Leader: Much more to be made clear before we reach journey’s end

Published on Thursday 26 January 2012 00:00

SCOTLAND, First Minister Alex Salmond solemnly proclaimed yesterday, is on a journey. It is a journey he and the Scottish National Party government he leads believe has as its destination the end of a union which has endured for more than three centuries and a declaration of the restoration of Scottish sovereignty. Mark it in your diary: 5 May, 2016. Independence Day.

Such was the presentational sophistication of Mr Salmond’s announcement of the detail of the referendum consultation document launched yesterday – the measured, statesman-like tone in parliament followed by a more slick presentation in the Great Hall at Edinburgh Castle aimed as much at an international audience as a domestic one – it would be easy to be lulled into a sense of inevitability; to believe Scotland is on road to independence.

Yet, as Benjamin Franklin said, nothing is certain except death and taxes. Independence will be a matter for the Scottish people in the referendum to come, the proposals for which Mr Salmond persuasively set out in Your Scotland, Your Referendum yesterday. From this document we know more than we did about the coming vote but, perhaps not surprisingly, we are still little the wiser in many important areas.

We have more detail of the proposed timetable, which is likely to be accepted by the UK government. By November next year the bill to deliver the referendum will probably have been passed and there then follows a white paper on independence. The referendum itself will be in the autumn of 2014, as promised, and if independence wins the day Scotland will have elections for its first sovereign parliament in more than 300 years in May 2016.

But if we are still a long way away from that in time, there is certainly some distance to go in terms of process. First, even the question Mr Salmond proposed has yet to be sanctioned. Asking Scots: “Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent county?” is admirably simple and far less contorted than previous suggestions. This is probably because the Scottish Government will accept Westminster’s offer of making the referendum legally binding, in so far as it can be, and has come up with a more specific proposition.

Yet even now we do not know if this will be accepted by the UK coalition. What if Westminster pushed for a question which asked whether Scotland should remain part of the Union, taking advantage of the affirmative being more attractive to voters? And we still do not know if there will be a second question on some form of devo-max.

The issue of which body should supervise the referendum appears to have been settled, with the Electoral Commission – long advocated by this newspaper as best-placed to oversee a fair vote – accepted by Holyrood as long as it answers to MSPs. But we are not yet clear on whether it or, as appears likely for the consultation, the Scottish Government, will test the question. Any suggestion that either government would be involved should be resisted. The commission, a neutral body, should decide this matter.

Beyond the process, however, there is likely to be further criticism of the SNP for delaying the publication of its white paper until less than a year before the referendum itself. Opposition parties will see this as a delaying tactic, a way of avoiding difficult questions on everything from Scotland’s currency on independence to the make-up of its defence force. There is some validity in this criticism, though the SNP might argue it needs time to formulate such detail and give voters a credible independence prospectus. Be this as it may, it would be simply wrong if the Scottish Government were to hide behind the excuse of the publication of a white paper in November 2013 to refuse to answer any questions on its plans. The more the SNP explains, and the more it is scrutinised, the better informed the public will be.

Given the objective of providing as much information to the voters as possible to allow them to make up their minds, what should the next steps be? Firstly, the two governments must agree on one question or two. While this newspaper sees significant benefits of greater fiscal autonomy for Scotland by making politicians more accountable for raising the money they spend, there is a huge difficulty in getting an agreement on exactly what devo-max is. Our preference, therefore, would be for one simple question. If that is agreed, and the detail on supervision of the plebiscite settled, including the SNP abandoning its wish for 16- and 17-year-olds to vote, then we can put aside the process and get on with looking at the substance.

Mr Salmond was right to say Scotland is on a journey. It is inevitable Holyrood will take on greater powers, and loosen control from Westminster. But we need facts to be able to decide how far to go on that journey. This consultation document is progress, but we need to know far more before we can be choose the final destination.

Comments

There are 13 comments to this article

Order by:

• Newest first
• |
• Oldest first

Page 1 of 1

• 1
• Show all

13

Ron Greer

Tuesday, January 31, 2012 at 04:29 PM

13 The UK of Briteng is a £trillion in debt; I'd like to see the balance sheet for that first.

• Report Unsuitable

12

dustymagic

Saturday, January 28, 2012 at 04:16 PM

I would like to see a detailed balance sheet of exactly how the SNP expect Scotland to pay its way. Enough of the rhetoric and let us see some hard figures. We have heard for years that Scotland has N. Sea Oil and gas, for now yes, but what happens when this supply runs out, and it eventually will, we know that. Of course by then it will be too late to turn back. Mr Salmon has refused to accept the fact that with no base loading on wind and wave power, we may be faced with buying power from south of the border if we ignore the need for Nuclear power at least for another century till technology catches up with the First Ministers utopian dreams.

• Report Unsuitable

11

douglas-home rule

Saturday, January 28, 2012 at 10:38 AM

There is absolutely nothing to prevent the Unionist parties coming up with any form of enhanced devolution they want, at a time of their choosing, next week if need be. They are NOT bound to wait till after an independence referendum, that is a bogus excuse. The truth is, they have nothing to offer bar pie-in-the-sky waffle.

• Report Unsuitable

10

glassbenmhor

Saturday, January 28, 2012 at 04:35 AM

Our friends around the world are innumerable

• Report Unsuitable

9

glassbenmhor

Saturday, January 28, 2012 at 04:32 AM

I think what the old fashioned Unionists just don't understand this nation has been already through a war of Independence and one nearly 500 years before Benjamin Franklin's. But the one thing consistant with now and the other two, oh yes, The Crown! So we have advanced, the blood and gore is all thankfully long in the past it will in truth be easy. You see the Unionists history only starts 1707 as far as they are concerned, by Scotlands written history goes back to when 8-9 centuary. Then there was a Golden Period in the last years of The Bruce, I'd love to ask historians to way 'the weight of lasting deed' between the Magna Carta and the Declaration of Arbroath, but for me the difference is a rent list and the first modern statement of democracy.

• Report Unsuitable

8

unimpressedone

Friday, January 27, 2012 at 09:09 AM

Oh gawd! Almost 4 years more of this media drivel before the damp squib goes off. Wonder if the Scotsman would seek out any real news if this rubbish wasn't the flavour of the day.

• Report Unsuitable

7

christelijk_recht

Friday, January 27, 2012 at 08:57 AM

Comment removed by moderator

6

Simonsaid

Thursday, January 26, 2012 at 10:56 PM

First Minister Alex Salmond solemnly proclaimed yesterday, is on a journey ================================================= Aye it is called a mystery tour - and even he does not know where he;s taking us

• Report Unsuitable

5

gus1940

Thursday, January 26, 2012 at 05:32 PM

#3 I suppose you would rather have McMillan of CBI determining the content of the ballot paper.

• Report Unsuitable

4

gus1940

Thursday, January 26, 2012 at 05:32 PM

#3 I suppose you would rather have McMillan of CBI determining the content of the ballot paper.

• Report Unsuitable

3

Biscuit McVittie

Thursday, January 26, 2012 at 11:55 AM

What exactly is ‘Civic Scotland’? Why should a group of unelected busy-bodies who represent no one but their own self-interest have a say in whether a second question should be included in the referendum? The SNP were elected on a manifesto commitment to hold a referendum on independence. We have a representative democracy in this country and it is up to parliament to decide on the question. The SNP argument that somehow by have a second question is increasing the democratic rights of the people of Scotland is a mendacious ploy to save face if they lose the yes vote for independence. It is in fact a travesty of democracy.

• Report Unsuitable

2

gus1940

Thursday, January 26, 2012 at 07:52 AM

Who appoints the members of The Electoral Commission?.

• Report Unsuitable

1

Beachdair

Thursday, January 26, 2012 at 04:03 AM

"The issue of which body should supervise the referendum appears to have been settled, with the Electoral Commission – long advocated by this newspaper as best-placed to oversee a fair vote – accepted by Holyrood as long as it answers to MSPs."...................... The propensity of some interested parties to 'fix" elections - and referendum results – in Scotland is pretty well known. Because of this, regardless of who carries out the organisation of the Referendum, it should be supervised and monitored by Europe's largest institution, the 56-member Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe. It was the OSCE that ended the Cold War and disarmed Europe, and it remains a crucial diplomatic actor in many trouble spots. To date the OSCE Parliament in Copenhagen has monitored more than 130 national elections and referendums using over 30,000 diplomatic observers, in order to ensure fairness and objectivity. Calling in the OSCE is the obvious course to take in order to obviate any claims of imbalance or lack of objectivity. Also, as reader 'douglas-home rule 'pointed out in a recent Scotsman, "As was evident in the Welsh and AV referenda, the Electoral Commission is not fit for purpose".

• Report Unsuitable

Order by:

• Newest first
• |
• Oldest first

Page 1 of 1

• 1
• Show all

Logged in as:

Comment here. Start typing your comment here:

Post comment

Please adhere to our Community guidelines

Your view

Please sign in to be able to comment on this story.