Leaders: Why must we wait so long for independence referendum?

AMID all the argument and political jockeying that has now broken out over the date for Scotland’s independence referendum, there is one central and over-riding requirement: this is that it is a fair vote, seen to be a fair vote and one that will stand the test of time.

But already trenches are being dug over the protocols of this referendum and they look to be being dug particularly deep over the question of its timing. First Minister Alex Salmond has made clear he favours the autumn of 2014.

Yesterday, Scottish Secretary Michael Moore told the Commons select committee in Westminster that the vote should be held 12 months earlier, in the autumn of 2013. For the Nationalists this seems more than just perverse but an obstructive move by the Westminster government to dictate the timing against the wishes of Scotland’s First Minister.

In last year’s Holyrood election, which saw the SNP swept to power with an overall majority, Mr Salmond indicated that a referendum on independence would be held towards the latter half of the parliament. He has taken the SNP’s resounding victory as a mandate to hold it on a date he then chose as the autumn of 2014.

What is so difficult or objectionable about this date? There are several reasons why the date of the referendum needs to be determined by a process more inclusive than first ministerial fiat. No detailed set of reasons was given for the timing, which was not in fact in the SNP’s election manifesto. And to many it looks opportunist: holding a referendum on independence for which the polls show still only a third of Scots voters support in a year that will see the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow, the Ryder Cup at Gleneagles and the 700th anniversary of the Battle of Bannockburn.

A nagging concern is the effect that such a long period of uncertainty could have on business and investment decisions. CBI Scotland claims its members could suffer damage from a prolonged political battle that not only saddles business with almost three years of uncertainty but which also could have the effect of driving other issues deserving of attention to the political sidelines.

A second concern is that – if the intensity of debate of recent months is anything to go by – the Scottish public may weary of a battle that seems to bring new twists and interventions by the day. This may not be to the SNP’s advantage. An earlier referendum is favoured by many, and the SNP may be doing itself no favours by dismissing this sentiment as a “silly distraction”.

And third, a set of arguments has to be made for such a long campaign. What is it that will not be fully evident or exhaustively explored by voters in 2013 that requires a further year of argument to 2014? As Patricia Ferguson, Labour’s constitutional spokeswoman in Holyrood, pointed out yesterday, Donald Dewar held a referendum within 134 days of being elected. Why should this referendum take so much longer?

Bonuses show banks still have a long way to go

Finally, it seems, bankers are just starting to get it. Sir Philip Hampton, chairman of taxpayer-owned RBS, said in television interview that the high water mark of bonuses had been reached. Lloyds Banking Group went some way to penalising the senior staff who permitted the disgraceful mis-selling of personal payment protection insurance by clawing back some previous bonuses.

But even with the RBS announcement that 10,000 staff are to have their pay frozen, there is clearly a long way to go. Senior bankers were responsible not just for the trashing of their own institutions, but also for the wrecking of the world economy through their invention and sale of unsustainable derivative products based on the impossibility that house prices will keep on rising. The dogs on the street know this fact. Hard-working people earning (by investment bankers’ distorted standards) pittances, cannot understand why they are still awarding themselves Lotto-style fortunes, and even with a pay freeze top RBS staff will still receive hefty bonus top-ups

Yes, Stephen Hester may be doing a good job restoring RBS to health, but yesterday showed just how far off the job is from completion. When RBS sells the taxpayers’ shareholding, starts to earn profits again as a privately owned company, then might be the time to consider whether big bonuses should be paid.

Even then, bonuses – which were a product of the boom years – should match the context, which will be years of fitful growth and continuing heavy burdens on the taxpayers who have paid an enormous price to ensure that banks did not fail.

Deaths remind us of journalism’s honourable cause

Journalists have been in the news for all the wrong reasons – phone hacking, payments to police officers, and e-mail hacking. Yesterday came sad and tragic news which served as a reminder that there is also honour and bravery in the profession: the deaths of Marie Colvin of the Sunday Times and French photographer Remi Ochlik, both killed by Syrian army shells in the city of Homs. In the murderous confusion of an insurrection by the Syrian people against the dictatorship of President Assad, experienced and independent journalists such as Ms Colvin and Mr Ochlik are the only reliable means for the rest of the world to know what is really happening on the ground in Syria. Ms Colvin’s reports in particular, as she detailed the injuries and agonies being inflicted on civilian adults and children, tore away the pretence of the Syrian regime that only terrorists are responsible for the violence. Pictures by photographers such as Mr Ochlik add even more authority to such reports. In such conflicts, good and honest journalism is a weapon – a weapon of truth which all dictators are unable to tolerate. Journalists in such environments know that they will be targeted because of that and yet Ms Colvin and Mr Ochlik decided that getting the truth out was more important than their own safety. In an honourable cause, they paid the ultimate price.