Leaders: Referendum remains a matter of one question

THE publication of the responses to the UK government’s consultation on the SNP’s independence referendum may not have produced a seismic revelation but it has served to underline the concerns many have over the process.

Of the matters raised by the individuals, groups and businesses, the concern which appears again and again is the uncertainty caused by the lack of clarity over the details of the referendum, and the effect that has particularly on firms which operate in Scotland but also in the international market.

Take engineering firm Weir Group, an extremely successful company which employs some 14,000 people globally but is based in Scotland. Like most businesses, the firm expresses no view on the constitutional question per se but register worries about the effect of uncertainty on its operations. Weir’s case is there should be agreement as soon as possible between the UK and Scottish governments on making the referendum legally binding; that ministers in both governments should agree on a single question on independence; and that the plebiscite should be held as soon as is practical. Moves towards greater fiscal powers for Scotland should be determined through debate outside the referendum process.

Whichever side of the constitutional question one is on, this hard-headed but eminently sensible business approach has a lot to commend itself to politicians in both Westminster and Holyrood and, most importantly, to voters who will take the most momentous decision on Scotland’s future for more than three centuries.

On the first point it appears Whitehall and St Andrew’s House are close to agreement on making the referendum legally binding. One area of uncertainty removed from the equation. On the second point it appears the Westminster government has accepted the SNP’s plans for a vote in 2014. So that uncertainty remains and will have to be lived with.

However, the issue of whether to have a second question, asking about something which ranges between the “devo-plus” to “devo-max” is problematic. While its official policy is there should be one question only, the SNP appears to be hoping for a second question for reasons, it says, of recognising voters want a middle way between sovereignty and the status quo, but its opponents say is simply a fallback position advocated by a party which knows its big idea will be rejected by voters.

Where does this leave us? If the first point is settled, and the second lost, it is now for Westminster and Holyrood to resolve the issue of a second question, and soon. How? These are the facts. The UK government says it wants one question. The SNP administration has yet to come up with a second question. Many respondents want to see one question. Business warns two questions create uncertainty. The solution is obvious: there should be one straight question on independence, put to the voters of Scotland in 2014.

Hope for society without hate crime

In A world plagued by a debilitating cynicism, it is refreshing to encounter idealism, particularly when it relates to the scourge of racism and bigotry which has cast a shadow over Scottish society for so long.

It is in that light we must view the insistence by Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland that religious and racist hate crimes can be eradicated in Scotland, a bold statement given it was made as new figures show they have reached a record high.

Although the facts appear to run contrary to Mr Mulholland’s assertion – with homophobic and transgender crimes, and those against people with disabilities, also rising in 2011/12 – there may be grounds for optimism.

First, it is plausible the recent introduction of laws to clamp down on sectarianism associated with football has raised the profile of hate crime more generally, and resulted in the public reporting more incidents and the police being more vigilant.

Second, the Lord Advocate is correct to place these figures in their historic context by pointing out that where once racism was accepted and rarely challenged in this country, the attitude of the publics has, thankfully, changed substantially over time.

Against this positive picture it would, however, be wise to add a note of caution. As we see from the figures, bigotry in relation to both football and race still scars our society. And we can only do so much through applying draconian new laws.

If we are to eradicate hate crimes, as Mr Mulholland hopes, it will take a two-pronged approach. We must apply the laws rigorously while at the same time educating not just our young people but all of our citizens in the ways of tolerance.