Lesley Riddoch: Popular options struck off agenda
David Cameron has decreed that devo-max wont be an alternative choice for Scots
Apparently we won’t be ‘allowed’ to have more than one question to decide our constitutional future
THE pursuit of a clear, unambiguous answer to a single referendum question started to look seductively appealing last week. Labour argued a devo-max option on the ballot paper would muddy the water. The Lib Dems said more than one question would create turmoil, confusion and ambiguity. What did it matter if a third of voters would be unable to support their preferred option? Clarity, not democracy, had become the new Holy Grail.
What a difference a weekend makes.
In the wake of David Cameron’s second clumsy intervention, the downside of clarity without fairness stands revealed. “Confusing” home rule (or devo-max) is not only off the ballot paper. According to the Prime Minister’s spokesman, it’s off the political agenda as well. The resulting choice for Scots is as “clear” as it is limited – either independence or the Scotland-Bill-tweaked status quo. No negotiation. No talks. No halfway house.
It feels like two Etonian fingers have been raised somewhere south of the Border. And yet Cameron has only confirmed the same limited referendum options endorsed by every political party north of it.
Party politics is failing to represent a sizeable chunk of Scottish opinion. That’s why a civic society group led by the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations (SCVO) will enter the fray today arguing for wider, inclusive debate before any referendum question/s are finally framed.
It makes sense to calm down. Despite Cameron’s bombshell, the independence referendum will still be held in autumn 2014 and – as things stand – will still leave Scots guessing the real level of support for a fully articulated and costed “middle way”. That will eventually dent credibility more than the withholding of Section 30 legal consent.
Without a range of viable options and a full, animated, lively debate before it, a whole stack of Scots will have to vote tactically or not at all. Business as usual for UK PLC with its archaic “take-it-or-leave-it”, first past the post voting system. Not nearly good enough for Scotland, which is well beyond crude “binary” expressions of voter preference. And ironically, no two people know more about unfairly restricted referendum processes than Johann Lamont and Alex Salmond.
Back in 1979 the Scottish leader of devolution-delivering Labour actually voted no to devolution while the leader of the independence-promising SNP voted yes – or would have done if he had managed to vote at all.
David Torrance’s biography reveals the young Salmond was organiser of the West Lothian “Yes for Scotland” campaign in 1979 but was registered as an absent voter when he turned up to vote. Oops.
Johann Lamont’s no vote is explained in Mike Watson’s book Year Zero – an inside view of the Scottish Parliament: “I voted no… because I came from the strand on the left which saw the politics of nationalism as a diversion from more central aims in terms of economic policy, feminism and anti-racism. I came to see the parliament as a vehicle for democratic change in Scotland, offering more opportunities for women to get elected to a position where they could influence change.”
The other three current party leaders were too young to vote. So what does this tell us?
Scotland’s two main political leaders were forced to vote strategically when faced with the following “clarity providing” single question: Do you want the provisions of the Scotland Act 1978 to be put into effect? If the parliament on offer had been beefier, Alex Salmond might have made sure he had a vote. If the debate had been wider Johann Lamont might have viewed the democratic attractions of devolution differently.
The 1979 referendum failed, not just because of the 40 per cent rule, but because voters didn’t like the single option on offer. About one third voted “no” (not beefy enough/ too beefy), a third voted “yes” (better than nothing/like the bill) and a third stayed at home (can’t be bothered/disappointed/I want independence). Result: clear as mud.
Ditto 2004 when Geordies “clearly” rejected English devolution. Or did they just reject Labour proposals for a toothless regional assembly? Who knows. But we got a “clear” result, didn’t we?
So what price “clarity” in 2014 if the referendum doesn’t contain all the popular options – whatever the present UK Prime Minister rules in or out? Stranger solutions are being discussed behind the scenes – what about a quick devo-max referendum next year or straight after the 2014 referendum, should independence fail? Do these mechanisms offer more “clarity” than using PR to rank the most popular options in a single vote?
Professor Elizabeth Meehan has suggested voters could rank the following propositions: 1 Scotland should become independent; 2 Scotland should remain part of the UK along present lines; 3 Scotland should have greater power and freedom in the UK (to be decided upon through extensive public consultation and participation). Ranking means voters not getting their first preference would be likely to get their second. What’s wrong with that?
Either/or decisions are for children – eat your food or you don’t get out to play. Choose science or history. Join the after-school club – or wait till we pick you up. Voters are not children – but how timorous, passive and childlike we have become. While Scots agonise about tackling more than a single referendum question, Icelanders will vote this year on a new constitution they have produced without any involvement from politicians. 550 scribes volunteered and were whittled down to 25 by a popular vote. Iceland’s Constitutional Council (ICC) then produced a blueprint which was amended by a forum of 950 randomly chosen citizens. Parliament made no changes and a referendum is due this year. Thus the people themselves have remedied democratic failings that hastened Iceland’s 2008 banking and economic collapse.
Do Scots have the courage to take our democratic project back from non-inclusive constitutional car mechanics and game-playing politicians? The biggest danger is that active Scots will see no connection between their daily struggles over housing, childcare and health and the lofty debate on Scotland’s constitutional future. Details do matter – but the best tool is generally selected after a thorough study of the job in hand.
We have two years. Let’s take our time and get it right. • ICC spokesperson Thorvaldur Gylfason is speaking in the Scottish Parliament on 29 March. Free tickets via www.nordichorizons.org
Email to a friend
Print this page- Scottish independence: I don’t want ‘separatism’ says Sir Tom Farmer
- Call for sleaze inquiry into peer’s expenses
- Craig Levein insists Scotland will recover from US thrashing
- Man arrested after woman found dead in subway pool of blood
- Rangers administration: Duff & Phelps ‘hopeful’ that Taxman will agree to CVA
Looking for...
Featured advertisers
Jobs
Search for a job
Motors
Search for a car
Property
Search for a house
Weather for Edinburgh
Monday 28 May 2012
Today
Sunny
Temperature: 9 C to 21 C
Wind Speed: 15 mph
Wind direction: North east
Tomorrow
Cloudy
Temperature: 10 C to 16 C
Wind Speed: 12 mph
Wind direction: North east
Comments
There are 60 comments to this article
Page 1 of 4
Gibbo
Wednesday, February 1, 2012 at 10:43 AM50 Jimmie fae the west. they are old mucker they are, in my wee area alone since Mr Cameron uttered no more powers for Scotland 28 new SNP members and I live in a wee small town, roll on May lets see what they think then.
Buford Van Stomm
Tuesday, January 31, 2012 at 02:35 PM58 Broon Bairn ==================================================== things look increasingly bleak for the highlands and islands with 90% of scotland living in the cities.
Broon Bairn
Tuesday, January 31, 2012 at 02:19 PM"Shared" parliament? With over 90% of the MPs there representing English constituencies? A recipe for a permanent backwater for Scottish affairs.
Buford Van Stomm
Tuesday, January 31, 2012 at 02:11 PM56 Broon Bairn no i'm happy with one shared parliament.
Broon Bairn
Tuesday, January 31, 2012 at 01:44 PM55. If so, then you're advocating anarchy (where there is no power-centre)?
Buford Van Stomm
Tuesday, January 31, 2012 at 01:38 PMComment removed by moderator
Broon Bairn
Tuesday, January 31, 2012 at 11:05 AMListening to some of those in the unionist camp, I wonder who on earth would deliberately choose dependency, rather than independence, and why would they prefer their country to remain in such a state? Do they want Scotland to be in a permanent condition of dependency? Weird.
Buford Van Stomm
Tuesday, January 31, 2012 at 09:35 AM51 Jimmy fae the West ==================================================== The Iraq invasion took place in 2003....most sane individuals were aware of it at that point...this perma-tool appears to have missed it till recently.
Buford Van Stomm
Tuesday, January 31, 2012 at 09:33 AMAnd poor ol Loser Ed comes up to Glasgow to deliver an anti-Devolution Class struggle in England lecture of no relevance to Scots. ==================================================== All the while his brother uses his position to obtain £500,000 per annum remuneration for sitting on the boards of companies seeking influence at Westminster. The guy is a total dweeb.
Jimmy Fae the West
Tuesday, January 31, 2012 at 03:45 AMGlasgow Labour councillor, Irfan Rabbani, has announced that he has joined the SNP Group on Glasgow City Council. He said; "I want to live in a Scotland that has social justice at its heart, that doesn't have to put up with weapons of mass destruction on the River Clyde and that never again has to see our young men and women dragged into an illegal war. "For all these reasons, and more, I will be voting 'yes' in the referendum in Autumn 2014.
Jimmy Fae the West
Tuesday, January 31, 2012 at 03:40 AM48 bonechewer Monday, January 30, 2012 at 07:51 PM Cramondo, I share your wish for a gradualist approach to further devolution. ________________________________________________________ Is this some saddo British Unionist pretence that Labour and the Libdems have not dumped your 2011 manifesto promises of more powers? Perhaps that is what Jim Murphy meant when he promised the Calman recommendations by June 2009? Mr Cameron (Supported by Messrs Clegg & Milliband) has told you............... NO MORE POWERS FOR SCOTLAND. Join the SNP.
Jimmy Fae the West
Tuesday, January 31, 2012 at 03:34 AM44 Buford Van Stomm Monday, January 30, 2012 at 04:26 PM It feels like two Etonian fingers have been raised somewhere south of the Border. ==================================================== something only a private school girl attending freshers week at Oxford would know. _______________________________________________________ Indeedy.... It is typical unionist BS but then you usually support that stuff? The non mandated PM dictates to Scots it's my way or the highway. The second Runner-up in the general election tells Scots, do as I tell you. And poor ol Loser Ed comes up to Glasgow to deliver an anti-Devolution Class struggle in England lecture of no relevance to Scots.
bonechewer
Monday, January 30, 2012 at 07:51 PMCramondo, I share your wish for a gradualist approach to further devolution. I believe that most Scots would go along with this approach too, particularly if this were to be given the same degree of media attention accorded to Devo - Max. It appears to have some support among the political parties, and does not depend upon a self appointed elite (Civic Scotland), who, even at this eary stage, are pushing for the inclusion of a question on DM on the referendum ballot paper. I also believe that the British people would support this, while causing the least amount of aggravation both North and South of the border.
Buford Van Stomm
Monday, January 30, 2012 at 05:13 PMThus the people themselves have remedied democratic failings that hastened Iceland’s 2008 banking and economic collapse. ==================================================== Did this sound clever when you wrote it?
Buford Van Stomm
Monday, January 30, 2012 at 04:46 PM45 Kobi ==================================================== I think she believes the hype about Oxbridge graduates and thinks she is smarter than the average bear......quite frankly you could eat three tins of alphabetti spaghetti, take a whole box of laxatives and produce a piece of prose with more rounded arguments on the business end of your bog.
Page 1 of 4
Your view
Please sign in to be able to comment on this story.