer is “well, that depends who is elected to govern Scotland at any one time.”
There is a level of dishonesty in even fielding such a question, as the person asking knows fine well the question cannot be answered sufficiently. It’s completely disingenuous. It’s also perhaps why there seems to be an emerging trend of only having the SNP arguing the independence case in the media, as it makes it easier to confuse viewers/listeners/readers with what is policy and what is not.
#53 by Iain Menzies on January 26, 2012 - 4:15 pm
I dont accept that there is any dishonesty in asking those questions.
Every comment that comes from the SNP fundamentally amounts to “dont you worry your pretty little head everything will be FINE under independence”.
I hear plenty of talk from nats about how its terrible that Unionists dont have a positive vision for the union. That is however nonsense. YOu want a positive vision for the union well read the election manifestos for every unionist party since year dot. The unionist parties are about, in their different ways, making Scotland and the UK ‘Better Nations’, There was a time that the SNP had a positive vision for Scotland outside of the union, but the more they are questioned on just what that is, the more we get nebulous comments about that will be up to the scottish people. Which is all well and good….but its the SNP that is calling for this, not, on any evidence you care to mention, the Scottish people.
#54 by Indy on January 26, 2012 - 10:01 pm
What will the level of corporation tax be in the UK in 5 years time?
What impact will Cameron’s decision to use the veto have on the UK’s influence in the EU in five years time?
Will there still be a coalition government in the UK in five years time?
Will there be any UK troops on the ground in Iran in five years time?
What interest rate will the Bank of England set in five years time?
I really need to know the answer to these questions before I can assess the case for staying in the Union. Please don’t give me any flannel about it kind of depending on things which can’t be predicted and who wins the next UK election because that is too vague. How am I expected to make a decision about whether we ought to remain in the Union without having definitive answers to these sorts of questions.
#55 by Aidan on January 27, 2012 - 9:12 am
The SNP are selling independence on precisely these kind of contingent facts: no trident, oil fund, lower corporation tax.
Asking about the mechanics of, say, monetary policy however focuses on the inherent questions about independence.
#56 by Indy on January 27, 2012 - 10:47 am
No Aidan we are selling things like an oil fund, no trident, lower corporation tax as SNP policies – the achievement of which is contingent on achieving independence.
Labour is free to disagree – if for example they want to say that the Labour Party in an independent Scotland would not invest anything in an oil fund, would want to keep trident and would want to increase corporation tax then they are quite at liberty to do so.
But the main bone of contention is surely that the Labour Party does not support independence in the first place? They do not want the Scottish Parliament to make decisions about oil revenues, trident or corporation tax – they want those decisions to be taken in Westminster.
#57 by Doug Daniel on January 27, 2012 - 12:26 pm
There is a definitive anti-nuclear majority in Scotland, not just in terms of its people, but also its parties. SNP and Greens are both against nuclear weapons, the Lib Dems used to be (I dunno, are they still pretending to be?) and Labour? Well, who knows.
When voted on in 2007 (when there was no SNP majority), the motion was backed 71 – 16. So it’s a fair bet that, assuming no one does a Lib Dem U-turn, nuclear weapons would be a thing of the past in an independent Scotland.
As for oil fund, that’s just common sense in light of what Norway have done. And if the media would allow other viewpoints in favour of independence, we would, I’m sure, hear Patrick Harvie arguing that independence would not mean lower corporation tax.
#58 by Doug Daniel on January 27, 2012 - 12:19 pm
Exactly. This all comes back to what I said elsewhere a while ago about people approaching the referendum without thinking of staying in the union as being the safe, non-risk, “as you were” option. When we vote, we will be deciding what future we want for Scotland. The questions people are asking of independence need to be asked of staying in the union.
“How will Scotland defend itself?” vs “Which countries are the UK going to send people into to die next?”
“What currency will Scotland use?” vs “What kind of state is the UK economy going to be in over the next few years?”
“How will Scotland pay for public services?” vs “Will the UK have any public services left?”
“How will Scotland continue to pay for the NHS and free education?” vs “Is it possible for Scotland to continue to have diametrically opposing ideas for the NHS and education within the UK funding structure?”
“What would independence bring to Scotland that we don’t have under the union?” vs “What does being in the union bring to Scotland that we can’t do as an independent country?”
Essentially, “Can Scotland afford to be independent?” vs “Can Scotland afford to stay in the union?”
#59 by Doug Daniel on January 26, 2012 - 11:06 pm
Err, every comment that comes from unionists fundamentally amounts to “if you vote for independence, bad things will happen”. Lord Wally talking about barriers going up at the border last night, and completely incapable of backing it up; Gideon Osborne claiming England would block Scotland from using Sterling, without actually having the power to do so; William Hague trying to threaten to stop promoting whisky in UK embassies – these stories have one theme in common: FEAR.
Is the union really so rubbish that the only way to keep Scotland in it is to scare people against voting for independence?
And don’t make me laugh by talking about unionist election manifestos. The current UK government have thrown both of theirs in the bin. Making Scotland better? How can you honestly say this UK government is doing anything to make Scotland better when they’re wrecking the entire UK economy and trying to punish people across the whole island who have the gall to be anything other than stinking rich?
Besides, the SNP tries to give answers to questions, but unionists refuse to listen. I just witnessed it on Scotland Tonight half an hour ago, when Katie Grant came out with the “no one has told us about the currency” line, and when Ewan Crawford pointed out that the SNP has been very clear that we would continue using Sterling, she just rubbished him, saying no one can be sure of anything because of the current economic climate.
Why ask a question if you have no intention of listening to the answer? This is just as disingenuous as asking questions that can have no definitive answer.
#60 by Freoboy on January 25, 2012 - 9:19 pm
I’m slightly astonished at the extent to which people ask questions about Scottish independence that they never think of querying about the UK and its ‘independence’.
That apart, here’s a starting definition in the form of two questions;
Which parliament is sovereign?
What does it say on the front of your passport?
If the answer is, the Scottish Parliament and Scotland then we’re independent!
#61 by Iain Menzies on January 26, 2012 - 7:23 am
best tell the SNP that a scottish parliament would be sovereign, nice young chap from the snp asked the PM yesterday if he agreed that it was the people of scotland that were sovereign.
#62 by Topher Dawson on January 25, 2012 - 9:43 pm
Further to my last comment, Paddy Power are offering odds of 9/4 for Yes which is even shorter odds than Ladbrokes. See http://www.paddypower.com/bet/politics/other-politics/scottish-politics?ev_oc_grp_ids=451400
Interestingly, William Hill has two bets available, “What will be the outcome of Scottish Independence referendum?” with Yes at 3/1 and No at 2/9, and “Scotland independent by 2020” with Yes at 7/1 and No at 1/16.
This seems odd, as though they think we may vote Yes and get No.
#63 by andrewgraemesmith on January 26, 2012 - 2:34 am
It’s a horrendously leading question, I also think that it’s more likely to maximise a yes vote than the more technichaly worded negotiation type questions. In wording it in a leading a positive fashion it is a very obvious political move and may well be succesful. Equally I assume that if the Scottish Labour Party were to draft the question it would say something like “Do you agree with splitting the united kingdom?”
#64 by Indy on January 26, 2012 - 7:13 am
Well unfortunately for the opposition parties I think they will all be on record repeatedly saying that the referendum question should be clear yes/no on independence. Nothing about nehotiating a new settlement, nothing airy fairy about Devo Max, just a straight yes/no on independence. That is exactly what they have now got, using broadly the same wording that was used in the devolution referendum. So I think they will find it hard to oppose what they have themselves suggested!
#65 by Doug Daniel on January 26, 2012 - 2:32 pm
Horrendously? Really?
Bit of perspective required, I think. If it was “horrendously” leading, there wouldn’t be much debate about whether it was leading or not. It would be blatantly obvious to even the most rabid nationalist.
#66 by Iain Menzies on January 26, 2012 - 4:17 pm
and of course the most rabid of nationalists would without a doubt go off message and say that it was misleading…..
#67 by Indy on January 27, 2012 - 9:01 am
Yes if the question was: “Do you agree that Scotland should become a better place, where people become wealthier, society becomes fairer and collectively we have a much greater chance of achieving happiness?” I might say er that’s a tad misleading.
#68 by BM on January 26, 2012 - 7:27 am
The question from the 1979 referendum:
Parliament has decided to consult the electorate in Scotland on the question whether the Scotland Act 1978 should be put into effect. Do you want the provisions of the Scotland Act 1978 to be put into effect?
The question from the 1997 referendum:
I agree that there should be a Scottish Parliament.
OR
I do not agree that there should be a Scottish Parliament.
I agree that a Scottish Parliament should have tax-varying powers.
OR
I do not agree that a Scottish Parliament should have tax-varying powers.
Proposed question for the 2014 referendum:
Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?
If we want to improve on that, I would suggest we go the 1997-route:
I agree that Scotland should be an independent country.
OR
I do not agree that Scotland should be an independent country.
#69 by Doug Daniel on January 26, 2012 - 9:31 am
Ah Jeff, I knew there was something I meant to correct you about!
Far from being isolationist, Iceland applied to join the EU three years ago and started formal negotiations two years ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accession_of_Iceland_to_the_European_Union
#70 by Iain Menzies on January 26, 2012 - 12:18 pm
and all the opinion polling on that page makes Iceland look really keen to join up.