Well, I guess we should not have been surprised that eventually the UK Government would seek to influence how the independence referendum is conducted. After all, the unionist chorus demanding a Yes-No referendum sooner rather than later had become little short of deafening.
In November the Tory Chancellor, George Osborne, told the BBC: “The uncertainty about independence, the uncertainty about what sort of referendum Alex Salmond wants, the complexity of the question that he wants to pose to the Scottish people, all those things …are adding to the economic uncertainty in Scotland.” Subsequently in her victory speech on being elected Scottish Labour leader in December, Johann Lamont – to whom belated congratulations on her success – demanded the SNP “should get on with it”, and that the referendum should be about just “one question”.
Then in a New Year visit north of the border, the Liberal Democrat Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg called on the SNP to “have the courage of their convictions and just argue for independence plain and simple” rather than offer “a smörgåsbord of multiple choice questions about a variety of different futures for Scotland”.
Rarely can all three of the three main Britainwide voices have found such a united voice.
Yet first blood in the battle of the airwaves appeared to go to the SNP. Having briefed journalists that the coalition cabinet was considering paving the way for the SNP to hold a ‘legally binding’ referendum so long as it was held within 18 months, it emerged the Liberal Democrats had apparently vetoed such a severe stipulation after all.
In truth, the suggestion that there would be such a stipulation made it all too easy for the SNP to state that they would refuse the UK Government’s offer. The pledge to hold the referendum between 2014 and 2016 may not have been in the SNP manifesto but it had been explicitly made by Mr Salmond during the campaign.
In contrast, before last May the unionist parties were unanimously arguing against any such ballot being held at all. That was hardly the strongest backdrop against which to try and insist the timetable should now be accelerated.
But then when Mr Moore actually made his statement, he dropped the bombshell that the UK Government was not simply offering to ensure that any referendum was ‘legally binding’, but was of the view that any Holyrood-organised referendum would not be legal at all. In short, the SNP might have no option but to reach an accommodation with the UK Government after all. With no firm proposal on the date and with doubts raised about the legality of any referendum they might organise, the SNP have been presented with a more formidable challenge. Indeed, they have already been stimulated to state when they want the referendum to be held.
But perhaps the most intriguing question is why do they want to keep alive the possibility of a multi-option referendum at the expense of the opportunity of holding a legally watertight referendum on independence?
On the one hand, SNP spokespersons have been insisting their preference is for a ‘Yes/ No’ referendum too. Yet at the same time, out of respect for ‘a significant body of opinion’ in Scotland they still want to leave the door open for their opponents to propose some form of ‘devolution max’ – even though those same opponents have now firmly indicated they want that door kept very firmly shut.
Until now the SNP have carefully avoided making it clear whether they are willing to argue in favour of ‘devolution max’ as well as independence. That position now no longer seems tenable. Unless they themselves are willing to back the idea, it is far from clear why they should continue to insist it could still appear on the ballot paper.
Yet there still remains some awkward questions for unionists too. Why do they demand a single question – even when, as in the case of the Liberal Democrats at least, they themselves are investigating a more radical form of devolution, albeit under the label of ‘Home Rule’?
Ms Lamont’s victory speech last month gave one clue – a belief that the independence gun must finally be spiked once and for all.
The creation of the Scottish Parliament was meant to ‘kill nationalism stone dead’, but manifestly failed to do so. Further ‘concessions’ in the form of the Calman proposals seem not to have had any material impact either. As a result, many a unionist seems to have decided that instead of trying to assuage the demand for independence with more devolution, the only way of providing a stable basis for Scotland’s membership of the Union is to confront the issue head on – and secure an unambiguous popular vote for staying in.
Not that the possibility of further devolution is necessarily ruled out. However, unionists such as Ms Lamont argue, it will only be possible to determine sensibly just what should and should not be devolved once the threat of independence has been removed.
However, voters who support ‘devolution max’ may wonder whether anything would really happen about strengthening devolution once that threat has been removed.
After all, unionists have form when it comes to unfulfilled promises. In a key speech during the 1979 devolution referendum, the former Tory Prime Minister, Sir Alec Douglas Home, promised Scots that if they rejected the unsatisfactory proposal for a Scottish Assembly currently before them, his party would come up with a better one. But once Mrs Thatcher was safely in office and the nationalists crushed, nothing happened.
The risk being taken by unionists in insisting on a single question, ‘the Union, Yes or No?’ is that in practice the answer might be a rather awkward ‘It all depends’. The Union with more devolution, ‘Yes.’, but without, ‘Perhaps not’.
Even in a single question referendum, maybe the best way of saving the Union would be to spell out plans for more devolution after all?
Exerting influence
In November the Tory Chancellor, George Osborne, told the BBC: “The uncertainty about independence, the uncertainty about what sort of referendum Alex Salmond wants, the complexity of the question that he wants to pose to the Scottish people, all those things …are adding to the economic uncertainty in Scotland.” Subsequently in her victory speech on being elected Scottish Labour leader in December, Johann Lamont – to whom belated congratulations on her success – demanded the SNP “should get on with it”, and that the referendum should be about just “one question”.
Then in a New Year visit north of the border, the Liberal Democrat Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg called on the SNP to “have the courage of their convictions and just argue for independence plain and simple” rather than offer “a smörgåsbord of multiple choice questions about a variety of different futures for Scotland”.
Rarely can all three of the three main Britainwide voices have found such a united voice.
Yet first blood in the battle of the airwaves appeared to go to the SNP. Having briefed journalists that the coalition cabinet was considering paving the way for the SNP to hold a ‘legally binding’ referendum so long as it was held within 18 months, it emerged the Liberal Democrats had apparently vetoed such a severe stipulation after all.
In truth, the suggestion that there would be such a stipulation made it all too easy for the SNP to state that they would refuse the UK Government’s offer. The pledge to hold the referendum between 2014 and 2016 may not have been in the SNP manifesto but it had been explicitly made by Mr Salmond during the campaign.
In contrast, before last May the unionist parties were unanimously arguing against any such ballot being held at all. That was hardly the strongest backdrop against which to try and insist the timetable should now be accelerated.
But then when Mr Moore actually made his statement, he dropped the bombshell that the UK Government was not simply offering to ensure that any referendum was ‘legally binding’, but was of the view that any Holyrood-organised referendum would not be legal at all. In short, the SNP might have no option but to reach an accommodation with the UK Government after all. With no firm proposal on the date and with doubts raised about the legality of any referendum they might organise, the SNP have been presented with a more formidable challenge. Indeed, they have already been stimulated to state when they want the referendum to be held.
But perhaps the most intriguing question is why do they want to keep alive the possibility of a multi-option referendum at the expense of the opportunity of holding a legally watertight referendum on independence?
On the one hand, SNP spokespersons have been insisting their preference is for a ‘Yes/ No’ referendum too. Yet at the same time, out of respect for ‘a significant body of opinion’ in Scotland they still want to leave the door open for their opponents to propose some form of ‘devolution max’ – even though those same opponents have now firmly indicated they want that door kept very firmly shut.
Until now the SNP have carefully avoided making it clear whether they are willing to argue in favour of ‘devolution max’ as well as independence. That position now no longer seems tenable. Unless they themselves are willing to back the idea, it is far from clear why they should continue to insist it could still appear on the ballot paper.
Yet there still remains some awkward questions for unionists too. Why do they demand a single question – even when, as in the case of the Liberal Democrats at least, they themselves are investigating a more radical form of devolution, albeit under the label of ‘Home Rule’?
Ms Lamont’s victory speech last month gave one clue – a belief that the independence gun must finally be spiked once and for all.
The creation of the Scottish Parliament was meant to ‘kill nationalism stone dead’, but manifestly failed to do so. Further ‘concessions’ in the form of the Calman proposals seem not to have had any material impact either. As a result, many a unionist seems to have decided that instead of trying to assuage the demand for independence with more devolution, the only way of providing a stable basis for Scotland’s membership of the Union is to confront the issue head on – and secure an unambiguous popular vote for staying in.
Not that the possibility of further devolution is necessarily ruled out. However, unionists such as Ms Lamont argue, it will only be possible to determine sensibly just what should and should not be devolved once the threat of independence has been removed.
However, voters who support ‘devolution max’ may wonder whether anything would really happen about strengthening devolution once that threat has been removed.
After all, unionists have form when it comes to unfulfilled promises. In a key speech during the 1979 devolution referendum, the former Tory Prime Minister, Sir Alec Douglas Home, promised Scots that if they rejected the unsatisfactory proposal for a Scottish Assembly currently before them, his party would come up with a better one. But once Mrs Thatcher was safely in office and the nationalists crushed, nothing happened.
The risk being taken by unionists in insisting on a single question, ‘the Union, Yes or No?’ is that in practice the answer might be a rather awkward ‘It all depends’. The Union with more devolution, ‘Yes.’, but without, ‘Perhaps not’.
Even in a single question referendum, maybe the best way of saving the Union would be to spell out plans for more devolution after all?