Do you agree that “Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?” is an independent enough question?
That is the question, apparently, or it certainly has been for the Electoral Commission that has deliberated on this matter for the past few months.
In order to look like they are doing their job, and to justify the length of time spent on this, a change will undoubtedly be made, most likely taking the “agree” out of the equation. Alex Salmond will have to sit on his hands and bite his tongue now that Blair Jenkins, and belatedly the SNP, have agreed to abide by the Electoral Commission’s findings.
It’s worth noting that it is smart politics to forego this battle as drawing an independent body into partisan bickering would have come at a significant price for the SNP, even if they did ramroad their preferred question through Parliament.
That said, I would argue that just because Salmond’s preferred question is the one most likely to lead to a Yes vote, that doesn’t necessarily make it unfair. Perhaps the other questions are even less fair, with the pejorative term ‘separate’ typically being preferred by the unionist side, even though Scotland isn’t geographically going anywhere.
This splitting of hairs can be extended to the fact that Scotland won’t be “independent” as we live in such an inter-dependent world. This is a favourite navel gaze of Labour MP Tom Harris but such trifling matters won’t both the Electoral Commission, one would hope.
There is, of course, a recent Scottish precedent in all of this.
In 1997 we were asked “Do you agree there should be a Scottish Parliament?”, which is interestingly entirely consistent with the SNP’s preferred question. I don’t really understand why that style of question was good enough then but isn’t good enough today but, at the end of the day, if voters aren’t convinced enough by the merits of independence that they may be swayed into voting No when they look at the question, then do we really want to embark on this great adventure at all?
The Independence Question
Jan 30
#1 by Andy Wightman on January 30, 2013 - 9:58 am
That was not the question that was put in 1997. This is it here
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1997/61/schedule/1
#2 by Gavin Hamilton on January 31, 2013 - 8:57 am
Andy, you are absolutely right to point this out and this is an incredibly important point with regards to this discussion.
#3 by Jeff on January 31, 2013 - 6:17 pm
I didn’t have interet access when I wrote this post so was aware I wouldn’t have it spot on. If anyone wants to focus on the trifling difference between the wording of 1997 and per my article then count me out. It’s the ‘agree’ part that was disputed, as has shown to be the case by the Electoral Commission’s conclusion.
#4 by Galen10 on January 30, 2013 - 10:06 am
Unionists complaints about the question, and their increasingly hysterical demands for the SG to uncritically accept the Electoral Commission’s advice before it was even given need to be seen for what they are; special pleading. The similarity of the indyref question to the devo question has already been noted, and was also similar to that used in the Welsh and abortive English regional votes.
The bigger issues are:
1) why the SG didn’t fight harder to have a truly neutral body (which the UK EC patently isn’t) oversee the process, and have that written into the Edinburgh Agreement, or at the very least insist on a reformed Scottish based Electoral Commission reflecting Scottish political realities, rather than the current creature of the unionist establishment we see now.
2) ensuring that campaign financing reflects the SG position, not that of the unionist parties, who will obviously want to try and outspend the Yes campaign;
3) highlighting unionist double standards both in relation to earlier use of similar wording, and the willingness of Labour and Lib Dem’s in particular to put party political advantage first in the area of rejecting the findings of the Boundary Commission (which have always been accepted previously), but insisting that the SG uncritically accept the EC advice on the indyref question.
I doubt many people will lose much sleep over minor tweaks to the indyref question, but they will be watching closely to check that the SG remains frmly in the driving seat!
#5 by Gavin Hamilton on January 31, 2013 - 9:18 am
See Andy Wightman’s point above.
And on the Electoral Commission. No, they are pretty neutral. They are tapped into the whole British democratic system of which the devolved Scottish Government is part. (whether we should make it independent is what we are considering of course).
George Reid is one of the 10 commissioners that run the Electoral commission (as is John McCormick)
Remember the SG has a majority SNP administration – the SNP are the originators and sponsors of the referendum and asking the Scottish people should we become an independent country; and they are strongly advocating that that answer should be yes (indeed it is an article of faith and in effect their very raison d’etre).
In these circumstances it seems pretty important that a body like the EC should have an input and that the SNP gov would want that to be the case. And in the UK (of which we are an integral part) the ideal body is the EC.
I find it extremely unlikely that there would be a satisfactory alternative.
On the Boundary commission I think the issue there is that without the rest of a package of reforms – voting system (even an unsatisfactory proposal like AV), House of Lords – which the Conservatives worked hard to oppose, and so strangely did Labour, these changes are merely gerrymandering in the Conservative’s favour. It was right to vote that down.
No, the Electoral Commission are neutral and competent and it is good that they are involved. They will oversee parity between both Yes and No camps.
This referendum needs to be fair and be seen to be fair. The leadership of the SNP government know that and want to see that. I is good that that is the case.
#6 by Chris on January 31, 2013 - 8:22 am
I am pleased with this outcome and the response of both camps to it. The EC have gone to the bother of testing the proposed question and have made a suitable amendment.
I think requiring clarity on both campaigns of what a Yes or No vote means is good too. I hope this will allow for something like a STUC-inspired Radical Devolution Campaign as well as the more fuddy-duddy Better Together campaign.
I think one of the advantages of the SNP handing responsibility to Nicola Sturgeon is that she is less likely to try the chutzpah that the FM goes in for. We could have saved a lot of time if the original proposed question wasn’t so blatantly leading. Or even if they had proposed a question along the lines of the Devolution referendum e.g. I agree there should be an independent Scotland / I do not agree there should be an independent Scotland.
#7 by Indy on January 31, 2013 - 11:57 pm
How could a Radical Devolution campaign provide clarity on what would happen in the event of a No vote? They would not be in a position to make any commitment.
In this context the Scottish Government and its allies represents the Yes campaign and the UK Government and its allies represent the No campaign. I don’t think a radical Devo campaign run by the STUC would really count do you?
The only guarantee of further devolution is that which can be agreed by the UK Government and the Labour Party.
Maybe the Crown Estate? It won’t be anything radical that’s for sure.
#8 by Grahamski on January 31, 2013 - 9:29 am
Poor Jeff falls foul of SNP misrepresentation and mythologising.
Jeff’s mistake was to take what the SNP say at face value and I don’t think it was his intention to perpetuate this myth.
However, I’ve heard many SNP folk from cabinet ministers down peddle the same lie about the 1997 question being ‘Do you agree..’.
Do they actually believe what they are saying is true and are simply ignorant of the facts or are they deliberately and cynically misleading those who can’t be bothered checking up on them?
#9 by Jeff on January 31, 2013 - 6:22 pm
A truly pathetic comment in both tone and content that will have you on the Better Nation naughty step henceforth as far as I’m concerned.
There is no meaningful difference between the actual question and the one in my post, given it is the inclusion of “agree” that is (or rather was) the crux of the debate. Given it’s a blog post and not a legal treaty, I didn’t think anyone would be childish enough to make a big deal out of the slight difference given I couldn’t be bothered checking the precise wording. Alas not.
(Note that I’m nonetheless grateful to Andy Wightman for pointing out the exact wording).
#10 by Iain Menzies on January 31, 2013 - 10:04 pm
Actually i think Gramski has a (in fairness somewhat sarky) point.
I dont know if there has been testing of this, but it seems to me that there is a clear difference between the SP ref and what the SNP propose. Unless im missed something the SNP werent giving two options to tick (or cross) against, but asking people to agree to something. Which the Electoral commission have knocked back.
So your last paragraph is just, well wrong.
#11 by Chris on February 1, 2013 - 8:01 am
Come off it Jeff.
The 1997 Referendum invited us to either agree or not agree. You are kidding yourself on if you think that it is the same as only being invited to agree. The Electoral Commission was concerned that the original question invited electors to agree to independence. If the Scottish Government had proposed a choice between two questions similar to 1997 I don’t think anyone would have objected.
#12 by Grahamski on February 1, 2013 - 7:43 am
Jiminy Cricket, Jeff, I just said that this halibut is good enough for Jehova…the naughty step? Really?
Anyhoo my point was a simple one: to defend the ‘do you agree..’ question by saying it’s the same as the 1997 question (and thus implying hypocrisy in those who oppose it) is quite simply dishonest.
That particular dishonesty has been deployed (quite cynically in my opinion) by many in the upper echelons of the SNP.
My attempt at acknowledging that I did not consider your post as cynically dishonest was obviously lost in translation and for that please accept my apologies.
Can I come off the naughty step now?
#13 by Jeff on February 1, 2013 - 8:35 pm
Yeah alright, maybe you got me on a bad day…. 😉