Prime Minister David Cameron was on Andrew Marr this morning and he made several eyebrow-raising points regarding Scotland (see transcript below), including confirmation that a statement will be made “in the coming days” on the legal aspect of the independence referendum.
David Cameron believes that “we owe the Scottish people something that is fair, legal and decisive”, decisive being the most interesting word for me there. He also “(doesn’t) think we should just let this (uncertainty and lack of clarity) go on year after year”. Cameron is keen to “move forward” and “settle this issue in a fair and decisive way”. And there’s that d- word again. Indeed, he mentioned decisive or decisiveness four times in total, so something is afoot.
My expectation is one of three possibilities:
Either:-
(1) David Cameron will announce a fast tracking of the transfer of powers from Westminster to Holyrood in order to deprive Alex Salmond from having any excuses to name his date and get on with Scotland deciding its future, one way or the other.
or
(2) David Cameron will announce a UK version of the National Conversation, an effort to engage with Scots and talk up what the UK is and why Scotland should stick with it.
or
(3) David Cameron will announce that Westminster, the Parliament with the legal competence to do so, will facilitate an independence referendum in order to end the uncertainty surrounding Scotland’s constitutional arrangement.
Of the three options, the first doesn’t change things too much other than put a little bit of extra pressure on Salmond to get a move on (easily ignored), the second is a decent idea to get the unionist side of the debate in early but is likely to be as unsuccessful as the original National Conversation and the third, well, the third one makes more sense from a unionist perspective – using Westminster’s existing powers to hold a Yes/No referendum on Scottish independence.
Yes, the SNP will jump up and down about London ‘butting in’ to Scotland’s affairs and will go on about its (highly questionable) mandate to hold a referendum at the end of this parliamentary term but both sides are playing to win and if Alex Salmond wants to have the plebiscite later to maximise his chances of winning then it is reasonable that David Cameron sees it the other way. Furthermore, the Prime Minister is still responsible for Scotland and if he can see that Scotland is losing out on investment, losing out on jobs as a result of this uncertainty then he has a duty to act.
I’ve said before that the unionists best chance of a win is to move early and I’ll happily say it again. It looks like we’ll find out this week to what extent the Prime Minister agrees.
.
.
.
.
.
ANDREW MARR SHOW TRANSCRIPT – 8th Jan
ANDREW MARR:
Let’s turn to something that might be about getting smaller, not getting bigger, and that’s the United Kingdom itself. Are you determined to affect the timing and the questions of any referendum on Scottish independence?
DAVID CAMERON:
Well I think there is a problem today, in fact two problems. One is the uncertainty about this issue I think is damaging to Scotland and Scotland’s economy because you have companies and other organisations asking well what’s Scotland’s future. Is it within the United Kingdom or not? That’s damaging. And, secondly, I think it’s very unfair on the Scottish people themselves who don’t really know when this question is going to be asked, what the question is going to be, who’s responsible for asking it, and I think we owe the Scottish people something that is fair, legal and decisive. And so in the coming days we’ll be setting out clearly what the legal situation is, and I think then we need to move forward and say, right, let’s settle this issue in a fair and decisive way.
ANDREW MARR:
So what is the legal situation because you know I think, as most people understood it, Alex Salmond as First Minister of Scotland would decide when the referendum was going to happen and the question of whether it’s an in or out referendum or whether there was a third option there would be down to the Scottish administration to decide. Is that something you don’t believe to be the case?
DAVID CAMERON:
Well we’re going to make clear – and I’m afraid I can’t do it today – but we’ll be making clear in the coming days what the legal situation is, and then I think we need a proper debate where people can put forward their views. But my view very strongly is the Scottish people deserve some clarity, some decisiveness, and obviously they deserve it to be legal and binding. And I think that’s very, very …
ANDREW MARR:
(over) So sooner rather than later?
DAVID CAMERON:
(over) Let me be absolutely clear, put my cards on the table. I strongly support the United Kingdom. I think it’s one of the most successful partnerships in the history of the world.
ANDREW MARR:
Yuh.
DAVID CAMERON:
I think it would be desperately sad if Scotland chose to leave the United Kingdom and I’ll do everything I can to encourage Scotland to stay in the United Kingdom because I think that’s the best for all our economies – Scotland included – and all our societies.
ANDREW MARR:
And of course if Scotland did leave the United Kingdom, that would be the end of Britain’s independent nuclear deterrent, wouldn’t it?
DAVID CAMERON:
Well there would be many disadvantages from a break-up of the United Kingdom. You know all those issues would have to be dealt with. But let’s not go there. You know we have this great partnership. This partnership’s worked so well for us in the past, we must keep it into the future. But let’s have some decisiveness about it. Let’s not drift apart with … I think what Alex Salmond is trying to do is just … I think he knows that the Scottish people at heart don’t want a full separation from the United Kingdom and so he’s trying to sort of create a situation where that bubbles up and happens, whereas I think we need some decisiveness so we can clear up this issue.
ANDREW MARR:
And just on the timing. He also apparently wants to have this vote in 2014, the anniversary of the great Battle of Bannockburn when lots of people called Cameron defeated lots of people called Osborne or something like that. But at any rate, he would like it to be 2014. You are saying no, let’s have the vote earlier.
DAVID CAMERON:
Well I think this is a matter for the Scottish people …
ANDREW MARR:
(over) Oh it is, it is.
DAVID CAMERON:
… and if there are problems of uncertainty and lack of clarity, I don’t think we should just let this go on year after year. I think that’s damaging for everyone concerned, so let’s clear up the legal situation and then let’s have a debate about how we bring this issue to a conclusion.
ANDREW MARR:
(over) And sooner, not later?
DAVID CAMERON:
My view is that sooner rather than later would be better.
#1 by R.G. Bargie on January 8, 2012 - 5:05 pm
“Yes, the SNP will jump up and down about London ‘butting in’ to Scotland’s affairs and will go on about its (highly questionable) mandate to hold a referendum at the end of this parliamentary term”
Wait, what? The SNP has a mandate to hold a referendum *whenever it likes*. The manifesto didn’t specify a date, and the campaign promise was 2nd half of the parliament. But even if you discount the latter public pledge (for some reason), they made no promise or suggestion of an early one. They can have it any time they want, right up until April 2016, because that’s how democratic parliamentary majorities work.
#2 by Iain Menzies on January 8, 2012 - 5:31 pm
No democratic parliamentary democracies , majority or not, work on the basis of the rul eof law, that is not saying you can do something because you have numbers even if the law doesnt give you that power.
unless im mistaken what jeff was getting at is the reality that the scottish parliament doesn’t strictly speaking have the power to call a referendum.
#3 by R.G. Bargie on January 8, 2012 - 6:09 pm
I don’t think that IS what Jeff was saying, because if it was then there’s no need for the words “at the end of this parliamentary term” – the SNP would have no right to pass a referendum at ANY time, so specifying the schedule would be totally unnecessary. (Though “mandate” and “legal right” aren’t necessarily the same thing.)
But I guess only Jeff can tell us.
#4 by Jeff on January 8, 2012 - 6:57 pm
Yes, what Iain said is what I was getting at.
#5 by R.G. Bargie on January 8, 2012 - 7:13 pm
Then why specify the timeframe? If they have no legal right to hold a referendum at all, then neither the scheduling or the mandate from the electorate is at all relevant.
#6 by Jeff on January 8, 2012 - 7:27 pm
Because such a referendum would of course be relevant. The UK Government has a legal right to ignore the result but realistically they couldn’t.
My point is, if the SNP has a right to call a referendum then so too does the UK Government as they have the power to hold one, the people have spoken and Cameron is still the Prime Minister of the entire UK with a duty to Scots as much as other nationalities.
#7 by R.G. Bargie on January 8, 2012 - 7:52 pm
Okay, I’m lost. You said:
“its (highly questionable) mandate to hold a referendum at the end of this parliamentary term”
Either the SNP has a mandate to hold a referendum or it doesn’t. Except that as a majority government it clearly DOES have a mandate to implement its manifesto, including the referendum. There is no legal or moral requirement for any government – Holyrood or Westminster – to get 50% of the popular vote to implement its manifesto, or no laws would have been passed anywhere in the UK for almost all of the last 100 years.
The SNP won a majority under the rules as they stood, and is entitled to act accordingly. What’s marginally debateable is the legal status with regard to a referendum specifically, as in whether a consultative poll is reserved or not.
For the UK government the position is the exact opposite – it definitely has the legal right, but has absolutely no mandate, because the parties of the UK government stood for election on a platform of OPPOSING an independence referendum.
What the timing has to do with anything, in either case, I’m afraid I don’t follow. So why say “at the end of the parliamentary term”? And what is “questionable” about the SNP’s mandate, as opposed to their legal powers?
#8 by Jeff on January 8, 2012 - 8:19 pm
You’ve not quoted the whole sentence so you’ve altered my meaning. That may well be my poor sentence structure though.
What is highly questionable is whether the SNP’s mandate is strictly to have the referendum in the second half of the parl term.
#9 by R.G. Bargie on January 8, 2012 - 10:27 pm
It’s not HIGHLY questionable – Salmond specified the party’s stance pretty clearly several times on national media before the election, and it was covered extensively in the press. But it’s as I said back at the start – if the mandate isn’t specifically for the second half, then it’s for “some unspecified time during the Parliament” (the position laid out in the manifesto), which means “absolutely any time the SNP choose within that period, including the second half of the term”.
#10 by Jeff on January 8, 2012 - 10:52 pm
True. So why not hold the referendum now then? The official reason is because of the economy, the same excuse that the SNP scoffed at in 2007-11. The real reason is political expediency.
#11 by R.G. Bargie on January 8, 2012 - 11:12 pm
“The real reason is political expediency.”
Yes. So? Isn’t that what politicians do?
#12 by Jeff on January 9, 2012 - 7:24 am
Absolutely, I have no problem with that. Just wish some folks would be honest about it.
#13 by Don McC on January 9, 2012 - 7:13 am
Jeff, I’ve never heard any SNP minister claim it’s to do with the economy. The real official reason is that Salmond said it would be in the second half of this parliamentary term.
Could you cite where you heard it was to do with the economy?
#14 by Jeff on January 9, 2012 - 7:19 am
I don’t have a link handy but I’ll look it up.
Incidentally, “the real official reason is that Salmond said it would be in the second half of this parliamentary term.” <-- that's not a reason for anything. That is the effect of a still mysterious cause. 'Why' did Salmond say it has to be in the 2nd half of the Parl?
#15 by itsyourself on January 9, 2012 - 10:22 am
So what is this indecisive intervention for then?
#16 by Jeff on January 9, 2012 - 11:03 am
Well, two things:
to fast track the legality of the parliamentary competence of the referendum and to bring forward the referendum date (to maximise the chances of a no vote)
So I got two out of three which, as Meatloaf once said, isn’t bad.
#17 by James on January 8, 2012 - 6:51 pm
As set out in loving (and pro-independence) style by Lallands Peat Worrier.
#18 by R.G. Bargie on January 8, 2012 - 7:55 pm
Again, “mandate” != “legal right”.
#19 by scottish_skier on January 8, 2012 - 6:53 pm
Scots Law or English Law? Both are completely seperate jurisdictions as protected by international law under the Treaty of Union (1707) with this subject to the Vienna Convention on Treaties (1986).
http://www.journalonline.co.uk/Magazine/52-6/1004238.aspx
Only the Scots people, through their duly elected representatives, can make changes to the status of Scotland within the Union. Currently, due to electoral mandate (higher number of votes than the coalition in both 2010 GE and 2011 SE), this would appear to be the SNP.
#20 by Richard Thomson on January 8, 2012 - 6:25 pm
Seems to me the only people introducing ‘uncertainty’ here are Cameron and Clegg et al, with their ‘will they, won’t they’ pronouncements – even occasionally within the same breath.
FWIW, no Parliament on these islands, not even Westminster, can hold a ‘legally binding’ referendum because there’s no such thing. Even the Mother of Parliaments on the mudflat by the Thames has to legislate after the event to bring into effect anything which it has held a referendum over.
#21 by Jeff on January 8, 2012 - 6:56 pm
Well, it’s not really a ‘will they, won’t they’ pronouncement if it’s coming in the next few days. That’s very much a ‘they will’ pronouncement.
The SNP has had a long window where they could make it clear what the plans are but they haven’t. Maybe they’ll gamble and win through the public not minding too much but it’s a risky indulgence if you ask me and smacks of wanting to have your cake and eating it. There’s no rule book for this kind of thing and I don’t really mind when the vote is (though I would mind if folk living outside of Scotland get to vote in it), but I do think it’s reasonable to expect the Scottish Government to have told us by now.
Fair but petty picky point you make about legally binding referendum; it’s pretty clear which Parliament has the legal competency to run with one which in turn calls into question the SNP’s mandate when it was a policy that arguably wasn’t up for grabs to start with (and the SNP got less than 50% of the vote so no popular mandate. But now I’m being petty!)
#22 by JPJ2 on January 8, 2012 - 7:18 pm
The unionists must be of the view that the case for the union will not withstand a long period of investigation otherwise there is no need for this urgency.
My own suggestion to the SNP is that they declare that if Cameron forces an early wrecking vote, then they will hold one in the second half of the parliament anyway, unless they do win the first vote, the likelihood of doing so being increased by the legal but morally dubious interference in Scottish affairs.
Even if the SNP lose both votes they will still win the 2016 Holyrood election anyway, probably with a bigger majority, as their opponents are utterly useless and have zero vision for the future of Scotland.
#23 by Jeff on January 8, 2012 - 7:25 pm
I was with you up until the last paragraph. I can’t see the SNP enjoying such lamentable opposition as was the case in May 2011 for a very long time.
I like your point that a snap election from DC is a clear admission that he doesn’t believe the union will stand the test of time of even a few years.
#24 by scottish_skier on January 8, 2012 - 9:02 pm
“I can’t see the SNP enjoying such lamentable opposition as was the case in May 2011 for a very long time”
Why? Labour managed 35-50% of the Scots vote for most of the last century. If we consider the SNP as a ‘Scottish’ scocial democratic party with centrist to modestly left leanings, then who’s to say they won’t dominate for decades in the future, independence or not?
#25 by Jeff on January 8, 2012 - 9:06 pm
Fair enough. Let’s see how it goes then.
*waits*
#26 by Daniel J on January 8, 2012 - 10:52 pm
Surely the voting system will preclude this. Their percentage of the vote needs to drop a few pts and the majority is gone.
#27 by Jeff on January 8, 2012 - 11:03 pm
Precisely. Or they could have the same share of the votes and the Greens could pick up and they could be down to a minority Govt then too. An increased majority is, I’d say, v unlikely.
#28 by scottish_skier on January 8, 2012 - 11:17 pm
There is no obvious reason to suppose the SNP will not be a dominant factor in Scottish politics for many years to come. That does not mean a majority as per May of course. Even if the independence referendum before us returned a ‘no’ vote, that does not preclude the SNP remaining in government nor another referendum down the line. Ultimately, the people of Scotland will vote for what they want, and when.
#29 by Richard Thomson on January 8, 2012 - 8:49 pm
Oh, I’m sure ‘they will’ do something, Jeff. However, your transcript doesn’t tell us much other than that Cameron simultaneously thinks that the vote should be held “sooner rather than later” but that it’s also “a matter for the Scottish people” whether or not the vote is held prior to 2014. Clear? As mud.
It’s certainly clear that Westminster can hold a referendum (if not a binding one), but it’s far from clear that Holyrood can’t do similar. That’s not to say that any Holyrood referendum bill couldn’t fall victim to a determined individual litigant or a judgement from Lord Hope, but those who would brook no argument over the illegality of a Holyrood-initiated referendum are, I fear, placing a burden on the Scotland Act which it is ill-equipped to bear.
Nevertheless, if Cameron wanted to clear up that particular element of uncertainty, the Scotland Act could be amended so as to state explicitly that the general reservation of the ‘Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England’ and the ‘Parliament of the United Kingdom’ in Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act doesn’t extend to holding a referendum on independence. Doing so would then remove for all time any prospect of a referendum vote being challenged either before or after the event in the courts on the grounds of legislative competence.
If it comes to timing, though, let’s not forget that in a matter of months, Cameron has gone from saying ‘no referendum, ever’ to ‘I want one and I want one now’. As BaffieBox says, he has no credibility whatsoever on the timing and would be well advised to leave alone on that front.
#30 by scottish_skier on January 8, 2012 - 6:59 pm
Incidentally, given that David Cameron can’t acutally vote in the independence referendum, one does wonder why he feels it necessary to stick his oar in.
Sort of like Angela Merkel & Nicolas Sarkozy flying in to campaign to keep the UK in the EU. Maybe even dictating the question, timing etc.
#31 by Nikostratos on January 8, 2012 - 7:23 pm
Jeff
Ya! being petty (again)
(though I would mind if folk living outside of Scotland get to vote in it)
So whats your position on a registered Polish/Latvian/Slovak/etc living temporarily in Scotland voting
whilst a Scot living in England Temporarily is unable to.
#32 by Jeff on January 8, 2012 - 8:17 pm
I have no problem with that and such instances are tiny to the point of immaterial.
You can’t means test a vote, you have to have broad brush rules and a person living in Scotland now has more of a say than someone not living in Scotland (who is Scottish) and, for all anyone knows, may not return.
If a person is out of the country temporarily and really wants to vote in the referendum, they’ll find a way onto the electoral register somehow.
#33 by Craig Gallagher on January 8, 2012 - 10:41 pm
I don’t live in the UK anymore, and won’t for the next few years, being realistic. Yet given a lack of upcoming elections between now and the referendum (excepting council elections) I am hopeful I can remain on the electoral roll at my parents’ house in Inverclyde, which was where I voted in the Scottish elections from, despite being resident in Glasgow for work at the time.
Dodgy? Perhaps. I haven’t started investigating whether this is something I could get in trouble over, but nobody seemed to mind that I had forgotten to switch my constituency to Glasgow Kelvin in May (having only moved out of Inverclyde the previous September), perhaps they won’t mind come 2014 or whenever.
#34 by Craig Gallagher on January 8, 2012 - 10:43 pm
Also, in general I am also not opposed to Jeff’s point on residency. Really, only Scottish voters should decide, wherever in the world they are originally from, as they will be the ones most affected by a Yes vote. It’s just my own hubris that I consider myself one whilst living in the USA 🙂
#35 by BaffieBox on January 8, 2012 - 7:52 pm
Jeff:
“I like your point that a snap election from DC is a clear admission that he doesn’t believe the union will stand the test of time of even a few years.”
Absolutely, and it should highlight the hypocrisy of people questioning the SNPs timetable because it improves their chances winning. This is the ONLY reason Cameron and others want it early. The sooner its held, the more chance they have of winning. It’s nothing at all to do with mandate, its nothing at all to do with uncertainty, its nothing to do with legality… its about winning.
Any manipulation of the timing by Westminster would be the most grotesque and blatant abuse of democracy in recent UK political history in my opinion. By all means, take steps to address legality, but they have no mandate beyond that.
#36 by Aidan on January 8, 2012 - 9:06 pm
You mean like this? http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/jan/08/alex-salmond-cameron-scottish-referendum
#37 by Steve on January 8, 2012 - 9:28 pm
I was about to comment that if I were David Cameron then I’d amend the Scotland Bill to include a Yes/No referendum to be held within the next 18 months, and reading that Guardian link, that looks exactly like what will happen.
The SNP can huff and puff all they like, but if, as I suspect, they are unable to hold a referendum of their own legally, then they are trapped, either take DC’s offer or face the prospect of rejecting it but then failing to deliver a referendum of their own.
I think this is very clever stuff from the UK Government, and it puts the SNP in a tricky position.
But as an advocate of Scottish independence, I say bring it on, a deadline will help focus the minds and I still think it can be won.
#38 by Aidan on January 8, 2012 - 9:54 pm
I’m definitely in favour of sooner rather than later, not because I think it’s going to make a huge difference to the outcome (well, I really hope it won’t, either way) but because then we can Get On With It, whatever It is….
#39 by Craig Gallagher on January 8, 2012 - 10:52 pm
I know you’re riffing a bit here Aidan, but nonetheless, why would anyone want to “Get On With It”? The referendum debate is the most electrified Scottish politics has been for a good many years, at least since the heyday of the Scottish Constitutional Convention (mildly before my time). Whatever side you come down on, it’s clear there are very few downsides to having the argument out in public, except the prospect of losing for either nationalists or unionists.
As grown-ups one and all (well, mostly all), I think we can at least agree that all this chat about “harming investment” from the UK Government and “unassailable mandates” from the Scottish Government are just grandstanding, irrelevant to the real issue of maneuvering to gain the best possible advantage over the other. The debate is having very little negative effect in Scotland, most of the problems stem from the cuts and the lack of growth generally across the UK.
Why take away our one real escape from the dreariness of much of the rest of the political landscape?
#40 by Don McC on January 8, 2012 - 10:53 pm
I think any attempt to force an early referendum via the Scotland Bill, which the guardian article hints at, won’t cause Salmond many sleepless nights. He can simply claim that the bill is such a mess that Westminster has shoe horned in the referendum powers in a vain attempt to make the bill more palatable (which is probably the idea in the first place).
If Westminster was to make separate legislation endowing referendum powers onto Holyrood (sunset clause or not), that would be a different kettle of fish but I think the chances of that are quite remote.
#41 by BaffieBox on January 8, 2012 - 9:13 pm
That’s actually worse than I thought he’d try and get away with! Where does 18 months come from? They look like they are just making up the rules on the fly? I’m actually speechless… Haha
#42 by ianbeag on January 8, 2012 - 9:53 pm
Do I detect a note of panic creeping into Westminster’s timetable for the referendum? Previous comments from Cameron, Moore, Osborne and others accepted Alex Salmond’s right to define the terms and the timing but today’s comments from DC might indicate otherwise. Some useful background here http://stephennoon.blogspot.com/2011/11/compelling-and-simple-case.html
It might be a good time to remind Cameron of the comments in his Christmas radio message to the Falkland Islanders “Let me be absolutely clear, we will always maintain our commitment to you on any question of sovereignty.
“Your right to self-determination is the cornerstone of our policy. We will never negotiate on the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands unless you, the Falkland Islanders, so wish. No democracy could ever do otherwise.â€
#43 by scottish_skier on January 8, 2012 - 10:29 pm
David Cameron tries to force the referendum.
Scottish Government say “Em, no”.
Scottish Government support rises even further due to the ‘Veto (against the Tories) effect’.
Scottish government announces date of referendum and rides the wave…..
Dave is playing a very dangerous game. The coalition parties have at best just over 20% support in Scotland, with remaining voters disliking them considerably.
SNP will be very pleased at this development.
Legalities are irrelevant, as is who holds the referendum so long as it is free and fair. If Scots vote Yes, then that’s it.
#44 by Steve on January 8, 2012 - 10:58 pm
Problem is, the Scottish Parliament can’t legislate for a referendum on the issue of independence.
So Dave’s offering the SNP their only chance at having a referendum before the next Scottish Parliament elections.
#45 by scottish_skier on January 8, 2012 - 11:47 pm
“Problem is, the Scottish Parliament can’t legislate for a referendum on the issue of independence.”
Actually, they can if they wish; they can pass bills into Scots civil Law. Who’s going to stop them? The police? David Cameron himself by running into the parliament and grabbing the bill then running away? Maybe the army?
The Scotttish civil service – who organise and run elections – are, em, well, Scots and serve the elected government of Scotland.
Maybe Dave will cut off the money if Scotland does not comply? But that would cut off the oil so…
Seriously, once you give a people a parliament, they can do what they want with it. We live in the days of the EU and UN. Westminster has no leg to stand on in terms of Scots self-determination.
The SNP won the right to hold this. Other parties should stand back lest they wish to defeat their own cause.
#46 by Angus McLellan on January 8, 2012 - 11:50 pm
Like they say on Wikipedia, {{citation needed}}. Pleural Plaques suggested rather strongly that the Supreme Court thought that the Scottish Government has the power (p. 61, para 147) and the Scottish Government thinks so too. So what’s the basis for your bald assertion to the contrary?
#47 by Jeff on January 9, 2012 - 7:23 am
“rather strongly” oo-er.
When people in the SNP even concede that the Scot Parl doesn’t have the requisite legal competence for this referendum then that’s good enough for me.
#48 by Dennis Smith on January 8, 2012 - 10:53 pm
Maybe Cameron has a cunning plan here – we shall have to wait and see. Maybe OTOH he is blundering into a minefield he does not understand. There are two separate questions here – who has a legal right to call a (non-binding) referendum, and who has a political mandate. The answer to the first seems to be unclear and certainly needs to be sorted out. It’s the second question that’s problematic for the Coalition. Even moderate devolutionists tend to accept that a UK mandate is not the same as a Scottish mandate – this is an argument that Labour and the Lib Dems hammered away at in the 1980s and 1990s and they can hardly change their minds now. There are two parties with an arguable claim to a Scottish mandate – Labour on the basis of the Westminster 2010 election, the SNP on the basis of Holyrood 2011. The Coalition have no claim to a mandate in Scotland unless they can get explicit backing from Labour, and that raises big problems for all three unionist/devolutionist parties.
#49 by Steve on January 8, 2012 - 11:04 pm
The SNP have a mandate to hold a referendum on independence in the second half of the SP term. If the UK Gov delivers that (just in the second half) then the people of Scotland get what they voted for, who can complain about that?
#50 by Barbarian on January 8, 2012 - 10:59 pm
I’ve posted my full thoughts on my own blog, but I don’t think there is any panic from Westminster here. What I believe is that the SG has allowed Cameron an opportunity.
The timing argument is a surprisingly smart move from them. Eight months into the Scottish Parliament, and no indication as to when the Referendum will be held, and nothing whatsoever as to the format.
This cannot continue. The longer there is no decision, the more opportunities for the SNP’s opponents to attack them. And this is even before we get into the real debate over the policies.
#51 by Steve on January 8, 2012 - 11:02 pm
I’d be interested to read that, link please!
#52 by Erchie on January 9, 2012 - 1:31 am
Type your comment here
Manifesto says that the time for the Referendum is after the Scotland Bill is dealt with.
Are you insisting the SNP breaks their pledges!
#53 by Jeff on January 9, 2012 - 7:20 am
That is false. The SNP manifesto makes no reference to timing. Feel free to prove me wrong, if you can.
#54 by R.G. Bargie on January 9, 2012 - 11:00 am
http://manifesto.votesnp.com/progress_has_been_made
The manifesto clearly states that the SNP will press for improvements in the current Scotland Bill, and also bring forward its plans for a referendum. Since one of those is happening in the present and one is the future, the timing is pretty unarguably implicit.
#55 by Indy on January 10, 2012 - 8:08 am
This is a boring and pointless debate about process. It will play extremely badly for the Lib Dems in particular in Scotland because Michael Moore and Danny Alexander appear to be the chief cheerleaders and naturally their motives will be questioned – and what are their motives? Clearly political. They must be daft if they think people can’t see through that.
They are now offering a “legally binding” referendum according to Michael Moore. There is no such thing as a “legally binding” referendum. All referendums in the UK are consultative. The legally binding part comes into play when legislation is passed. E.g. the Scottish Parliament was not created by the outcome of the referendum, it was created and its powers defined by the Scotland Act. This is basic stuff and they really must think voters are stupid frankly if they are going to be taken in by any of this. A respect agenda? I don’t think so. And politicians who fail to treat the electorate with respect tend to pay a price for that – you might think the Lib Dems would be aware of that given the price their Tory partners have paid in Scotland but apparently not.
#56 by Jeff on January 10, 2012 - 10:30 am
To be fair Indy, whose fault is it that we’re talking about process? If the referendum was this year or next then the debate would be about the pros of independence vs the pros of the UK; but given we don’t know the date, then that debate is postponed.
To be fair again though, it’s not the SNP who are creating these headlines. I just hope someone at the SG has the hand on the devolved tiller in and amongst all of this noise.
As for legally binding referendums; I may be being very simplistic (and I am in no way passing myself off as any sort of expert), but I don’t see how a Bill couldn’t be passed that states – if referendum result x is delivered, then this must happen; if the result is y, then that must happen. That, to me, would be a ‘legally binding’ referendum. Isn’t that what Michael Moore will be proposing today?
#57 by Indy on January 10, 2012 - 11:17 am
The fault lies with the people who are obsessing about process while at the same time changing their minds about their own position every 5 minutes.
The Scottish Government are not a bunch of renegades. We have actually been here before – there will be a consulation on the referendum bill, as there was the last term of parliament. What has changed is that we now have the support to get it through parliament. But everybody will have their chance to contribute to the shape of the referendum bill, including the UK Government.
However it is not their bill. If they want to be helpful in terms of ensuring that there can be no possible legal challenges mounted then that is great – but they shouldn’t be trying to put conditions on it. They were not elected to do that. We hear so much about what was or wasn’t in the SNP manifesto but where does it say in the Lib Dem or Tory manifestos that they want to hold a referendum on independence or control the timing and structure of any referendum that is held?
They need to start showing some respect for the democratic process here. The Scottish Government are quite within their rights to hold the referendum when they please and to decide on the format and questions.
#58 by Jeff on January 10, 2012 - 11:33 am
I agree, but the SNP has pushed for a referendum at the earliest opportunity before so if it wins a mandate to hold one and then waits 4-5 years to deliver it, it is inevitable that process will be the focus during that vaccuum.
It may not be their Bill, but they have a vested interested in it and can’t not enquire, and push for, when it shall be and what form it shall take.
I definitely agree that it is for the SNP to call the shots though, that they won that right.
#59 by Indy on January 10, 2012 - 11:48 am
But we are only 8 months into the SNP’s five year term. Why the hysteria? You know this isn’t the only thing that is on the Scottish Government to-do list. Everyone will have an opportunity to participate in the consultation – it would not be possible for the SG to publish a referendum bill without having a consultation. That’s a legal requirement. So everyone knows that is going to happen but, as I said, there are other things that are also happening. You should maybe consider what the reaction would have been if the SG had pushed everything else to one side to focus exclusively on the referendum. I think we can all guess.
#60 by Jeff on January 10, 2012 - 12:15 pm
Well, pushing everything to one side and focussing exclusively on independence and not letting anyone know what date the Scottish Government has pencilled in are not the only two options. Now who is being hysterical 😉
I don’t think there is any hysteria at play from the main protagonists; David Cameron made some decent points on Marr and Johann Lamont makes a decent point that she wants this question out of the way or at least a date set. As you, I and everyone knows, it’s not their decision to make; but the speculation is inevitable if the SNP holds too much close to their chests, that’s all I’m saying.
But the bottom line is, the SNP has the right to go at its own pace, speculation and hullabaloo or not, and nothing that we’ve seen in the past couple of days suggests that the SNP will be significantly harmed if they do wait until 2014-16.
#61 by Indy on January 10, 2012 - 1:34 pm
Jeff – seriously – everything around the date, the process, the questions etc will be part of the consultation.
And the Scottish Government consultation is being launched this month.
Now do you see why I think there is a bit of hysteria around this?
Their argument is that they want the Scottish Government to set out its proposals. And that is exactly what will happen.
But they then pre-empt that by trying to set out their own proposals – albeit they don’t seem too sure what those proposals are. Yesterday there seemed to be a condition attached that it had to be held within 18 months, now that seems less likely. How many times do you think Michael Moore’s statement has been re-written since it was first drafted? It’s headless chicken time. Meanwhile the SG has been doing the work in putting together a proper consultation document.