Today’s much-trailed deal on the referendum is a good one, and it deserves a broadly non-partisan response today. Alex Salmond has persuaded David Cameron to give Holyrood the power to let the over-16s vote: this is a good thing. David Cameron has persuaded Alex Salmond to give up on the second question: this is a good thing too.
Remember also the progress on the wording? It seems a long time ago, but even last year the talk was still about “open negotiations” rather than a clear question, and when that changed at Holyrood, UK Ministers spoiled for a fight. That fight is quite rightly off.
A sunset clause for 2014 is also a sensible move. I originally argued that the best timeline would be a public and relatively quick process to set a draft constitution, followed by as early a question as possible. That open public process has not been agreed, but now there are two years to try and secure it: that time may be necessary. On the flipside, although it would hardly be credible for the Scottish Government to delay if the polling looked bad, it’s best for that not to be an option.
The spending limits remain the last major element of uncertainty, with the SNP position set out here looking a bit like a low-ball: do they really want a limit below the donations their campaign’s already received? The limits do need to be tight enough to prevent Brian Souter or Lord Ashcroft from buying it, as the First Minister argues, but big enough that the campaigns can do what they need to do to get the message out, as the Electoral Commission are apparently arguing: all sides need to motivate their supporters and drive a substantial turnout.
Importantly, though, there is ( or “will be”, if you believe the press offices’ conceit) an agreement. No matter what your position on the outcome, no-one except the lawyers should want a referendum to be derailed afterwards by wrangling in the courts. And this means that there will be a vote, and barring reports of electoral misconduct or wafer-thin margins, we should get a nice clean result. Relatedly, it’s also one in the eye for Ian Smart’s long-term conspiracy theory that there simply will not be a vote. Oh yes there will, as they say.
It’s also good for the collective reputation of politics and politicians for two governments with two very starting points on this issue to have come to an agreement rather than it being collapsed into a blamestorming session. It’s genuinely impressive on both sides, which is why it’s a shame some refugee from The Thick of It had to tell the Guardian that they planned to “bomb [Salmond] with reasonableness“.
Now it appears we have a honourable process and a good outcome with a clear question, an outcome that’s neither too Nat-tastic nor one where the Yoonyonisht Conshpirashy has its thumb on the scales. Both governments have mandates, and there was no responsible alternative to this real compromise, done in the national interest, whether you see that nation as Scotland or Britain.
Don’t believe the myth that Salmond never wanted his devo max insurance policy – but also don’t believe that Cameron’s comfortable with the timing, nor the extension of the franchise and the precedent it sets, despite the polling evidence that younger voters may favour his team.
The referendum can now go ahead on a fair basis. The phoney war is over. The long campaign proper is beginning, and it will take a bit more of this spirit to ensure the public aren’t turned off by it. Both sides need to try inspiring the public rather than scaring them, and keeping the focus on the genuine choice that’s to be made rather than slipping into the politics of fear. Bring it on.
#1 by KBW on October 15, 2012 - 10:58 am
Despite Alex Salmond stating again and again and again that he was in favour of a YES/ no question, but that if it was shown there was desire for Devious Max it was for others to bring it forward as he did not have the mandate to bring forward a question he had no way of delivering. You unionist apologists insist he really did not mean that. You continue to insist that with out providing one single shred of evidence to support it. Other than the fact that you claim to know what Alex Salmond is thinking better than he does.
However it appears he has even out witted himself here as he now has the glorious advantage of pointing to Westminster as having deprived the Devious Maxes of their preferred option forcing them to vote YES. How delicious is that? Is that the law of unintended circumstances or is Alex Salmond just to smart even for himself?
What ever way you cut and spin this, only a fool could not conclude that the Westminster elite have capitulated 100% to Edinburgh. Alex Salmond has had them dancing like hens on a hot tin roof, as he has got everything he could wish for apart that is from total independence which is coming down the track. The amount of spittle and phlegm being flung at him from The Ermine Troughers in the HOL attests to that. There glorious institution and that of the feeble Labour troughers in the Commons are under threat as never before and they are going to squeam and squeam until they are sick. You just have to take a peek at the whitterings from Iain Davidson hilarious and irrelevant committee to see the confirmation of that. What desperate selfish bigots.
#2 by Ross Greer on October 15, 2012 - 11:26 am
James Mackenzie, famous unionist apologist………….and one of the first signatories of the Declaration of Scottish Independence at the launch of Yes Scotland.
#3 by James on October 15, 2012 - 11:34 am
That’s how the Yoonyonisht Conshpirashy works. I’m just deep under cover. Luckily no-one will ever read this.
#4 by KBW on October 15, 2012 - 11:54 am
So is Mackenzie Alex Salmonds spokes person we should have been told? No wonder the NO campaign is dumped rusting in the long heather. And that is where it will end it’s days.
#5 by James on October 15, 2012 - 12:23 pm
Nope, not I. Do take a look at the small print here for evidence of SNP efforts to get a 2nd question.
#6 by Commenter on October 15, 2012 - 12:29 pm
It’s most plausible that Salmond wanted a Devo Max option because that would be much more winnable than independence, given that No outnumbers Yes by two-to-one. Pretty flipping obvious really. The issue of what a devo-max ‘Yes’ would actually mean is secondary to avoiding a decisive slapdown to independence in 2014, I think.
All this devious Machiavellian nonsense is massively overplayed by some SNP folk.
#7 by KBW on October 15, 2012 - 12:42 pm
If your quoting of Harris and Torrance is supposed to convince any one of anything, I feel you are straw grasping. You have presented no evidence. Like Iain Smarts constant insane assertion that Salmond is looking at a way out to not have the referendum it is all just back ground static hiss that at the end of the day is totally irrelevant. The game is on and Salmond has won all before him to this point. Only a fool would bet that he will not achieve full independence for Scotland. The unionists who resisted the referendum for 4 years in Holyrood are now in a corner they painted them selves in to. Even the footwork of the great Cassius Clay will not get them out of this one.
Even if Salmond did drop the baton he would be swiftly deposed and there are many able Lieutenants who are ready willing and able to pick it up. Scotlands independence is inevitable of that there is no doubt. I remember after last years SNP conference that someone it was probably Curtice alleged that Salmond never even mentioned independence in his speech to conference. A quick review will show that he was listening to the voices again. Unionism seems to create these voices that has seen many of them banished to that parallel universe they live in. Such is the power of self interest.
#8 by James on October 15, 2012 - 12:44 pm
I’m quoting SNP press releases.
#9 by KBW on October 15, 2012 - 12:59 pm
Really I must have missed the link then can you re link to it?
#10 by James on October 15, 2012 - 1:06 pm
This. It’s the same link I posted in the article and again in an earlier comment. Sigh.
#11 by Mister Stan on October 15, 2012 - 2:58 pm
KBW, since you seem to be getting absolutely everything hilariously wrong here I thought I’d check out your website / blog. You’re a funny guy! I especially love the adverts for 20-something asian wives and girlfriends… so post modern… so ironic… not backwards at all…
#12 by Doug Daniel on October 15, 2012 - 1:12 pm
The most hilarious thing about this agreement is the way Tories like Malcolm Rifkind are essentially going “ahahahaha! We’re forcing the SNP to have a referendum on independence in 2014! Ahahahaha!”
A bit like someone saying to me “ahahaha! I’m forcing you to have a holiday over Christmas! Ahahaha!”
(For reference, those ahahahas should be read in a Stewart Lee voice.)
It’s ridiculous! Independence is the SNP’s whole point for existence, so the idea that forcing them to have a yes/no question on it is somehow a major blow to nationalism is just bizarre. And since unionists were the ones wanting the referendum sooner than 2014, I don’t understand why this sunset clause is meant to be a victory for unionists.
You expect spin from politicians to try and make out they’ve come out on top, but the rubbish being spouted about this is just tedious.
As for Devo Max, I remain convinced that it was never anything more than a tool for achieving other objectives. The Scottish Government is getting a referendum on independence that can’t be challenged in court, will have their preferred wording and franchise, and will be held at a time of their choosing. I don’t see how they would have gotten that without a bone to throw Cameron’s way. And for all the talk of it being Salmond’s “fallback option”, does anyone seriously think he wouldn’t have been accused of political failure if he’d delivered Devo Max instead of independence?
If Labour & co had gone for Devo Max, it wouldn’t have been a disaster – it’s a compromise Salmond and others could have lived with, even though it would have made independence a much harder sell. But they were never going to go for it, because Calman showed how serious the three UK parties are about further powers – not very.
But having said all that, I think it’s pretty obvious people either believe he wanted it or they don’t, so there’s little point arguing about it, especially now.
#13 by Alex Buchan on October 15, 2012 - 1:32 pm
I followed the link to Ian Smart’s blog. Pretty opaque stuff, which is a pity because in an earlier blog piece he made a very important and non-partisan point, the fact that it wasn’t taken up shows in my view just how infantile Scottish political blogging is. The point he made was that having the question asked, in a referendum, whether Scotland should be independent does not further the process of Scotland’s development since the start of the devolution process. In fact, it threatens that process because if the referendum is lost the UK government and press will take that as a vote of confidence in the UK and will want to use it to strengthen the UK and clamp down on any further dispersal of power from the centre. I think that analysis had a lot of merit.
There are already moves, reported in the Telegraph last week, to set up a constitutional convention after the vote to strengthen UK cohesion. It seems quite blinkered for those who want the vote to be decisive to not consider the downside of that which is a closing down of developments. I know, James, that you have in the past said that the constitution has dominated too long, but this is because Scotland relationship to the UK versus the rest of the world is something a large section of society cares passionately above and has done for decades (as a student in the seventies I remember the Scotsman’s letter pages were dominated by the national issue). The idea that concentrating on the constitutional issue makes Scotland parochial or inward looking is belied by developments now across Europe, where in both Catalonia and Flanders the constitutional issue has dominated for years and looks like coming to a climax at the same time as in Scotland.