There’s an episode in the West Wing where, in the madness of a crowded rope line, President Jed Bartlet accepts a copy of the Taiwanese flag from a member of the public. Given Jed is such a wily political operator, the assumption is that he did this on purpose to invite the consternation from China and provoke a debate on Taiwan independence. He didn’t, he just made a mistake and didn’t see what someone had put in his hand.
One has to wonder if that other wily political operator, President-in-waiting Alex Salmond, has played yet another strategic blinder in not getting Devo Max onto the ballot paper or whether he’s simply messed up.
On the one hand, Salmond has seemingly been pushing for something that he and his party claims to not want but his political opponents do and, in losing ‘his’ second vote, he may well have cleverly won much of the would-be Devo Max voters as future Yes voters by fighting their corner and offering them some sort of change, rather than simply the status quo.
Further, through this push for a Devo Max option, the First Minister has certainly helped paint Labour as anti-devolutionist and helped sew some internal rancour over whether they should back a second question or not. It’s well worth noting that the Devo Max referendum option has disappeared before Johann Lamont has even started her promised commission on devolution which is (was?) to focus on extending Holyrood’s powers.
On the other hand of course, Alex Salmond has opened his party up to the possibility of a devastating defeat in 2014 with no consolation prize and also opened himself up to ridicule here and now. Unwarranted ridicule that is, but when has that ever stopped the Scottish press. The First Minister was portrayed as wanting something but he didn’t get it. Cue exaggerated terms such as ‘humiliation’, ’embarrassment’ and ‘making chumps’ of those who want Devo Max. (A neat, if rather desperate attempt by Willie Rennie there to try to wrest back the Lib Dem reputation as being the most pro devolution party, though it does indirectly make him sound like Head Chump).
I personally believe Alex Salmond genuinely wanted that second question, that it wasn’t all just political cross-dressing smoke and mirrors, and that he’ll be bitterly disappointed that a more fortuitous result was not reached during the time that he created for a second question to emerge. However, when someone doesn’t get the first win from their win-win situation, it’s more than a stretch to label it a defeat. Alex Salmond no longer has a legacy-defining backup plan for his circa 2014/15 retirement. That doesn’t really change much for the rest of us.
The quid pro quo for Salmond relenting on his push for a Devo Max option on the ballot slip is seemingly a mercifully straightforward, Westminster-sanctioned, legal framework in which to hold the referendum.
This is all to be welcomed, because the sooner the ultimately frivolous and childishly conducted discussions over how many questions, what the question(s) will be, timing etc are out of the way, the closer we will get to the real debate sparking to life, Scots having constructive conversations about their collective future, politicians on all sides being forced to talk about substance and, most appealingly (and to use another West Wing analogy), the Yes campaign letting Salmond be Salmond, unleashing their prized weapon when he’s at his best – winning votes on the campaign trail. Unless he stuffs up and unwittingly takes a Union flag as a gift at an inopportune time, of course.
So no, it’s not at all clear who the absence of a Devo Max option is a defeat for, and we have a way to go to find out.
#1 by Topher Dawson on September 25, 2012 - 8:17 am
I don’t know what Alex privately feels about this but it is true that now no political party is campaigning for the option most Scots say they want, which must be some sort of democratic failure.
Both sides seem to be calculating that voters who would have gone for Devo Max will fall into their camp by default. At least Salmond has left the door open as long as he could to cater for this strand of opinion. The result of the referendum is going to depend on which way this group of voters jumps, so it’s a pretty vital question.
I think that the parties supporting the No camp have misjudged the mood of the electorate by polarising the debate, and will reap the result they don’t want.
#2 by James on September 25, 2012 - 10:18 am
That would be true if there had been a defined Devo Max option for the people (and indeed the politicians) to consider. Right now, without one, there’s no sense that the people who polled in favour of it agree on what it means. One paper recently asked “what more powers?” and the most common answers were the already-devolved health and education. Some people had a passionate idea what they wanted, but precious few, and many of those ticks in the Devo Max column were basically don’t knows.
#3 by JPJ2 on September 25, 2012 - 11:21 am
Over years, decades even, when the areas over which Scotland should have power were polled, only areas such as defence and foreign affairs returned larger support for Westminster control.
However, as the debate on a straight choice between independence and retention of Westminster develops, I believe the potential to get rid of Trident, and to prevent any further Iraqs, is likely to move more and more of the supporters of “devo max (HOWEVER defined) into the “Yes” camp.
#4 by Grahamski on September 25, 2012 - 8:28 am
Interesting piece, Jeff.
One thing I don’t get is that Mr Salmond still claims that he could run a perfectly legal referendum without a section 30 order.
If that is true and he actually believes that then why bother with all this shadow boxing and faffing about – why not just run it to suit himself, or indeed the Scottish people?
Either Mr Salmond is lying about his ability to run a referendum without Westminster or he’s wasting everybody’s time with his pointless political games.
#5 by Don McC on September 25, 2012 - 8:46 am
That’s a good question Grahamski. The Supreme Court, in another ruling, did concede that they would have no power to overrule the clear will of the Scottish people, effectively making a referendum within the powers of THIS Scottish parliament.
The only reasonable explanation, then, is that court proceedings, regardless of the outcome, would delay events and the timing seems to be fairly crucial. There’s also the whole issue of those who wanted a second question. Who do they blame for removal of that option? Salmond or the Unionists (clue, it’s not Salmond)? Where will their vote go now?
#6 by JPJ2 on September 25, 2012 - 11:31 am
I don’t think the politics of this are pointless.
I am sure that if “No” prevails this time then Westminster will try to prevent any further referendum taking place by seeking to embed all powers of decision making on a future referendum unambiguously at Westminster.
Salmond will insist that he is accepting the Section 30 order as a matter of political convenience, without agreeing that Scotland cannot hold a referendum without (in effect) unionist agreement..
#7 by Indy on September 25, 2012 - 8:32 am
I think it is also about understanding that politicians are sometimes talking to different audiences even when they appear to be talking to each other.
When Alex Salmond said we are open to having a question on enhanced devolution on the ballot paper if there is sufficiemt support for that – which has been the consistent position of the SNP since 2009 – he was talking to the people who support a form of enhanced devolution. He wasn’t really talking to the opposition parties or indeed to his own party. He was making an offer to the people involved in those other conversations about Devo Max, the trade unions, think tanks, SCVO etc.
Whereas the target audience for the opposition parties with their line about Devo Max was firstly the SNP, then their own members. The supporters of Devo Max didn’t really come into itfor them, though I have no doubt they will cobble together some kind of proposal to devolve some minor things if Scotland votes no. But it won’t be Devo Max.
#8 by Don McC on September 25, 2012 - 8:37 am
The big question here, Jeff, is which box do all the ‘chumps’ (as Wee Wilie Rennie would have it) who wanted a devo max option now tick on their ballot paper? Will they vote for the status quo, hoping that Call-Me-Dave will honour a promise he’s already backtracked on and will deliver jam tomorrow while the leaders of both Scottish Labour and Scottish Tories have both effectively said “this far and no further”?
Personally, I’ve always said that Salmond’s strategy was to get the Unionists to force the removal of anything other than a straight yes/no from the referendum and he’s played his role well. The more the MSM crow about his personal humiliation on a second question, his personal defeat on this issue, the more he can point the finger at those who would deny Scots the choices they may want. “I might not agree with a devo-max choice but I wanted to give you it, it was them that denied you”. Expect Salmond to say something to that effect more than a couple of times over the next two years. Expect such a statement to resonate with more than a couple of people too.
#9 by Chris on September 25, 2012 - 9:09 am
I think we have to get the big question out of the way first in order to have a proper debate on the extent of devolution. That was never going to happen with an independence referendum looming.
Post-referendum I would like to see real discussions on how devolution can be improved and also on how we reverse the rather worrying trend of centralisation within Scotland.
#10 by Doug Daniel on September 25, 2012 - 11:40 am
“I think we have to get the big question out of the way first in order to have a proper debate on the extent of devolution. That was never going to happen with an independence referendum looming.”
It took the SNP being elected into minority government for the unionist parties to suddenly realise Holyrood needed more powers. With a referendum suddenly becoming a genuine possibility in the near future, they still managed to fudge the devolution reforms. With the prospect of Scotland voting to become independent dead and buried, there is absolutely no reason for the Tories to allow any more devolution, despite Cameron’s Jam Tomorrow pledges. (He promised “no more top down NHS reform” either, remember…)
This ridiculous “get the big question out of the way first” notion that has been dreamt up by Labour/Lib Dems/whoever it was is basically the same as a card player saying “right, I need to get rid of all my trump cards, then I can get on with playing the game.”
“Post-referendum I would like to see real discussions on how devolution can be improved”
Bit pointless since we’ll have just voted for independence (since it’ll be clear by then that tomorrow’s jam doesn’t actually exist…)
#11 by Allan on September 25, 2012 - 6:42 pm
Ah, but isn’t there a Westminster Election six months after the Referendum. Plenty of time for supporters of Devo Max to press their representitives for concessions. After all, they do want our vote come May 2015 don’t they?
#12 by Grahamski on September 25, 2012 - 9:37 am
“I might not agree with a devo-max choice but I wanted to give you it, it was them that denied you”. Expect Salmond to say something to that effect more than a couple of times over the next two years.
For that to be true Mr Salmond would have to admit that his claims about the legality of a referendum without a section 30 order were false.
#13 by BaffieBox on September 25, 2012 - 9:45 am
As I said a while ago, it’s all just basic negotiating tactics…nothing more. You never, ever, volunteer a concession and make sure you grab as much of the negotiating territory as possible, and grab it early. This gives you the most flexibility, the higher number of outs and the most powerful bargaining position. By claiming Devo Max, regardless of whether he wanted it or not, he made sure he had something major he could concede if needed.
Remember when the proposed question was laughed as biased by the Unionists? Remember when the prospect of giving 16/17 year olds the vote was ludicrous? And here we are, both like being conceded by the UK Government. This isnt an act of goodwill – it’s because the SNP ensured they had something to publicly concede in return. This may or may not be the SNPs preference, but it’s certainly not by accident.
As it happens, I think the SNP, if there was any doubt initially, now see a Yes/No question as hugely winnable. Better Together has done nothing of note, a potent Yes campaign is coming together, and as the weekends rally has demonstrated, there is a genuine movement forming that is easily capable of winning a successful referendum.
I dont think it’s a defeat for anyone other than the electorate. Regardless of my opinion, it does feel wrong to polarise the debate and omitting the option the majority would align with. Meh… maybe that’s what we need – more radical politics that force the electorate to engage. Either way, I’m more than happy with how things are developing.
#14 by Ben Achie on September 25, 2012 - 10:07 am
Less than four weeks from now and the SNP annual conference will be over. The party will have started the process of setting out its vision of what an independent SNP governed Scotland would look like. All others prepared to consider independence will also be able to focus on identifying and articulating what their vision of an independent Scotland can be. Meanwhile the unionists will be giving us more of the same old, same old about a decrepit, bankrupt Britain that cannot escape its past for the next two years.
#15 by gavin on September 25, 2012 - 12:00 pm
Coalition–The future of British politics. That is how the LibDems perceive the way things will be. Not Home Rule or Federalism. You will look in vain for any London based Party to show ANY interest in further devolution at their Party Conferences. The same is true of the MSM. No one who sees things through London-centric vision can see any problem with their view of a London-centric world. Anyone who deludes themselves that we will get anything after a no vote is living in a chump-bubble. No offence intended.
#16 by Gavin Hamilton on September 25, 2012 - 12:03 pm
I too have no idea whether Alex Salmond was being wily and using the second question as either a bargaining chip and/or a mechanism to expose a variety of views on the Better Together side (and forcing them to take positive views one way or another of their vision for the future of Scotland).
He may of course have wanted it because at this point a No vote seems the most likely outcome and when it comes to the ‘National Question’ the development of devolution is the issue not independence.
I think he actually needs that to keep his show on the road and a defeat on his whole ‘raison d’etre’ without a fall back position will probably realign Scottish politics entirely.
I’m also interested in your comments regarding Willie Rennie. I don’t think he is desperate; I don’t think he is desperate at all. I think he is articulate and he is fighting his corner – and he is doing that extremely well.
The job of leader of the Scottish LibDems is no place for a shrinking violet and he has to have sharp elbows if he is to get his points across.
The downside is he often has to play the role of a an attack dog rather than play the role of political theorist. But it allows him to be an effective opposition operator and he gets his points across – both positive and negative.
All of this means that the LibDems do, I believe, remain the most pro devolution party. This is still their position – and one in which they have been remarkably consistent over the years.
I don’t think it was ever really tenable to have a second question without a detailed proposal and a mechanism for implementation. And I don’t think an SNP run Holyrood administration can deliver that as it is not what they want – except as a tactical stepping stone to Independence.
As James said, we haven’t had a defined DevoMax option and there is no sense that the people polled agree what it means or the extent to which they are pushing for it.
However, it is clear, I think, that there is both very wide and deep support for evolving the powers of the Scottish Parliament.
#17 by Chris on September 25, 2012 - 12:32 pm
I don’t understand your argumentativeness here. There were only 8 years between the establishment of the parliament and the first SNP administration. It doesn’t look like a failing on anyone’s part to have not come forward for significant proposals for enhanced devolution at the time. Particularly as we were in the fortuitous situation of having similar administrations in London and Edinburgh. A similar process is happening in Wales now without a threat of independence.
I do not trust David Cameron on this. Change won’t come with his empty promises. It was a very long wait until 1997 to have a Labour government that implemented devolution with a referendum FIVE MONTHS after getting elected. But there was also years of work beforehand e.g. on The Claim of Right that allowed this to move quickly and basically twisted the arms of Blair.
I am talking about recognising that there is a problem, that there is a significant minority who want independence and whilst that remains a minority concern their views need to be accommodated. This may mean a form of increased devolution than Labour or Lib Dems would be less than comfortable with. And, like the claim of right, this will take a lot of persuading. And it will take a sympathetic UK government to bring about these powers and embed them.
If Scotland votes Yes then of course this is unnecessary. But I think all of us who are interested in building a Better Nation really need to start working now on what happens after a No vote. I would also be looking at failure of the Yes campaign to present plausible scenarios on basic questions. Maybe now is the time to get think-tanking and build those scenarios for a post-referendum Scotland.
It took 14 years to recover our feet after the 1978 referendum and even then it was the poll tax that provoked that, rather than a warm glow of consciencisation. I think we should learn from this error.
#18 by Doug Daniel on September 25, 2012 - 12:35 pm
I genuinely don’t think Salmond actually wanted a second question. Maybe I’m being naive there, but everyone knows that, given a choice between independence, the status quo, and a middle option, the middle option would win. We’d win some more powers, which would obviously be welcomed by anyone who wants self-determination for Scotland, but it would put independence off the agenda for the next few parliamentary terms – long past Salmond’s stewardship of the party.
If Salmond really is the egotist that his critics accuse him of being, then he would want to be the man who brought independence to Scotland, and he would certainly believe in his own hype enough to think that he could do it. We all know a perfect storm is brewing – the most hapless, disastrous and damaging UK government in living memory (if not longer), a stagnating economy that is going nowhere fast, cuts to public services, no prospects of parliamentary or electoral reform at UK level, and despite all this – with the Labour party led by a man who looks and sounds like he still gets wedgied every day – it looks increasingly likely that the Tories will bafflingly win a second term.
If we can’t win an independence referendum under those circumstances, then we never will. Salmond would have to be mad to pass up this opportunity, and even his critics admit he’s a shrewd operator. I think you just have to witness Salmond gein it laldy on Saturday to know that this is a man who is completely committed to winning a YES vote.
#19 by Cath on September 25, 2012 - 2:06 pm
As well as the two given options – Salmond wanted the 2nd question and has lost or Salmond didn’t want it and has won, cleverly boxing in the opposition parties – there is also a third possibility. That is, that the opposition parties, or at least the Tories and possibly Lib Dems, genuinely don’t want more devolution, more years of wrangling with the Scottish parliament and passing more legislation like the Scotland Act which doesn’t go far enough. Hence they might be genuine about a straight yes/no: either independence or the status quo. If this is the case, it makes for an interesting problem for them. If they genuinely would prefer full independence to more devolution, what would happen in the event of a – likely very close – no vote?
That result wouldn’t help, as there would still be a Scottish parliament, likely controlled by the SNP. If labour carries on as they are, this could even be bolstered by a larger SNP cohort at Westminster. So they’d still be being pushed for more powers. Either they’d have to try and meet these demands, against an even angrier, more recalcitrant Scottish population than now, with a large number disappointed and agitating for more (including all the devo-max folk as well as the 1 in 3 who support independence). Or they’d have to clip the wings of the Scottish parliament and re-assert their own power against it, on the grounds that “the Scottish electorate re-asserted Westminster’s dominance over Holyrood”. If they’re genuine about not wanting the hassle of more devolution, the first wouldn’t be what they want, but the second sounds highly problematic.
So if they are genuine about preferring full independence to more devolution, it might be better for them to bite the bullet and quietly work with the Scottish government on negotiations now, while helping to create a consensus for a yes vote that makes it a clear result. That could be a better option for them, and Britain as a whole, than years more wrangling and a knife-edge result to a straight yes/no. If that was their thinking all along, the conclusion would have to be that Labour have been well and truly taken in with Better Together and “joining with the Tories” to fight against it. Two birds with one stone for the Tories – get rid of Scotland and seriously damage Labour into the bargain.
#20 by An Duine Gruamach on September 25, 2012 - 3:25 pm
I don’t think it’s really possible to consider the “did he/ didn’t he want Devo Max on the ballot” issue without looking at what the SNP’s plans for Independence Day + 1 actually are. The fact that at least in the short term we would keep the monarchy, sterling etc. clearly makes independence a more palatable prospect for those who are in favour of more powers. If all they have to choose from is the status quo on the one hand and “not very radical big scary nasty separation” on the other, then the chances of a Yes vote are that much higher.
Meanwhile, those who do support a more radical version of independence know that this less-radical version is still better than what we have now, and once the principle has been accepted that it’s up to us to make the decisions, it’s much easier to dismantle certain institutions on the other side of the Yes vote than before.
I can imagine the FM allowed himself a wee smirk when he read the papers this morning.
#21 by Alasdair Frew-Bell on September 25, 2012 - 3:45 pm
A variable that may need to be factored into this is the extent of recrudescent English nationalism. The aggressive UKIP wedge chipping away at Cameron’s support and the possibility of Boris Johnson returning to the mainstream Conservative machine could well alter the scenario in the next two years. A Salmond rampant, may he live a thousand years!, would suit that situation perfectly.
#22 by Arbroath 1320 on September 25, 2012 - 4:43 pm
I think Alex Salmond has played an exceptionally canny game over this ONE question/TWO question issue.
Firstly, it has been widely reported in numerous papers over the months that there was a significant number of Scots who would want a second question.
Secondly by offering to have a second question on the ballot paper A.S. has played a blinder in my view. He knows a second question is what a significant number of people want and he has, in effect, said to the Bitter camp THIS is what the people of Scotland want. If you can come up with a reasoned argument FOR the Devo max option then I’ll give YOU that option on the ballot. Unfortunately for the Bitter camp they are all TOO focused on their hatred of A.S. to see the prize he is offering them.
Third. A.S. has ALWAYS said that the S.N.P. were only ever interested in Independence. Therefore any action to fight for the votes of the electorate to be counted FOR Devo max HAD to come from another source. Now everyone knows that the status quo is nOT an option. Therefore, you would have thought that one or more of the opposition parties would have jumped at the chance to get one over on A.S. The fact that NO ONE has jumped onto the Devo max bandwagon tells me that ALL the opposition parties are quite happy with the status quo, something the ELECTORATE are not.
If, as increasingly seems likely, there is only one question on the ballot paper then I feel certain that the majority of voters who wanted Devo max will transfer their votes over to the YES camp. Furthermore, I believe that A.S. will now have yet ANOTHER weapon in his armoury to beat the Bitter camp with, namely the reasoning that he wanted to offer a second question but was denied by Westminster. I yhink everyone realises that this sort of reasoning will do wonders for the YES vote and almost certainly sink, once and for all, the Bitter camp.
#23 by Andrew Smith on September 25, 2012 - 5:45 pm
I don’t think Salmond has ever been supportive of a second question, but it is obvious that a number of SNP members (and possibly MSPs) are. What the last few months have done is sound out the support (or perceived lack of) and paint the unionists as being too stubborn to consider any change.
I’m not convinced by the ‘jam tomorrow’ argument. The difference between the1970s and now is the existence of the Scottish Parliament. I fully expect that all of the NO parties will go into the referendum promising extra powers for a NO vote, and I expect that they’ll have to mean it, because in the result of a NO vote then it would be electoral suicide not to give them. Regardless of the result the parliament will only become more powerful.
I support a YES vote, but I’m not sure that a NO vote would be the end of reform.
#24 by Chris on September 25, 2012 - 6:40 pm
Andrew, I think you are correct but it will take those of us in both camps who are willing to build bridges and find common cause to make that happen. We can’t repeat the failures of 1978. Unfortunately the threat of Independence would be a busted flush in the event of a No vote and our only real hope of change would be to do the hard work to persuade on the moral and democratic cases.
#25 by Allan on September 25, 2012 - 6:56 pm
I don’t know if Salmond wanted a question on “Devo-max”, I suspect he was being pragmatic given that this option polls higher than both the status quo and Independence. Salmond’s problem is that “Devo-max” has been painted as his own Plan B should “Scotland” vote No. Even you Jeff have used the phrase “consolation prize” in relation to Devo Max in the above post.
Whether this is a defeat for Salmond or not kind of depends on a lot of factors. I suspect that if there is a no vote, then Salmond could conceivably heap a lot of pressure on the pro-Union parties to provide solid gold pledges on further devolution – just in time for the May 2015 Westminster Election. I have already said that I think that the hangover from a no vote will be bitter and nasty.
In the meantime, “Yes Scotland” will really have to up their game to convince the many “Don’t Knows”
#26 by Indy on September 25, 2012 - 9:51 pm
I really don’t think it is a question of Alex Salmond and the SNP wanting or not wanting a second question.
Political parties just don’t control things to that extent. They have to play the cards they are dealt.
Since the concept of Devo Max in some form existed – a halfway house if you like between devolution as we know it now and independence – the SNP had to decide what to do about that. To rule it out, to say independence nothing less, or to say yes OK if there is a substantial body of opinion that wants that option then sure we will consider putting it on the ballot paper.
Remember the reason the SNP left the Constitutional Convention was because the unionist parties had refused to consider putting independence on the ballot paper as an option. If we – the SNP I mean – had said we refuse to even consider anything other than our preferred option it would have made us the same as them. And that was something that no-one wanted to do, it would have made us hypocrites which, believe it or not, our party does try to avoid!
The problem was always the lack of political representation for that particular position. It wasn’t required for a political party to support it but there had to be political support whether from the trade unions, third sector, whatever section of civic society decided to run with it. But no-one did. There are some people now who are arguing for it but they’re about a year too late.