Scottish independence: No breakthrough in talks between Alex Salmond and Michael Moore
CRUNCH talks aimed at resolving the stalemate over the staging of the independence referendum have failed to secure any breakthrough.
First Minister Alex Salmond and Scottish Secretary Michael Moore even appeared to be at loggerheads over what had been agreed in their meeting yesterday at the Scottish Government’s St Andrews House headquarters.
Claims that a deal had been reached on the date for the historic vote as well as the role of the elections watchdog, the Electoral Commission, quickly evaporated.
Mr Salmond will now hold talks with Prime Minister David Cameron in Edinburgh on Thursday in an effort to resolve the areas of contention, although the coalition government insists negotiations on the issue are being led by Mr Moore.
Opposition leaders said last night that the confusion yesterday did not “bode well” for the process.
Mr Salmond claimed after the meeting that there was no longer any “serious argument” about the SNP government’s preferred timescale of autumn 2014 for the referendum.
But Mr Moore quickly insisted the poll should be held sooner, adding: “There’s not a problem to bring this forward to some stage in 2013.”
The talks between the two men were scheduled to last an hour, but ended up going on for about 90 minutes.
Both sides were keen to claim that “modest progress” had been made, but admitted no deal was likely until the consultations being carried out by both governments were concluded.
There was no breakthrough on the dispute about the prospect of a third option on the ballot paper on more powers for Holyrood, the so-called devo- max option. Mr Salmond is in favour of keeping the option on the table, and also wants the franchise extended to 16- and 17-year-olds.
The coalition is not keen on either of these and says Holyrood does not have the legal authority to stage a referendum. This can only be done with the temporary transfer of power from Westminster by means of a Section 30 order.
Mr Salmond said some agreement had been reached yesterday. “I think both on the timing and the role of the Electoral Commission, I think these matters – I’m not saying they’re totally resolved or there’s not different views on them – but basically, I think they’re more or less settled.”
The Scottish Government had an “open mind” as to whether there should be a devo-max option on the ballot paper, he added.
The First Minister also said he was “favourable to 16- and 17-year-olds getting the vote”, before adding: “We will listen to the consultation exercise and I hope that once the consultation is completed, then that will enable us to come to agreement, that will shift the ground.”
Mr Salmond added: “Hopefully the voice of the people will prevail upon the politicians to find common ground on these matters and the objective is to have the referendum in the timescale that we indicated.”
The First Minister also welcomed the Scottish Secretary’s commitment to listen to the outcome of the coalition’s consultation before making a decision on this issue of a third question.
He said: “The message I would take from that is a message to civic Scotland that this is the moment to get your response in, get your oar in and develop your position to see that the canvass in these things is more than agreement between politicians, but carries the support of stakeholders across Scottish society.
“I think that’s absolutely critical.”
But Mr Moore insisted there were some “very serious issues … not only about the decisiveness of the question, if you have more than one, about how the result might be interpreted”.
Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Willie Rennie has previously raised concerns that a slender majority for independence might trump a landslide majority vote for more devolution in a multi-option referendum.
On the potential for an extra question, Mr Moore said he would “look carefully” at the consultation responses. But he added: “My strong view is that a single question would deliver a decisive outcome.
“The issue at stake is determining Scotland’s continuing place in the United Kingdom.
“I very thoroughly want it to continue to be in the UK. I am convinced that when we make a decision as a country, that is what we will decide.
“We think there are all sorts of technical issues around having more than one question that haven’t even been begun to be addressed.”
The Electoral Commission does not currently have a say on the wording of the question, “Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?” This is despite concerns from SNP opponents that the phrasing is weighted in favour of securing a “Yes” vote.
Mr Moore said the commission should be involved on the same “statutory” basis as it would be for normal UK elections. He did say, however, that he was hopeful that agreement could be reached “very, very quickly”.
The Scottish Secretary also raised doubts over claims that “partly because of technicalities” the vote cannot be held before autumn 2014.
“I think it can be fairly straightforwardly demonstrated that it can be done more quickly than that,” he said.
“There’s not a problem to bring this forward to some stage in 2013.”
The SNP leader again indicated that he was happy for the Section 30 order to be used to give Holyrood the legal power, but rejected claims that this should be linked to agreement on other issues such as 16- and 17-year-olds voting and a devo-max option.
“Our difficulty is with the conditionality, with the strings attached,” Mr Salmond said.
Labour leader Johann Lamont warned Mr Salmond not to drag out the process.
“It doesn’t bode well for Scotland’s referendum that the First Minister and the Scottish Secretary can’t even agree what they agreed at their meeting,” she said. “It is becoming increasingly clear the SNP are determined to drag out the debate about process as a smokescreen for their faltering case for separation.
“If we are continuing to debate the timetable, the franchise and the wording of the question, then we are not talking about the things that matter to people.”
Both sides, however, insisted there were positives to take from yesterday’s discussions.
Mr Moore said: “This is the first meeting. It was constructive, it was thorough in looking at all the different issues and I look forward to meeting the First Minister again when we have gone through the detailed consideration.
“I think what people across Scotland will expect is that the two governments work together constructively with one another to ensure that we get a referendum that is legal, fair and decisive.”
Juliet Swann, campaigns and research officer with the Electoral Reform Society in Scotland, welcomed the talks.
She said: “It’s great that Salmond and Moore have met and begun to iron out the technicalities of the referendum.
“The debate ahead requires respect and recognition of the Scottish Parliament’s mandate over Scotland’s affairs.
“Once the details are agreed, it is vital that an independent non-partisan body tests and verifies the question, and that the poll is organised and managed in a similarly independent manner.
“We are pleased the Scottish Government has accepted the role of the Electoral Commission and we have every confidence in them to do this job.”
Ms Swann added: “We must bear in mind that the Holyrood system was not set up to manage majority government, which makes the role of the commission available to the parliament as a whole as an independent monitor all the more important.”
Email to a friend
Print this page- Rangers takeover: Duff & Phelps threaten legal action against BBC
- Family mourn death of Glasgow ‘fight’ schoolboy
- Today’s youth not fit to be employed, says car firm Arnold Clark
- Rangers administration: Fans fear Duff & Phelps claims could scare off Green
- Rangers takeover: triple penalty punishment enough, says Johnston
- Alistair Darling leads ‘No to independence’ fight over tea and biscuits
- Scottish independence: SNP flip-flops over Nato
- Scottish Independence: SNP ‘won’t be Yes campaign’s only voice’
- Today’s youth not fit to be employed, says car firm Arnold Clark
- Scottish independence: ‘People here are best qualified to run Scotland’
Looking for...
Featured advertisers
Jobs
Search for a job
Motors
Search for a car
Property
Search for a house
Weather for Edinburgh
Saturday 26 May 2012
Today
Sunny
Temperature: 8 C to 20 C
Wind Speed: 16 mph
Wind direction: North east
Tomorrow
Sunny
Temperature: 11 C to 21 C
Wind Speed: 10 mph
Wind direction: North east
Comments
There are 519 comments to this article
Page 1 of 35
JASONM
Thursday, February 16, 2012 at 08:25 PM516 Anagach My last point is. Do you want to create a major diplomatic incident? What happens if Salmond refuses to take a percentage of UK debt? Do you think the UK (ex-scotland) people are just going to accept that? What happens about the armed forces? Do you think that can be amiicably divided? What about all the pensions for Scottish staff of the National Government? Or IT systems supported in EnglandWalesScotland which will have to be divided. Will governments demand compensation? What about the companies what support the systems - they will have to re-negociate contracts and will charge more since they are have to service two, indepedent countries. What about the EU? If Scotland are financially indepedent then they will have to pick up more of the UKs payment to the EU. What about all those departments based in London with central functions? HR, Payroll etc. Do you think they will move to Scotland? What about embasys based overseas - how do we split them? Who pays for them? Will all the english claim free uni in scotland as they can do by EU law?
JASONM
Thursday, February 16, 2012 at 08:06 PM516 Anagach Would you rather be part of the UK which has a major influence on european policy or like Greece which had basically handed over its independence to France & Germany who are now dictating its economic policy and how it can spend and how it can raise tax? Does Scotland really want to hand over a semi-indepedence from within the UK to no say in its matters to the EU? You are kidding yourself if you think being part of the EU will give self-determination. Do you honestly think the EU will hand back fishing rights to Scotland when it will no power? Without the UK the EU will be run by France and Germany. A question for you. Will the BBC still cover Scotland? If so then the TV Licencing will have to de duplicated in Scotland with all the additional costs because the rest of the UK won't pay for it. So all the offices will have to move to Scotland creating employment but also driving up the cost. It is absolutely madness when the UK is broke.
JASONM
Thursday, February 16, 2012 at 07:51 PMCan I suggest everyone take a deep breath and think about the cost of this? No modern country has ever split up. Everything will have to be duplicated from the DVLA, Foreign Office, Border Agency, Passports etc. Will Scotland have an armed forces? So will the UK sack all Scottish from their armed forces? How do we split up resources? What about nukes? Do we have border controls? Will Scotland be able to cope with EnglishWelsh going over the border and getting free prescriptions (part of EU legislation)? Scotland adopt the pound and therefore have no control over interest rates? Or the Euro and hand independence to europe.Most truly independent reserach say scotland IS subsidised and thats without all the additional costs of independence. What about the debt? RBS? Can I suggest you read up about the Barnett formula and make your own views on whether Scotland is in credit or not? Britain is a nation of idiots if anyone thinks we can afford a complete breakout of this country, on both sides of the border. Sadly both the Scottish and English don't see how we compliment each other and divided we will be at command of France and Germany as small nations against big brother. Both of us will be Greece if this happens.
Anagach
Thursday, February 16, 2012 at 12:01 AM513 Maggie B I wonder how many average people in the street truly understand what independence will mean for Scotland. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It means different things to different people and no one can see the future. It depends if your risk averse, in which case the sky falling in stories will appeal, or an optimist in which case the opportunities will appeal. Look around Europe, all that can be really said is that we will end up much like the countries around us. Which means not that much change initially.
Mark Bishop
Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 10:03 AM513 well done Maggie. A clear and sensible voice.
Prof Evil
Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 06:30 AM511 - no. I don't think it is a double bluff for Cameron. You give him far too much credit. he is not smart enough to pull a double bluff. England needs Scotland. To a much lesser extend Scotland needs England. It's not oil that is the problem, it's the Nothern border and anti nucear stance. They are frit of all sorts of things - frit frit frit. the Right Honourable Cameron is frit.
Maggie B
Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 05:22 AMI wonder how many average people in the street truly understand what independence will mean for Scotland. It's all very well to have a referendum and ask the question "Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country" or other such type of question. But, how can anyone possibly know whether this would be a good - or bad move, unless they are fully aware of what this will mean for Scotland: Financially, Politically and Globally. There first needs to be full and frank discussion with the public to educate them as to how this will affect Scots. Otherwise, many are likely to act in haste - and repent at leisure. Think about it!
flyinngscott
Tuesday, February 14, 2012 at 11:25 PMIs there a translator in the house?
feeminn1
Tuesday, February 14, 2012 at 10:33 PMI am wonder, is all of this a matter of "two is company and three is a crowd." England and Wales but not Scotland. Is it possible that it is being engineered that Scotland will leave the Union. After all Tony Blair was warned Devolution would lead to this. He was given the example South Ireland, which was giving a parliment in 1919 and declaired independence in 1926. If they could forsea this, they must have intended it. Consider, they are not trying very hard to stop it. Down here in England it is not a news story. The only way I can keep up with the events is on the web. I think London wants rid of Scotland and Northern Island but wants Scotland and Northern Island to go of their own accord, thereby they have only themselves to blame should things not turn out how they had wanted. Is Salmond really so clever that he is wrapping rings around all the politicians of Westminster and all their academic advisors or are they allowing him to appear everso clear. - i don't no if any of this is correct but it would explain the way London is behaving. Most people I talk to here in Birmingham really don't care if Scotland leaves the Union. Wales is seen as more important because of its history and geography - close to majoy English Cities. We get our water from Wales. As a friend said, "we can live without oil, we can't leave without the water."
Jimmy Fae the West
Tuesday, February 14, 2012 at 10:15 PM509 Anagach Tuesday, February 14, 2012 at 08:23 PM 483 Self Determination Why do they view this improvemnt on our democracy as something akin to treason? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is Great Britain, Mother of Parliments, Envy of the World, Home of Democracy, any suggestion of reform is heresy I tell you, bolshevism sir, the work of the devil, a Chartist are you!, I know your type, a Whig I'll wager, damn your eyes sir ! . ________________________________________________________ +++1
Anagach
Tuesday, February 14, 2012 at 08:23 PM483 Self Determination Why do they view this improvemnt on our democracy as something akin to treason? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is Great Britain, Mother of Parliments, Envy of the World, Home of Democracy, any suggestion of reform is heresy I tell you, bolshevism sir, the work of the devil, a Chartist are you!, I know your type, a Whig I'll wager, damn your eyes sir ! .
jaydee
Tuesday, February 14, 2012 at 08:05 PM502peter58... ...*Redcoat by election. British and Scottish in that order. I bleed red, white and blue. And that flag will not be taken from me*....................... Oh deary me...has nobody told you that now the sun no longer rises on the British Empire.... Well lets look at British flags... 50 or so years ago the Conservatives held 50% of he Scottish vote.. That was replaced by the most inefficient party of useless clowns that Scotland ever had ... Scottish Labour... Then lo and behold after a Parliament was built that the true Brits did not want and a process adopted to keep Scottish Labour and the Union Jack in power for ever more.. In less than 5 years the flag changed to the St Andrews Cross... And without a drop of blood.... Plenty of lost ego..but blood no..
jaydee
Tuesday, February 14, 2012 at 07:50 PM506..keithlj.. You have a good valid point. The First Minister is having to deal with with Parties that came 3rd and 4th in the Scottish Elections... But at the end of the day Mr Cameron is the Prime Minister... In the case of Moore he is just a nothing and voted into power by nobody.. To think that the most important question facing the United Kingdom in 300 years is being dealt with by a member of a political party who came 3rd both north and south of the border.. It is just a joke...I appreciate through no fault of his own or anything he has done when dealing with Scotland the Prime Minister is on a loose loose ticket... No doubt his advisor's have advised him.. Whether that advise was good only time will tell.. I suspect it will end in disaster and if Mr Cameron is voted as the next Prime Minister, he will be the PM of the non UK.. But that aside the nitty gritty could be dealt with by the Foreign Secretary William Hague and on the Scottish side by someone like Nicola Sturgeon the Deputy First Minister... Then at frequent Intervals both Prime and First Ministers could meet.. Why Mr Salmond just simply refuses to deal with Moore and state he is just going ahead with the referendum beats me.,, .Moore is speaking for nobody
keithlj
Tuesday, February 14, 2012 at 06:44 PMWhen a contract is broken does not the one which was violated have the right to VOID the contract. Why is Scotland and Salmond even talking with the guys down south. They violated the contract and Scotland just needs to take its assets and say good-bye. Simple. No talking. No quibbling.
Col.Blimp III
Tuesday, February 14, 2012 at 05:34 PMI cant seem to locate the Scotsman article about the credit rating agency’s warning of a possible downgrade for the UK's rating on account of our current level of debt ,,,, strange considering how they were banging the drum about claims which they failed to substantiate, that an independent Scotland might not get an AAA rating at some unspecified date in the future ,,,, not at all like them to shelve a real story and run with a fabrication.... ha ha ha !
Page 1 of 35
Your view
Please sign in to be able to comment on this story.