Choice cut not to everyone's taste

Margo MacDonald’s reassertion of the case for a single question independence referendum (Scotland on Sunday 8th July) offers the seductive prospect of a dramatic cliff-hanger in 2014. No ifs, buts or maybes. No halfway houses. No distractions. No cop outs. No hedged bets. Margo wants all the money, hope and effort of several campaigning SNP decades to go on just one square during just one roll of the dice. Independence or bust. I don’t know if Margo is a gambling woman – with such nerves of steel she’d easily break the bank.

There’s undoubtedly something attractive about the prospect of a return to the high stakes game. And something timely about Margo’s warning that the Yes campaign must get “back to basics.” Two months of being “all things to all people” has certainly been wearing thin.

A profoundly “wrong note” was sounded by the normally chipper Alex Neil when he told a BBC Question Time audience he’d still feel British even if Scotland left the Union. I know Alex can talk the hind legs off a donkey, but this “British later” line is an inauthentic combination of expedience and bare-faced cheek. It’s an arid argument -- a stun grenade deployed by a wily strategist and a constructed argument not an emotional truth. Above all independence by stealth is a dangerous departure from the straight bat normally deployed by the SNP in matters of national identity.

Every time I hear a nationalist looking forward to feeling more British after the creation of a new Scottish state, I cringe. Apart from sounding insincere it’s also hypocritical. Why would anyone embrace a cultural identity tomorrow but plainly reject it today? For no good reason, the SNP’s most credible lieutenants are choosing to break the faith. And Margo is right to call time.

The deal used to be that other parties sugar-coated the pill whilst the SNP told it straight, toed unpopular lines and reaped the electoral reward.

When Nicola Sturgeon backed minimum alcohol pricing you knew she meant it. When Alex Salmond championed renewable energy to restart Scotland’s economy you knew he believed it -- not being invited to The Donald’s Golf Course launch tomorrow is the overdue reward. Ditto Trident. Long before Barclays joined Sir Fred, expense fiddling MPs, phone-hacking tabloid journalists, corrupt Met police and much of the Murdoch Empire down the stank, the SNP held out the vision of a future beyond the old Imperial myth of Britain “punching above its weight” in defence and world affairs -- and thus forever in hock to an incompetent MOD, a dangerously changeable America and an over-reliance on the arms trade.

Of course, like any capable magician the First Minister manages to conceal a few cards up his sleeves. More renewable energy goes hand in glove with more road-building and a Trident-free Scotland looks set to be compatible with membership of NATO.

The image of the “truth-telling” SNP is necessarily an illusion. If truth is the first casualty in war, that virtuous soldier doesn’t even make it to the battle field in times of constitutional conflict.

But there is a real danger for the SNP in the loss of honesty and trust that seems to have arisen from taking “Option B” on board.

There’s a danger however for Margo – and for the Greens – in being perpetual outsiders. It seems the Independent Lothians MSP was invited onto the Yes campaign board but declined. I can imagine there are lots of reasons for this. The independence voice is weakened by coming from “official SNP sources” only and ironically the nationalist’s sweeping 2011 win has silenced some effective communicators now under the command of the party whip. But if Margo wants the Yes Campaign to choose the “high risk” option – so should she.

The public know how constitutionally thrawn, outspoken and independent-minded Margo has been all her life and respect her for it. So the public act of zipping it and formally joining the Yes Campaign – warts and all – would be more than a gesture. It would signify that momentous change has begun.

Indy-waverers would be more impressed by the sight of Margo -- and Patrick Harvie -- sacrificing their freedom to carp and cavil than by any clever words the two will ever utter about the strategy of the independence campaign.

Credibility and respect are that rare in politics. And that powerful.

In the meantime though – is Margo right? Is one question right for the independence ballot?

I still think it’s not.

I know a two question referendum risks all sorts of undesirable outcomes. For nationalists it risks splitting the vote. Quite a number of unlikely and prominent Scots plan to vote Yes if no “middle way” is on offer. And it’s true that the more devo-something options are scrutinised the more inadequate they seem to become. Devo Plus leaves the oil money pouring into Whitehall not Holyrood. Devo Max leaves decisions on Trident and involvement in wars to Number Ten not Bute House. Of course, such difficulties are only apparent because “devo-something” is finally being given proper scrutiny and that wouldn’t be happening without the possibility of inclusion on the ballot paper.

But that’s not the main reason for a two question referendum.

2014 is not the SNP’s big moment – it’s ours. They are the midwives– the Scottish people will be the mothers or, if you prefer, the architects of what comes next. Even those who might vote yes can still prefer a ballot which allows the vast majority of Scots to say something positive about the degree of autonomy they desire. It’s a democracy thing.

Some voters strongly believe a looser but continuing involvement with rUK is best for Scotland. Others will automatically opt for an Option B whatever it is without scrutinising detail or workability.

But democracy isn’t about the “rightness” or wisdom of how people arrive at a preference. It’s about their right – after an open debate -- to express it. And the inconvenient truth for both “sides” is that many Scots currently want an in-between solution. The choice for the Scottish Government is simple. It can shoehorn genuine diversity into a single choice or allow the full range of preferences expressed in their consultation process to be reflected on the ballot paper in 2014.

 

Comments

[Colin Dunn]

"But democracy isn’t about the “rightness” or wisdom of how people arrive at a preference. It’s about their right – after an open debate - to express it."

Agreed. I'll be voting YES, but still feel it's vital for the future that those who prefer a halfway house have the opportunity to register that opinion. Otherwise those who don't want YES or NO are excluded, and more importantly _feel_ excluded. If indy means a fairer, more representative country, then we need to start now by being inclusive of all views.

[Cyril Matvech]

Cameron and his Anti-Scots campaign are refusing to allow a "Plan B" option under any circumstances. That is more than enough reason for me to say, "Let us offer a better option for those British Nationalists who do not support Cameron's Broken Britain and want much more democracy without being as assured of independence as I am. The Scottish government retain the rights to set all the parameters and extents of any Devo-Max option including the collection of all tax excepting VAT. I say GO FOR IT.

[Doug Daniel]

I like Margo, but she should perhaps recognise that the approach taken by the SNP thus far is what has led us to a scenario where we can even HAVE a referendum, never mind how many questions are on it.

Devo Max doesn't work. As you've said, the more you scrutinise it, the more holes you find, and the less satisfactory it becomes. But it's this process of scrutiny which allows the very idea of constitutional change to become less radical in people's minds, and therefore less of a daunting prospect - rather than asking "can we really handle all these powers ourselves?", people will think "well, I'm already keen for Scotland to have full tax raising powers - why do I want defence to stay with Westminster?"

Margo should perhaps take a leaf out of Colin Fox's book - the SSP do not agree with the SNP on many things, but he's taken a seat on the advisory board because he can influence the direction of the yes Campaign that way. I've seen many people complain that the Yes Campaign is just being run by the SNP and not putting forward a broad enough vision for independence, but if pro-independence, non-SNP voices like Margo (and possibly the Greens) are not going to take part in the campaign when invited, then how can it be anything else?

[Tony Little]

I am still an undecided two-question voter. My main discomfort with a second "Devo-whatever" question is that unless we, the Scottish voters, have a clear and unequivocal commitment to the devo-plan by ALL the pro-dependency, Westminster parties BEFORE the referendum, we are voting for ... what, exactly?

I certainly do not want another Douglas-Home "vote No and we will offer more" moment. Once in a lifetime is enough for me, thank you very much!

So, unless Devo-X becomes the new 'status quo' before the referendum, it should be a straight YES/No and the pro-dependency position shown up for what it is.

Of course, the problem with this, is that there is No one in the MSM (and especially BBC Scotland) who will present an honest, unbiased, (as opposed to a pro-Union) discussion of the facts about an Independent Scotland.

If Scots do lose the referendum, then be prepared for a political back-lash that our grandchildren will never forgive us for. (Don't let's pretend we weren't warned!)

[Seamus Innes]

There will be no second question.

Surely this is blatantly clear?

The pro-indy people are floating it to show Westminster up.

It's manna from heaven to have the unionists refuse a 2nd question. It frames the final 2014 Yes/No in a whole new way.

It ain't recket science.