The biggest political decision in 300 years
No-one doubts the huge significance of the decision which Scotland will face in the forthcoming referendum.
Two things matter:
1) That the rules which govern the referendum are seen - by everyone - to be fair, clear, acceptable and workable, and not open to manipulation or likely to end up as part of legal wrangle in the courts. That would be deeply damaging to Scotland, whatever our political views.
2) That the debate about whether we are in or out of the UK is comprehensive, dealing head on with all the questions that voters have on a wide range of topics whether it’s defence, the economy, social welfare or our relationship with Europe. Voters want reliable facts – from both camps – on which they can base their judgment.
In the first instance, we must ensure that there is full legitimacy of the referendum result – legitimacy in both a legal and political sense. This is why the Westminster Government wants to use the mechanism of a transfer of powers to Holyrood under Section 30 of the Scotland Act so that there can be no doubt about the legality of any referendum conducted under its provisions. This move would avoid placing the Presiding Officer at Holyrood and the Law Officers of both of Scotland’s Governments in the invidious position whereby decisions made by them relative to the legal competence of a Bill introduced under the present Scotland Act are called into question because of their perceived political affiliations.
The First Minister and the SNP like to maintain that they have exclusive ownership of the Referendum. Well they don’t. No-one has the right to set the rules to suit their own purposes and it is in the interests of the SNP as much as in the interests of those of us who want to keep Scotland within the United Kingdom that the referendum rules are widely accepted and judged to be fair.
So what of the SNP’s complaints that Westminster is trying to set the rules to suit its own purpose? What are these strings?
The first string is that there should be a simple, straight forward question on whether people want Scotland to be an independent country or not. Nicola Sturgeon has said that this is SNPs preferred option and it is also the preferred option of the Labour Conservative and Liberal Democrat Parties so why don’t we just agree that we will all proceed on that basis and hold a referendum which will give a decisive answer? Why do we need a third option which simply confuses the fundamental issue of in or out of the UK? Why is it that, when standing on the threshold of achieving its ultimate political goal in a legitimate and incontestable referendum, some members of the SNP want to diminish their prospects of a successful outcome? I don’t think many people have a problem with politicians or business or civic leaders advocating more powers for Holyrood within the UK but that is a fundamentally different question -to be decided on a quite separate basis.
The second string is that the referendum should be conducted on the same franchise as applies to current elections to Holyrood and that votes are exercised by everyone recognised by the law as adults. Some people want to reduce the voting age from 18 to 17 or indeed 16. I’ve never been convinced of this argument – mainly as a result of my conversations with young people - but if even if public opinion was shown to be in favour of reducing the voting age, we should reduce it for all elections and all referenda and not devise a special franchise for this referendum alone.
The third string is that the conduct of the referendum should be overseen by an independent and experienced body, preferably the Electoral Commission simply because it has the most extensive experience in the conduct of referenda and elections. Again, this is common sense and it now seems likely that the SNP will accept it, not least because it could find no logical argument to explain why the Electoral Commission should not do this job.
The final string is that a time limit is set – which it now has been - for the holding of the Referendum to allow a mature discussion about the many facets of independence/union debate, and to ensure there is some certainty about when the decision will be made. This gives business, social and cultural organisations and the public at large an assurance that there will be an end to the constant SNP prevarication which we have become so used to in the last five years.
All in all, there is absolutely nothing in any of this to which any reasonable person could take exception and so let’s hope we can be assured of total agreement about the appropriate process and get on with what really matters – debating the merits of independence and the union. Let battle commence.