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

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.