THE importance of the referendum on independence to Scotland and the United Kingdom cannot be overstated.
In launching the Scottish Government's consultation document on the referendum yesterday, First Minister Alex Salmond adopted a position of careful reasonableness, providing a much-needed injection of statesmanlike calm into the tedious, obfuscating, bullying and patronising tone that has marked the initial exchanges of fire between the Coalition Government and the SNP. The document provides welcome evidence of a willingness to compromise on previous sticking points. A regulatory role for the Electoral Commission as envisaged by Mr Salmond in tandem with a management role for the Scottish Electoral Management Board is to be welcomed. The Scottish Government has declared itself ready to work with the UK Government to put the referendum beyond legal challenge. It seems likely that this will be achieved through the Section 30 provision of the devolution legislation, provided Westminster concedes to the Scottish Parliament other aspects including the timing, terms and conduct of the referendum.
Mr Salmond has stuck to his guns over the timing of the poll, which he wants to hold in the autumn of 2014, while the Unionist parties would all prefer a faster timetable. We agree with the First Minister. The document sets out a timetable that allows a Bill to be thoroughly deliberated by the Scottish Parliament and gives adequate time to establish the mechanism of the vote as well as the terms of the question or questions.
The consultation itself is a vital part of that process. Asking the public for their views on a myriad of referendum-related questions, including whether the ballot should be held on a Saturday and the voting age lowered to encompass 16 and 17-year-olds, goes further than any previous exercise in ensuring, on paper at least, that the ballot is framed and carried out with the greatest possible democratic accountability.
The evidence from opinion polls is that minor differences in the wording of the question can result in more or less support for independence. The proposed question is: Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country? This meets the criteria of being simple and straightforward but some will argue that the inclusion of "agree" loads the question in favour of independence. Unionists would prefer to include "from the United Kingdom". It is important that the wording is as neutral as possible and if there is weighty non-partisan concern about this, we expect the SNP to pay heed in the final formulation of a question or questions. With two and a half years until the vote, however, there can be no uncertainty about the critical issue confronting Scots.
A second question is more contentious. It is the stated policy of all parties, including the SNP, that the ballot should contain a single question requiring a yes or no response. Yet polls indicate a substantial body of opinion in favour of some form of maximum devolution. Mr Salmond, this canniest of politicians, is already preparing the way for including an option for "devo-max". The Nationalists are all too aware that a single question returning a No vote would put independence to bed for perhaps a generation. A question on maximum devolution, which seems to be the preferred option of most Scots, would grant Holyrood more powers and thereby keep the door open for further constitutional change. That must be an attractive option for the gradualist Mr Salmond.
Political opponents of the SNP baulk at extending the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds given that younger people tend to be more in favour of independence, although they have the highest apathy levels. However, it has long been SNP policy, and there is a logic to the argument that teenagers who are old enough to marry, join the armed forces and pay taxes should have the right to vote. Nevertheless, with a relatively small number in the age group which can apply to the register but are not yet 18, it should not become a sticking point. Those currently 16 and 17, however, will be able to vote in 2014 and should be encouraged to learn as much as possible about the issue and engage with the arguments. Similarly, holding the vote on a Saturday merits serious examination, especially if the consultation indicates it would increase turn-out. The document also sets out the criteria for eligibility to vote in the referendum. Mr Salmond is correct. People who live and work in Scotland are best placed to make the decision about the nation's future. Extending the franchise outside Scotland would be fraught with difficulty and open to vexatious legal challenge.
This consultation document and its Westminster cousin offer a vital opportunity to test public opinion on this most compelling of matters: the future of the United Kingdom and Scotland's relationship with its constituent parts. It has suited the Westminster Government to cast doubt on the credibility of a plebiscite organised by the Scottish Government. The true test of that credibility, however, now lies with Mr Salmond. Having opened his proposals to public consultation, he and his Government must take on board the comments and criticisms and heed the will of the Scottish people whose interests he holds so dear.
Scottish Labour's new leader Johann Lamont made the point yesterday that the First Minister does not speak for all the Scottish people. It is a valid point, given that he does not miss an opportunity to assert that the SNP expresses the will of Scots. Yet, until today's New Statesman survey, the polls had continued to show that a minority favour independence.
Mr Salmond has had his first big say. The Opposition parties at Holyrood must now engage in making a positive case for the Union. There is a will to make sure that the referendum is legal, fair and decisive. It can be so as long as many people as possible make their views during the consultation period. The opportunity must be seized so that there is no room for dubiety or dispute when the people of Scotland take part in the most momentous vote in 300 years.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article