Salmond has set out plans for a multi-option referendum

Red Justice · Salmond has set out plans for a multi-option referendum

Alex Salmond has set out plans for a multi-option referendum on Scotland's future. It could be the STV system says Mr Salmond. On the ballot paper could be three choices: The present Scottish Parliament, More powers for Holyrood within the union, or Scottish independece.

So what is on the table is not the two option referendum that some want. The constitutionall nationalists will hope for their multi-option referendum by 2010.

Salmond challenges union rivals

First Minister Alex Salmond has challenged his unionist opponents to test their plans for Scottish constitutional reform in a public vote.
The Scottish Government aims to stage a referendum in 2010 on whether Scotland should become independent.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7313586.stm

Rinty

I think it's quite a brilliant tactical move from Salmond. It does put pressure on the other parties to hold a position for three reasons, in my opinion:

1. It sets an agenda that means the members of the constitutional convention cannot sit back and allow the SNP to argue their case while they stay silent trying to agree a joint position. Those who favour more powers will not want to be muted by New Labour.

2. They wil be tempted to protect the 'least worst' position. The pro-union parties will fear that they could lose to the independence second vote and might feel that lining up with the 'more powers' argument will guarantee victory while going for the status quo might be rsisking losing out altogether.

3. The tories are stuck with their position on a euro referendum, they cannot credibly argue against Scotland having the same constitutional right to decide.

As usual, the opposition have lobbed one over the net to the SNP and Salmond has smashed it straight back at them!

chicmac

The SNP preferrence is a two option question.

However by making it a 3 option one with STV it makes it very difficult for Wendy to denounce since STV was introduced by them for local elections.

If the Us continue to disenfranchise the Scottish people by not allowing them a referendum in 2010, they will be utterly decimated at the ensuing election and the PI parties will have a majority by which to invoke their preferred two option version.

Best option the Us have for retaining a measure of London control, is to accept the referendum and promote an extra powers option with enough teeth to defeat independence. This would have to contain genuine fiscal autonomy.

No way will they accept that right now, but as reality dawns on them and in particular, when they are looking down the barrel of the next election starting pistol, self-preservation, if nothing else, will concentrate their minds.

Scenarios

1. Us refuse a referendum which contains their own preferred option. = electoral disaster with the ensuing PI party majority simply holding the straightforward two option referendum forthwith.

2. Us jump in to support their extra powers option. It has fiscal autonomy so wins. SNP still win the election but no over all PI party majority. With full fiscal autonomy, the 'can't afford it' scaremongering tactic is no longer tenable, pressure for independence will grow forcing either another referendum in that term or a large PI party majority at the next election.

3) Us support the extra powers option, but with no fiscal autonomy. Independence wins.

4) Despite the U support for STV in local elections and for the parliament, they continue to denounce it for the referendum. SNP government says, OK we'll just have the two options then. Us refuse to pass it - see 1.

5) Despite the U support for STV in local elections and for the parliament, they continue to denounce it for the referendum. SNP government says, OK we'll just have the two options then. Us pass it - Independence wins.

Rinty

I dont know that fiscal autonomy needs to be part of the deal. More powers would mean that the next government in 2011 will have the obligation to negotiate a new deal with the UK. I would say it is more about powers to control the parliament.

If that option wins then we will have a debate and eventual polcy on what more powers are required and/or necessary.

It is all a step in the right direction though and the cards will start to fall if the more powers option wins.

But, fiscal autonomy will probably then be adopted by the pro-union parties as it would be popular with the english voters on a "let them pay for it" basis.

I agree that the pro-union parties will be forced to campaign for more powers option as they will fear losing out of the status quo option doesnt make the cut.

To me, we are looking at a stright fight between independence and status quo as to who drops out first. Those who vote for either will have 'more powers' as their secnd vote so more powers will win, if it is the most popular first vote which I suspect it will be.

chicmac

Without fiscal autonomy independence will win. In fact I think extra powers will be the elliminated option in that case.

Rinty

I dont agree. Most polls show about 70% wanting more powers with only 40% supporting either independence or the union. These polls dont specify fiscal autonomy.

I would imagine the the 'more powers' option will win on the first vote, and it will be a matter of whether or not independence or the union drops out. I think it will be the union as many who support the union will got for more powers in the first vote.

What you are proposing is a different matter and not, I dont think, the referendum that the SNP are proposing.

To start to dictate what 'more powers' etc will bog the paper down in committees and discussions and the refrendum will likely not emerge as agreement on what powers are included will never happen.

I hope it is a straight question of independence, more powers or the status quo.

chicmac

Rinty

It is what it is, whatever you and I might think or want it to be. The 'more powers' option will not be specific, it will be the go ahead for the govt to negotiate for more powers and a new devolution settlement. If they go for a fixed detailed plan of the powers then, in my opinion, the referendum will get bogged down.

Remember that the parliament doesnt have the power to implement the results of the ballot.

I dont agree with you over the polls and peoples attitude to polls. I didnt quote a specific poll, just a general figure as a rough to a the results of a few polls. So how you can dismiss it as being some sort of loaded poll I dont know.

More powers is more likely to be about the powers over broadcasting, firearms control, policy regarding asylum seekers and the powers over the elections to the parliament. Full fiscal atonomy is not the main argument at the moment when discussing more powers for Edinburgh.

I also dont agree that people are less bold in opinion polls, especially as it has less of an effect on their lives than an election. Perhaps you can show me evidence of this?

chicmac

Dave Coull

Chicmac wrote "I don't believe the government would accept that on their Bill nor do I believe that the Electoral Commission would ratify it as a fitting option even if the SNP were daft enough to do so".

Exactly. "More powers" could mean anything from mere window dressing to full independence with a dozen other variations in-between. Even if there are some folk in the SNP daft enough to fall for that one, Alex Salmond isn't daft. And even if he was, such a meaningless referendum would be wide open to legal challenge, and yes, I can assure you it definitely would be legally challenged.

I'm surprised at you, Rinty, for falling for that kind of nonsense. A straightforward "Independence - yes or no?" referendum is possible. A multi-choice referendum which includes a very specific plan for "more powers" is possible. But a referendum with a vague "more powers" option would be legally inadmissable. It won't happen.

Reluctant Hero

Think it was the Politics Show I was watching this morning and Glenn Campbell was asking Des Browne why Labour did not agree with a referendum on more powers. He claimed that there was a referendum on the matter last May, when the majority of people voted for Unionist parties!

Asked if there would be a referendum if Alexander's "commission" came to the conclusion that extra powers should be granted to the Scottish Parliament, he said let's not second guess what the commission is going to come up with!

Think that Salmond should consider a fourth option for his referendum - hand powers back to Westminster. Granted, it would be slightly risky but at least he would be seen to be giving the entire nation a choice. It might also split the status quo vote although they would probably have that as their second option. It would also shut the Alexander camp up and it would be the Alexander option that would be seen as the limited option.

Rinty

If more powers has to be specific then a concensus on what powers people should be able to vote on will have to be reached. We would also have to do the same with the independence argument, which would have to be more specific.

I dont think the SNP plan to specify either.

If people vote for independence it will be the go ahead to negotiate independence. It would be a huge mistake to negotiate in advance of the referendum. The details of independence such as currency, armed forces, EU, etc will be negotiated after the referendum, the same will happen for more powers.

Otherwise the people who want more powers but not full fiscal autonomy would be disenfranchised. OR we will have to have more options ranging from less powers to independence from NATO.

Dave Coull

"More powers" could mean, in effect, complete independence. THAT would certainly give the Scottish Parliament "more powers". On the other hand, it could mean mere window dressing, with virtually no real change. Or it could mean a dozen other variations in-between these two things. Since it could mean so many different things as to be completely meaningless, of course it has to be specified exactly which "more powers" option is intended.

Rinty writes "If more powers has to be specific then a concensus on what powers people should be able to vote on will have to be reached".

Gordon Brown is going to want mere window dressing. The Liberal Democrats are going to want some sort of Federal system. These two options are incompatible. Any leader of the Liberal Democrats who agrees to what Gordon Brown wants will soon find himself an EX-leader of the LibDems. They are never going to agree. About the only thing they might be able to agree on is to keep talking. The trouble with that is it could be a perfect excuse for indefinite delay.

"We would also have to do the same with the independence argument, which would have to be more specific".

No it wouldn't.

"I dont think the SNP plan to specify either."

What they have specified is a referendum question giving the Scottish government authority to negotiate terms of independence with the British government. There is no case on record of any formerly British territory becoming independent without a process of negotiations. Just in case you are thinking "USA", let me point out that, after a cease-fire had been reached, the peace talks dragged on for three years, and during that period of three years New York, Detroit, and a lot of other places remained in British hands.

There would be arguments about oil, about maritime boundaries, about naval access, about dividing up the national debt, about "British" assets in Scotland, and about a dozen other things. There is no way the result of all those tough negotiations could be specified in advance. Yes, the results could be put to the Scottish people in a referendum after the negotiations, but there is no way every dot and comma could be specified in advance.

However, "more powers" is a different matter, precisely because it does not involve negotiations between sovereign entities. Precisely because it is a change within a British context, it could and should be spelled out what this means. There is no reason why the Labour Party in power at Westminster and the Labour Party with a large number of MSPs at Holyrood should not be able to specify how they see their relationship. The problem for them is, how they see the relationship between Holyrood and Westminster isn't how the LibDems will see it.

Of course, you could have two "more powers" options on the referendum ballot paper, Labour minimalist and LibDem Federalist. That at least would have the benefit of a degree of honesty. But saying there has to be a concensus on the "more powers" option just gives them the excuse for indefinite delay.

In practice, the real choice is between, on the one hand, independence, and, on the other hand, a continuing conflict of interests between Holyrood and Westminster, with the exact degree of "more" or "less" powers at any given time depending on who has power in each of these places, as well as on various other factors. That conflict of interests between Holyrood and Westminster will continue regardless of whether a "more powers" deal has been cobbled together by the unionist parties or not. Since that is, in effect, the real choice, it can be expressed very simply, without the need for endless debate about what "more powers" means.

REFERENDUM NOW - INDEPENDENCE - YES OR NO.

Rinty

Dave, Just as a vote for independence would only mean that it gives the Scottish govt the mandate for negotiations, the same will be tru of the more powers option.

There would only be a legal challenge if there was an inbalance.

We have to agree to disagree on this but my information is that the SNP referendum will be three simple options that give the govt the go Ahaed for negotiations. Simply - YES - NO- RENEGOTIATE DEVOLUTION

Red Justice

The referendum would provide the mandate for negociations about greater powers or Independence for Scotland. One problem with the SNP and grey areas or lack of specifics is their National Conversation document. Firstly a majority for a referendum is required (by way of the Scotland Act) by passage through Holyrood. Then the document hints at the possibility of also a vote in Westminster? With arguments about Scottish sovereignty in advance of a referendum Westminster would surely block any referendum.

I think the SNP plan for a multi-option referendum is good to ultimately try force the hand of the unionists to accept a democratic vote to the people and concede to passage of an amended Scotland Act through Holyrood. However the SNP need to get down to specifics when dealing with negociations concerning sovereignty and that can only happen when we first get a referendum and win the argument either way more powers or independence.

Rinty

there will have to be a vote at westminster red, but it should only be a formal acceptance of the will of the people of scotland.

I think Salmond knows that this is a step by step thing and that going all our for a yes vote right now would be risky. It has taken a long time to get the SNP in power in scotland and they will want to see two or three terms of increased power and influence.

My prediction is that labour will relent and be forced to campaign for the more powers option. That option willwin a multi-option referendu as it will be one of the first or second votes for EVERY voter. No-one is going to vote yes first and no second or vice versa.

Then the SNP will win by a bigger margin in 2011 and be the govt who are negotiating the more powers. They will come to a compromise but it will be yet another step for te people of scotland. If the SNP use the extra powers in a popuar manner then we would be looking at victory in an indepedence ballot a decade from now.

Aventinian

mairead

Having be quite vociferous in calling for a referendum in the past, I now think a multi question referendum will set the call for independence back for many years.
I feel that if the SNP continue to improve things in Scotland, the people will swing more and more towards them. By 2010 the whole of Scotland might be ready for full independence.
However, given options on a referendum form, I think many of the 'don't know. not sure' people will opt simply for more devolved powers.

Red Justice

A multi-option referendum will at least get a better result for Scotland. I think the status quo would fall on a first vote to leave a straight contest between more powers and independence on the second vote. If a two-option referendum was lost to the status quo it would set back greater democracy for Scotland by years. It would be optimistic to expect everyone to support full independence in Scotland by 2010. Full independence like complete independence means to me the removal of Trident and crown powers or the abolishing of the union of the crowns. As for more powers to prevent arguments from England's voters we would need fiscal powers and pay our own way as we can. I would like a two-option referendum but unlikely that would get passage through Holyrood or endorsement from London. I would only want a two-option referendum if I knew independence would likely win I don't think we are at that stage until another Scottish election with SNP winning a majority of seats. Other than that the Scottish independence Convention need to organise in the communities to win over the people as is a meeting in Dundee is happening I understand.

Dave Coull

Rinty wrote "Dave, just as a vote for independence would only mean that it gives the Scottish govt the mandate for negotiations, the same will be true of the more powers option".

No, that's not true. In practice, if there really was an agreement between at least two of the unionist parties, whether it's Labour/LibDem/Tory or Labour/LibDem or Labour/Tory, no negotiations would be necessary, since these parties would constitute a majority at both Westminster and Holyrood.

"There would only be a legal challenge if there was an inbalance".

Didn't you understand what I was saying the first time? I guarantee there will be a legal challenge to any referendum which includes a "more powers" option so vague as to be meaningless.

"going all our for a yes vote right now would be risky" - with the referendum on setting up a Scottish Parliament, right up until the last minute the opinion polls were showing it as being touch-and-go on the principle, with the second question on tax varying powers virtually certain to be lost. In the event, there was a comfortable majority on both questions. Chicmac is right, referendums are not like an election where you are choosing one politician or another, by their very nature they can encourage greater boldness. Showing hesitation only encourages faintheartedness in others. For if the trumpet sound an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself for battle? Relishing the prospect of a referendum encourages folk to be more willing to take a risk.

"It has taken a long time to get the SNP in power in scotland and they will want to see two or three terms of increased power and influence".

NO CHANCE.

Even if some folk in the SNP wanted this, the idea that they are going to be able to have two or three terms of stable government without mishap is just nonsense. "Events" beyond their control, in international relations, in the global economy, in the global environment, in the class struggle (remember that, Rinty?), because of all of these things, I am sure that wily politician Alex Salmond will be well aware of just how risky counting on "two or three terms" could prove, and I'm surprised that you need reminding, Rinty.

"My prediction is that labour will relent and be forced to campaign for the more powers option" - which "more powers option would that be, Rinty? The Labour one or the Lib-Dem one?

"That option will win" - which option ?

"Then the SNP will win by a bigger margin in 2011 and be the govt who are negotiating the more powers".

Yes, IF there is a vote for "more powers", it is quite likely that it would be the SNP implementing this. However, I am sure you are wrong. My bet is definitely being placed on a majority for independence.

Mairead says "By 2010 the whole of Scotland might be ready for full independence" - it depends what you mean by "the whole of Scotland". Of course you can never please everybody, there will always be opponents of independence, but if you mean a majority in every area, well, in the referendum on setting up a Scottish parliament, despite dire predictions of major regional divisions beforehand, every region of the country voted "yes". I think that will happen again with a referendum on independence. I think that majority would already be there if we had a referendum this year, never mind in 2010.

Dave Coull

Red Justice wrote "the Scottish independence Convention need to organise in the communities to win over the people as is a meeting in Dundee is happening I understand".

As I understand it, that meeting in Dundee next weekend is being organised by Dot Jessiman of "New Scots For Independence" (Dot comes from Yorkshire, and lives in Aberdeenshire). Unfortunately, I will miss the meeting on account of a long-arranged visit to old friends in England!

"I would only want a two-option referendum if I knew independence would likely win".

So, you are only in favour of democracy if you can be absolutely certain of the right outcome?

"A multi-option referendum will at least get a better result for Scotland".

I don't think so. I think a multi-option referendum would, in practice, just confuse and delay things. In practice, the real choice is between, on the one hand, independence, and, on the other hand, a continuing conflict of interests between Holyrood and Westminster, with the exact degree of "more" or "less" powers at any given time depending on who has power in each of these places, as well as on various other factors. That conflict of interests between Holyrood and Westminster will continue regardless of whether a "more powers" deal has been cobbled together by the unionist parties or not. Since that is, in effect, the real choice, it can be expressed very simply, without the need for endless debate about what "more powers" means.

REFERENDUM NOW - INDEPENDENCE - YES OR NO.

"If a two-option referendum was lost to the status quo it would set back greater democracy for Scotland by years."

Okay, let's consider the possible outcomes of a simple, yes/no referendum.

In my opinion, by far the most likely outcome is a decisive vote for independence. In that case, armed with that clear mandate, negotiations regarding the details of independence must proceed without delay.

The second possible outcome, a less likely one, in my opinion, is a narrower win for independence. This outcome gives greater scope for opponents of independence to be difficult, but, nevertheless, faced with that majority vote, the process of negotiating independence would have to go ahead.

The third possible outcome would be an extremely narrow victory for the "no" vote. This is by far the least likely outcome in my opinion, but, if it did happen, then it would settle nothing. The fact of the independence vote having come so close to winning would mean that the British government and the unionist parties would have to come up with the strongest possible "more powers" option, and yet the very narrowness of the result would mean that independence campaigners would see this as a mere stepping stone on the road to independence as soon as possible.

In my view, these are all the possible outcomes.

The idea of a decisive vote against independence is a fantasy. It simply won't happen.

Rinty

I jhave now checked again and everyone I know in the SNP says the plan is for s simple question on the options for a mandate on negotiations. All of them defintely dont want fiscal autonomy as a specified question. If we were to specify the extent of the 'more powers' we would need to see probably about 5 or 6 optons.

Dont make the mistake of thinking that I am arguing for or against this position, I am just saying that this is the plan on the table.

If you launched a legal challenge you could scupper the right of the people of scotland to vote on this.

Perhaps not the best option but I would take it now rather than miss the chance.

Red Justice

I think the stepping stone to independence will happen anyway Dave either way. I do not think at this present in time there will be a victory in a two-optiion referendum for Scottish independence. I would not be confident to go to the Scottish people. Reading your posts in quite simply tiresome. Whether this happens by way of the constitutionalists or by way of the SIC or people power you should face up to reality.

What the SNP propose, and what you want are two different things,

Reluctant Hero

Story in the Herald about some Labour MPs wanting to call Salmond's bluff by staging their own referendum. Alexander though is insisting that a referendum is not on the agenda.

http://www.theherald.co.uk/politi...s_referendum_is_not_on_agenda.php