Peter Jones: Referendum on independence: is it to be or not to be?

Published on Tuesday 22 September 2009 21:42

REFERENDA, let's face it, are a political tactic. Political parties that propose them, and those that reject them, do so for tactical, political reasons.

When that is understood, it becomes a lot easier to see why the Scottish Liberal Democrats and their leader, Tavish Scott, are getting into a muddle over a referendum on Scottish independence.

Indeed, the party is in a terrible mess over this issue. As far as I can see, its policy is this: as the Lib Dems are opposed to independence, then the Lib Dems are also opposed to a referendum on independence. This, frankly, does not work either in the light of common sense or logic.

It would work if the Lib Dems were opposed to all referenda. But that is not true because they favour a referendum on British membership of the euro. It would also work if the Lib Dems only supported referenda on things of which they approve, like replacing sterling with the euro. But that is neither liberal nor democratic, thus it fails the common-sense test.

And as his party members, surprisingly enough, like to think of themselves as being liberal and democratic, they also see nothing wrong with chattering to the media about such democratic things as referenda. Scott should not have been surprised that some did speak out, or indeed that some were so offended by being told to shut up, that they leaked that out as well.

This is all because the use of referenda in British politics has become a matter of expediency. Harold Wilson, Labour prime minister between 1974-76, used one in 1975 to by-pass his mainly anti-European party and win public approval of his allegedly renegotiated terms of membership of the European Economic Community, as the European Union was then called.

James Callaghan, his Labour successor, used the promise of Scottish and Welsh devolution referenda to keep his failing government in office. Tony Blair promised similar referenda while in opposition to reduce the chances that Labour's pro-devolution stance would cost votes, and to speed the devolution legislation through Westminster. And Alex Salmond, I reckon, learned from that lesson and promised an independence referendum to increase his chances of winning votes at the 2007 Scottish Parliament election.

Of course, this last example is dressed up with the usual talk of "letting the people decide" and so on. I happen to think that this is a good reason for holding referenda, but also recognise that there is a problem. Where do you draw the line? How do you distinguish between issues that should be put to a plebiscite and those that should be decided in the usual parliamentary way?

This is where I think that Scott and his Scottish Lib Dems could do politics a big favour. They could set out some principles governing the use of referenda. Completely free of charge, I'll offer him my proposals here.

First, referenda should, indeed must, be used when politicians want to do something that changes the political structures in which they operate. They should not be allowed to tear down the walls of the constitution or put up big extensions to it without finding out if we, the people, approve.

Second, there ought to be evidence that there is a popular desire for whatever is proposed. A referendum is a big political tool that is expensive to use and should not be routinely trundled out just because some group of politicians have a fancy to test popular will on whatever might be their latest whim.

Third, there ought to be evidence that failure to resolve the issue at stake is causing problems elsewhere. If, for example, some debate about joining the euro had started to rage away and this debate was causing such uncertainty that economic growth had been stopped, then holding a referendum on this issue (which has big constitutional implications) would be a good way of resolving that uncertainty.

The astute reader will have noticed that the first of my three rules is a rule specifying that only constitutional matters should be subject to referenda. But the second two are more conditions that specify when the constitutional rule should be applied. That's because expediency will always be a factor when politicians decide whether or not to have a referendum. So we might as well enshrine some of that expediency in rules that everyone knows in order to limit political slipperiness.

I am also, in my usual helpful way, trying to assist Tavish Scott. He would be quite entitled, if he had set out these rules a couple of years ago, to say that an independence referendum passes the first test, but fails the second two and that's why he is against it.

Some readers may object that there have been opinion polls that suggest there might be a majority for independence. No, there haven't. Any academic assessment of the polls, and there have been quite a few, say that when the pollsters ask Scots: do you want independence or not, people say: we might. But when the pollsters ask: do you want independence or a slightly souped-up version of the devolved parliament we have already, independence loses by a margin of about two to one.

Founded on these principles, Scott's opposition to a referendum would be intellectually robust. But as he has set out his position on the basis of a complete non sequitur, he is being shot at by members of his own party, all to the gleeful delight of the SNP. Not only would his position have been eminently defensible, the principles also offer a get-out clause for a U-turn.

It is possible, for example, that in the tours round the country and visits to business which I am sure he undertakes assiduously, he might discover that businesses think they are being hampered by the uncertainty caused by the possibility of an independence referendum.

There appears to be no evidence of that happening. But if it were to emerge that economic recovery is being so hampered, then that would be a very good reason to support a referendum to settle the matter – at least for a generation.