It was always going to happen with a group blog, two co-editors writing a post on the same subject and then looking to post at around the same time. The solution? Merge them together into a single post.
Here James looks at why only one referendum is required and Jeff argues that not only should there be two referendums but that it is in the SNP’s best interests for there to be that many.
A single vote is enough, but only with a better question – by James
Who would have imagined that Michael Moore’s call for two referendums on independence would cause such agitation and consternation? Gerry Hassan sets out ten reasons why only one vote is needed, which are mostly bullet-proof (although #8 is tangential to say the least). Lallands Peat Worrier starts off giving an old post of Caron Lindsay’s a hard time, before touching on the legality of various question options. Caron replies with a defence of the two-question position.
Again, and I fear this risks making me unpopular with both sides, I think they’re all wrong. The SNP’s first question, as currently proposed, asking merely permission to negotiate, is vague and inconclusive. If the Scottish people vote yes for that, it isn’t a mandate for independence, and the need for a second question on the outcome of the negotiations would be hard to argue with. LPW’s concerns here about the need for that question are surely answered by Gerry’s second and third reasons (above).
But that first question doesn’t even need to be asked. Negotiate away. Help yourself. Fill your boots. Ideally, while involving the Scottish public in a way the National Conversation failed to do. If the results of that negotiation, informed by the views of the Scottish people, are put to a vote, then that one single vote will be sufficient.
People will know what they’re voting for, what the constitution of an independent Scotland would look like, and they can make a clear choice. And then tell UK Ministers that their second question will be the one answered by the people. If the outcome of the negotiation gets voted on, why bother asking our permission to talk to Westminster?
If UK Ministers decline the offer to talk, and display the level of arrogance we’ve come to expect, they surely know they’ll drive the public further into the arms of the Yes campaign. That campaign can then still be based on one simple question: do you believe SNP Ministers should pursue independence on the basis of the proposed draft constitution? A yes vote to that would be uncontestable.
The SNP is more likely to win two referendums than one – by Jeff
The discussion over how many referendums Scotland will need before it can win its independence has rumbled along nicely over the past few weeks and months. Those in favour of independence typically prefer one referendum, seeing that challenge as more winnable than the two referendums that unionists typically prefer.
Intuitively, this makes sense. After all, if you have to jump over two hurdles then you are twice as likely to fall down.
However, I would suggest that the SNP is instead more likely to win an overall Yes vote with two plebiscites rather than one (or three, as I’m sure someone will suggest soon enough!)
The first referendum would be a theoretical question of whether Scots would like to be independent and whether they would like the Scottish Government to enter into negotiations with the UK Government to agree a settlement. More people would be disposed to voting Yes and less people disposed to voting No if they knew that they could always vote No in the second vote. The SNP Government has no mandate to enter into such negotiations without a plebiscite but a sense of curiosity and adventure may appeal to the Scottish electorate here and a crucial number would, I am sure, be swayed into finding out what would happen next.
Curiosity may have killed the cat but I can never envisage it shooting the nationalist fox.
For me, this is similar to the way the Scottish Parliament votes. Many opposition parties abstain or vote Yes at the first reading of a Bill only to go on to vote it down at the last opportunity, as they had always intended to do. It is, I suppose, the political equivalent of Parkinson’s Law -allowing work to expand to fill the time available.
The thing is, when that second independence vote comes around, the opposition parties can’t shut the door on it like they used to do in Holyrood. It will be for the people to decide and they may find that they like what is on the table.
There will be plentiful opportunities for the SNP, and Alex Salmond in particular, to demonstrate grievance and remonstrate face to face with Cameron and Osborne. It’s a crass point to make but still could nonetheless potentially true that this opportunity could be all that is required to win a Scottish majority. The devolution opposition will be largely out of the picture at this stage as a hitherto popular SNP majority deals directly with a hitherto deeply unpopular coalition Government. Alex Salmond will always find it difficult to win independence from a soapbox with only a bunch of theories but if he can point to a Tory, preferably a few of them, and reasonably claim that Scotland is getting a rum deal, then he has a much better shot and the only way he’ll get into that room and have that round-the-table discussion is with the mandate of a first referendum.
I don’t expect to win too many Nationalists over here given I am competing with the long-held view that support for independence just has to nudge over 50% for one day, polling day, and it’s game over.
For me, this overlooks both how winnable that referendum is (not very) and the related question of how fair it is (not very).
A settlement to negotiate away from the UK needs two referendums. One to enter negotiations and a second to agree on the specifics of that negotiation. It won’t be possible to reasonably compare an indepedent Scotland with the current UK setup until AFTER the first vote and indeed AFTER the negotiations have completed. It’s only fair.
I can understand the Nats’ frustration on this. We’ll be voting on independence, what does it matter if we have a DVLA or not?
Well, how much of the North Sea’s oil will we get? How much of a settlement from existing UK assets and (liabilities) will be ours? What will our Defence look like? What will happen to RBS and the bank formerly known as HBOS? These may well all have simple, straightforward solutions but you can bet your bottom pound note that most Scots will want to know for sure the answers before it’s bon voyage for Bonnie Scotland and an adventure that’ll last a lifetime.
Ans therein lies the SNP’s route to success, trusting the people to come to an informed decision. Scotland has won a Yes/ Yes referendum before, it can do so again.
Pic by the wonderful Mr Shrigley.
A very welcome guest post from Ross McCafferty who, much to his annoyance, you will probably know better as @HolyroodPatter. Ross is a former blogger and parliamentary worker who recently mothballed his much loved blog and instead has opted for just incessant tweeting on Scottish and sometimes UK Politics. A current political history student, he can normally be found analysing, arguing and annoying on twitter, because anything beats studying.
The past couple of weeks have seen several Liberal Democrat councillors