THE Edinburgh Agreement struck by the Scottish and UK governments in late 2012 set the legal framework for the independence referendum two years later.
As a result of the deal signed by David Cameron and Alex Salmond, Westminster agreed to grant Holyrood the powers it needed to hold a legally binding vote.
Until that point, the SNP had been considering a rough-and-ready ‘consultative referendum’ which would almost certainly have been challenged in the courts.
But the Section 30 order which empowered Holyrood and put the matter beyond dispute came with strings attached.
The referendum had to be held by the last day of 2014, Westminster decreed, and it had to be based upon a simple yes-no question, with no scope for a third option on, say, Devo Max.
Holyrood was given some latitude, but it was clear that ultimate power stayed in London.
When the Scotland Bill is debated in the Commons tomorrow, the SNP will try to catch Speaker Bercow’s eye with an amendment which would change this unhappy arrangement.
If adopted, it would mean Holyrood - and Holyrood alone - would decide when to hold any future independence referendum, and would decide the format and all other aspects of it.
There would be no need to go cap in hand to Westminster for permission.
Although the odds are stacked heavily against it, the amendment raises a fundamental point. Should the people of Scotland, though their own parliament, be allowed to decide the timing and form of the next referendum, or should it decided by a parliament in which Scots MPs - even 56 Scots MPs - are a relatively small minority?
David Cameron may have granted a Section 30 order in 2012, but that was when he was supremely confident of victory.
Having been to the brink of defeat and seen his political epitaph flash before his eyes, he is unlikely to be so comradely in future, and nor are any of his Tory successors.
If Westminster ever grants another referendum, it will surely come festooned with strings and pre-conditions. That cannot be right. Basic democracy demands that Scotland decides Scotland’s future.
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 hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel