There should be no disputing that the Scottish National party government in Edinburgh has an electoral mandate to trigger a referendum on Scottish independence during the lifetime of the 2011-16 Holyrood parliament. The SNP's manifesto for the 2011 elections said they wanted such a referendum and in May the voters gave them a majority. The fact remains, however, that while the Scottish government may have a mandate for a referendum, it nevertheless lacks the authority to hold one. The authority to hold a constitutional referendum lies with the UK government in the Westminster parliament, not with the Scottish government at Holyrood. So a referendum called by the Scottish government would arguably be beyond its powers, could be challenged in the courts and might not have legal or even political authority either. That is not a situation that anyone, whether they are for or against independence, should seek.
It is therefore high time that the mandate and the authority were brought into alignment, so that Scottish voters can make their choice and settle the matter one way or the other. That means there must be some grown-up co-operation between Edinburgh and London to make sure both that there is a referendum and that it is fair and lawful. But this is where politics come in.
The SNP, not wishing to recognise the authority of the UK or its government, acts as though mandate and authority are one and the same (which they are not), while also being aware that winning any independence vote would be an uphill task (an Ipsos-Mori poll, reported yesterday, showed only 29% support for independence). The SNP is therefore keen to play for time. It stands for St Augustine as well as St Andrew. Give us an independence referendum, but not too soon, is its prayer.
On the other side, the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition, with little voter support in Scotland (the two parties lost 17 Holyrood seats between them last May), acknowledges the SNP's mandate but is anxious both to assert its own authority and to prevent the breakup of the UK. Yet it knows that any initiative it takes will be denounced by the SNP as unwarranted interference and may risk recruiting further support for the independence cause. Until now this has meant that the London government has been pinned into a corner by the SNP. But this stalemate could not go on indefinitely, however much that suits the nationalists.
It is wisest not to take yesterday's initial locking of horns at face value. But the UK government's attempt to break out of its corner is an important event all the same. It will confirm today that it is offering the Scottish parliament the authority to hold a referendum, but with conditions. Those conditions include putting only a straight yes or no choice on independence on the ballot paper (even though many in Scotland actually want the third option of more devolved powers), putting the non-partisan UK election commission in charge of the campaign, and holding the vote sooner rather than later. The move is a gamble and the initial Scottish government response was predictably contemptuous. The SNP will not agree without a loud fight, if at all. But this is a conversation which needed to move on. Now it has. And then it needs to finish.
In the end, the arguments over process are disputes which ought to be reconcilable. Fair supervision, a clear question for voters and a consistent electoral roll are not issues that ought to divide honest leaders. The difference between holding the vote in 2013, as London wants, or 2014, as the SNP now seems to prefer, is not unbridgeable either. The Scottish electorate must decide on the future of Scotland in a vote whose meaning and authority are beyond challenge. That is not easy when the referendum has become such a political plaything. Times are hard in Scotland as elsewhere, and the uncertainty over process and outcome, though sometimes exaggerated, should not be allowed to block all other issues facing the country. Get on with it, all of you.
Comments
Sign in to comment or to join the conversation
10 January 2012 12:20AM
Interesting that Cameron is keen to offer the Scotts a referendum on leaving the Union buut reneged on his promise to offer us a referendum on leaving the EU.
10 January 2012 12:21AM
Yes, please get on with it.
The Union has passed its use by date and serves no purpose now, adds no value.
from this Englishman, good luck and good bye, we'll all be better off for it.
10 January 2012 12:22AM
English referendum for English independence!.
10 January 2012 12:22AM
The last line has it bang on,stick or twist.
10 January 2012 12:24AM
I hate you, I loathe you, I despise you because you are making me defend Cameron but I have to, you see Cameron did not at any time promise a referendum on EU membership, he promised us a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty (as did Blair and Brown).
Ironically the one party that has promised us a referendum on EU membership-the Lib Dumbs-appear less than keen on one now.
10 January 2012 12:24AM
Cameron played right into Salmond's hands on this one, I think. All Salmond wants is an excuse to play up the coalition's lack of electoral mandate north of the border, and to portray Cameron as attempting to deny Scots their right to self-determination.
If Cameron had just let the referendum go ahead without interference (other than to say firmly that the UK government is not going to play along with devo-max: you're either in or you're out), he'd have got the result he wanted.
10 January 2012 12:33AM
'Wee Eck' driving a bus through the rank English ranks!
***my application for asylum from this neo-liberal pilo shite is in the post***
10 January 2012 12:34AM
What do you mean by that, exactly? Get on with the discussion, or the referendum?
Those who want change also want to have a national conversation and debate. The unionists, who were in the majority in the last Holyrood administration and refused to co-operate with a referendum then, are now baying at the SNP to hold it immediately.
PoshDave, with no Scottish mandate at Holyrood or Westminster, is, I assume, hoping to bury independence in the same way he dealt with the AV referendum - force those wanting change into the worst possible option, then rubbish them during the campaign.
Luckily for Scotland, Salmond is far smarter than Clegg. There is no point, for either side, in having a vote without engaging the Scottish public in a full discussion. Unfortunately, no-one is putting a postive case for the union, they're just rubbishing Scotland and the SNP.
It says it all that Michael Forsyth is the figurehead of the unionist side.
10 January 2012 12:35AM
They don't have to get on with it at all. The SNP made an electoral promise to hold a referendum in the second half of their term and it looks like that's what they're going to do. I know the idea of a party sticking to their electoral pledges has fallen somewhat out of favour, but at least it still seems to have some currency north of the border....
10 January 2012 12:36AM
Lot's of carefully avoidance here, I see, and not just in this paper but almost all of them, of any discussion of the *value* of devo max as a possible solution, and no speculation at all on why Cameron doesn't want it.
Scottish people do in fact read newspapers, England.
10 January 2012 12:37AM
So ,just get on with it.Drama queens.
10 January 2012 12:38AM
Correct about what Cameron offered - and it would also have been pointless and somewhat pitiful to have held a referendum over the Lisbon Treaty once it had been approved and ratified, so I confess I had only ever taken the pledge as something they were going to do if they got the chance, which they didn't.
An interesting point on the Lib Dems too - once bitten, twice shy?
10 January 2012 12:44AM
Cameron does have a lack of electoral mandate north of the border, & his sheer cack-handedness in how he is approaching this is quite unbelievable, athough massively good if you are an SNP supporter.
What Cameron should have done in terms of the referendum is nothing, other than put up a good argument for the union. As far as full fiscal autonomy is concerned he is on record as saying he wouldn't stand against it & as it is fiscally neutral for England & solves the West Lothian problem what is the issue?
What he has done is run around like a headless chicken changing his mind from one minute to the next & then posing a constitutional crisis moment one day, then retreat the next.
It is hilarously funny. What is even funnier is the sheer absence of Labour from the debate, because they are feart of being seen like the Tories (although I really think most Scots have rumbled that some time ago).
Eck faces a mountainous climb to get a yes vote.
Dave is helping all the way - gee thanks.
10 January 2012 12:45AM
Call Me Dave's fair referendum question:
Do you wish to leave the UK, suffer a massive drop in your
wealth and employment prospects and die in a misery more
wretched than a Greek peasant?
Yes
No
(The results will be legally binding)
10 January 2012 12:47AM
The level of political discourse in Manchester has declined since EP Thompson was writing, obviously.
10 January 2012 12:49AM
Yes, the silence is deafening. Devo max is about Scotland getting on with the job of governing itself with as much responsibilities and levers as possible. It would end the dreaded and hated Barnett Formula and put to bed once and for all that Scotland relies on Westmonster (English) handouts.
(But what an advert for full independence that would be!)
10 January 2012 12:49AM
I notice whilst the Editorial gives a reasonable if contentius analysis of the SNP, Tory and Lib Dem positions....
It completely omits any reference to the shambles Labour is in on this.
Both the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Scottish Labour Party have come out and said they are for a straight YES/NO question....and are refusing to back a Devo Max Option....a fair enough position to take I suppose
Except, that Labour were the prime movers of the Calman Commission which they set up in the last parliament with the Tories and Lib Dems, and it's conclusions pretty much defined what Devo Max was.....in the recent BBC poll this was the most popular option
Yet 7 months later, suddenly the Act of Union is fine and doesn't need changing ?
The daft thing is Labour could pick up Devo Max, lead it and win quite comfortably and the SNP are offering to allow it to be put forward.....
But it would appear that sticking it to the SNP at every opportunity is more important to Scottish Labour than actually deciding to do something constructive.
The daft thing is they seem equally repulsed by sharing a platform with Tories, even though on this they claim to be on the same side.
Labour are a complete shambolic mess on this and The Guardian shouldn't be ashamed to tell them.
10 January 2012 12:49AM
Yes it has because of this rather boring soap opera.
10 January 2012 12:50AM
So, The Guardian supports the position of Cameron. Now who's playing politics?
Can't wait for Salmond's response.
10 January 2012 12:51AM
"Get on with it, all of you" Well said, although it is of course the SNP delaying so "all" is not appropriate
Look forward to hearing Salmond's reply once that annoying minor detail of the law is put in front of him
"the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition, with little voter support in Scotland"
They did actually get a third of the vote in the last general election so not quite true to dismiss anyone but SNP and Labour as irrelevant
10 January 2012 12:52AM
The "right" to hold a referendum may reside with Westminster under Westminsters own rules but the right to self determination of governance is a basic human right that cannot be legalised against.
As such, any action to impede or deny the people of Scotland a right to vote would be in contradiction to the obligations to uphold self determination as signed and agreed by the UK as part of the UN Charter.
Article 1 in both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) both read:
"All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development."
The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights article 15 states that everyone has the right to a nationality and that no one should be arbitrarily deprived of a nationality or denied the right to change nationality.
The International Court of Justice refers to the right to self-determination as a right held by people rather than a right held by governments alone.
United Nations studies on the right to self-determination set out factors that give rise to possession of right to self-determination:
* a history of independence or self-rule in an identifiable territory
* a distinct culture
* a will and capability to regain self-governance
Scotland is a distinct country with our own traditions, national dress, borders, health service, legal establishment, education system, flag and a history of nationhood tht was not discarded by the Act of Unions in 1706 and 1707.
These were international treaties and once signed the UK government came into existence and the Scottish and English Parliaments were suspended. Please note that they were not disbanded, merely suspended. The countries still exist and upon creation of Devolution the Scottish Parliament at least was reconvened.
So we can demonstrate before any referendum is held that we have a history of independence in our own identifiable territory, that our culture is unique and in fact unique enough to be recognised around the world instantly, and that through the Scottish Parliament we have the capability to regain self governance.
At the end of the day it will be the will of the Scottish Electorate that will decide the outcome for Scotland. If a majority of the votes cast are for Independence then the people have demonstrated the will to regain self governance.
The Unionists are so preocupied with how, and when a referendum is called they have forgot to address the question of why. Until they do so they will not create a positive case for the union.
I will be voting yes so that my daughters generation will have the opportunities that Westminster is intent on denying the English youth.
I will vote yes so that we can grow our economy without making sacrifices to benefit the South East of England.
I will vote yes so that I do not have to see my country go to war over resources based on lies and greed.
I will vote yes so that Education will be cherished, supported, and not just the preserve of the rich.
I will vote yes so that health care will remain publicly operated as NHS Scotland and not be turned into a poor copy of the American System.
But most of all I will vote yes so that we can choose our own path, one that fits with Scotland.
10 January 2012 12:54AM
I shall be sad when Scotland departs. That said, who can blame them ?
10 January 2012 12:55AM
Well said!
10 January 2012 12:56AM
guardian failing to hold labour to account again, really getting quite sick of your slavish support.
10 January 2012 1:04AM
Yes, Labour in particular are brilliant at lip service.
10 January 2012 1:06AM
The SNP's problem is what would they stand for,post
independence.Maybe National Socialist,or maybe,that's
been done.To all English peope who block book those
overpriced" Highland getaway" cottages,your opinion
is unimportant.Indeed you've had as big an impact on
depopulating the Highlands,as the clearances
Salmond coudnt wipe the smile of his face on election
night,as once again the Turkeys voted for Christmas.
The roots of this lie entirely in the formation of "New Labour"
Blair, Mandelson et al.
10 January 2012 1:07AM
The simple way to get around wee Eck's fake indignation in response to Westminster finally breaking it's silence is for Westminster to hold it's own referendum on Devo Max, leaving only one question to the SNPs promised referendum whenever that might come.
10 January 2012 1:08AM
Failure in the referendum would mean:-
-Scotland unable to manage our own tax regime for economic development
-Scotland’s government without borrowing powers
-Scotland, with the majority of the UK’s fishing fleet, still unable to negotiate its own arrangements;
-Scotland still vulnerable to proposals to dump the UK’s toxic wastes under the rock strata of the sea bed south of Barra
Scotland still without access to oil and gas revenues harvested from the Scottish sea bed
-Scotland still with no voice in the housing of major UK arsenals – like Glen Douglas and Coulport – on its soil, or the Nuclear base located mere miles from Glasgow
-The Crown Commission still ruling unaccountably on Scotland’s sea bed, withdrawing all accrued revenues to the Westminster Treasury, of which we are now told that 15% will go directly to the Royal Family. This despite the fact that Scotland contributes more revenue to the Crown Estate (A situation which will increase as more offshore renewables come on line) and that due to population disparities, Scotland is funding the Royal Family to a MASSIVELY disproportionate level.
-Grid Connection charges of £56 million in the norht os Scotland for Electricity producers and Grid Connection SUBSIDIES of £11 million for those in the South East
- The continued closure of our Coast Guard Stations
- The continued under representation of UK armed forces
- The continued underrepresentation of UK Civil Service Jobs
- The continued underrepresentation of Government Contacts
- The continued use of the UK Capital project label (Yes... that old chestnut) to justify spending Billions on infrastructure in England while trying to avoid Barnett consequentials, HS2 from London to Birmingham being a UK project and the London Olympics are just 2 very easy to spot examples.
The list keeps on going and going...
Its time to end this and part ways so that the English can feel that they are not subsidising anyone and that their parliament is actually working for them, and also so that the Scottish can keep the extra taxes we send south and get on with managing our own affairs with only ourselves to blame if we make mistakes (but also our own ingeneuity to push us forward).
10 January 2012 1:09AM
OK I agree to that, because then at least we get devo max. Great idea, thanks.
10 January 2012 1:09AM
You missed one.
I will vote Yes so that public transport will be controlled by the bigoted homophobe Brian Souter whose donations my party relies on so much that we are willing to change our policy to suit his needs, overlook his anti-gay rhetoric and positively forget the anti-working class attitude he adopts to his passengers when he described them as "the beer-drinking, chip-eating, council house-dwelling, old Labour-voting masses"
10 January 2012 1:09AM
To be fair the reason this question continues to come up because the Unionist parties keep bringin it up.
Salmond and the SNP clearly laid out their '2nd half' position on the referendum during the election campaign and as promised focused on other matters....
It's been the Unionist hectoring on this with thier sudden post election urge to have the referdum as soon as humanly possible.
The irony is if they hadn't blocked the SNP or brought forward their own referendum , which given the SNP were a minority Govt would have passed and if held in 2008/09 would have resulted in a crushing defeat for Salmond.
It's hard not to think the current 'bring it on' Unionist position is pettiness fuelled by regret that they had a chance to blow the SNP and Salmond clean out of the water and they didn't take it.
Salmond looks strong because he's taken a position and stuck with it, today the Unionist position changed several times in the course of a few hours.....we'll have a sunset clause, no we won't etc etc
Are folk still mystified as to why the SNP is lording it up in Scotland ?
10 January 2012 1:13AM
The new battlecry of freedom
Whit dae we want?
Independence
When dae we want it?
Mibbes in a couple o' years. Perhaps a year or two eftur that. Ach, it's no as is it's onythin' aw that important, is it?
10 January 2012 1:13AM
I could be wrong but I wasn't aware that commenting on the issue was mandatory...
10 January 2012 1:16AM
excellent post....
10 January 2012 1:19AM
Must admit i'm somewhat bemused by the fact Scotland has to ask permission to leave...
I feel a rough approximation would be an abusive marriage: it'd be quite absurd to require the abused party to require consent from the abuser to leave...
Let Scotland leave before we drag them into the deep neo-liberal hellhole we're digging ourselves into. I'd very much like some small part of the UK i once knew and loved to survive, rather than forcibly destroyed by city of london's pure greed.
If nothing else, it'll provide a nice benchmark of how the country could be if it weren't for our politics.
Let Scotland go, they can be our lifeboat
10 January 2012 1:19AM
I presume this Poll was in Scotland, has Ipsos-Mori done a Poll in England to see what the other party of the Union would like?
10 January 2012 1:20AM
I will vote Yes so that public transport will be controlled by the bigoted homophobe Brian Souter whose donations my party relies on so much that we are willing to change our policy to suit his needs
If you have a link to prove your accusation please place it up otherwise retract it.
The SNP openly supports Gay Marriage and equal rights.
They also disagree with their donors on other things too.
The BIG difference is that they still get the donations as people realise that Independence is a worthy goal.
So I'll take your Brian Souter and RAISE your donation to a Edwin Morgan...
Goodnight.
10 January 2012 1:22AM
And in 2007 Salmond clearly laid out plans to re-regulate public transport but shelved them as soon as the cash rolled in from Stagecoach boss Brian Souter.
In 2010 Salmond clearly laid out plans for an independent Scotland to adopt the Euro. Now he'll keep the pound for an unspecified period until another referendum decides. Maybe he wants a third option on that one too.
Going back, the SNP used to clearly spell out plans for a referendum on the monarchy. That too was quietly dropped.
In 1997 the SNP under Salmond clearly laid out plans to oppose holding a referendum on establishing a Scottish Parliament, arguing it wasn't necessary.
And there was nothing in their 'clearly laid out' plans last year which told people that 16 and 17-year olds - would be permitted to vote in this referendum.
This is nothing to do with principle and everything to do with practical politics. Nothing wrong with that per se but the cybernats should stop pretending that Eck is some kind of uber-democrat. He's not. He's a chancer whose luck has held ----- so far.
10 January 2012 1:27AM
Well said – impressive posts.
10 January 2012 1:31AM
From The Scotsman
SNP under attack after bus U-turn Published on Monday 23 April 2007 00:55 THE SNP yesterday denied dropping a commitment to bus re-regulation because it could hurt the interests of a major financial backer. A commitment to re-regulate the bus network was made at the party's 2006 conference but it was not in the manifesto, published after Brian Souter, the owner of Stagecoach, donated 500,000 to the party.
Maybe you can tell me any other good reason why this policy was dropped a few months later.
The SNP openly supports Gay Marriage and equal rights.
No they don't. SNP MSP John Mason and three of his colleagues tabled an anti-gay marriage motion in the Scottish parliament. This was backed by former party leader Gordon Wilson who claimed supporting gay marriage could cost the SNP victory in the referendum. And they take the openly anti-Gay, pro-Section 28 Souter's cash.
Maybe you can provide me with a link which says the SNP policy is to support gay marriage (and another pledging they won't change it for more of Souter's cash)
10 January 2012 1:35AM
It,s time to throw off the yoke of foreign rule. We have been forced to put up with generations of carpet-baggers imposing their will on an a subjugated people. Lets send Cameron and his ilk back to Scotland! Most of the crap rulers we've had have been part of the invading horde( and their descendents) from the North.
10 January 2012 1:45AM
@Sneekyboy
Depends what you mean by failure.
Technically for the SNP a vote for Devo Max means failure but it would resolve many if not all of the problems you've listed.
Personally I want to stay part of the Union as do the vast majority of people I know. I would however prefer a more balanced relationship possibly along federal lines or something. Not that I think we couldn't make it work by ourselves, it would be hard but I think we could do it, but why abandon something which we've profited from for 300 years just because it doesn't work right now? That's not how you treat friends or family, hell that's now how we treat our football team. So why should we jump ship because things are a little hard for everybody just now?
10 January 2012 2:00AM
My UK includes Scotland! I have no English blood and am a proud Scot, from my mothers side in Clyde shipbuilding to the other side and his work on the Forth Bridge.
But if I am to be honest I truly need to be convinced as to the reasons to break our Union, and the medieval (yet very proud) Battle of Bannockburn just is not reason enough in the 21st century.
10 January 2012 2:06AM
The union can not die quick enough, in my opinion. Scotland was bribed in, Wales and Cornwall were subsumed into England through conquest, and Ireland was brought in through a mixture of both methods. Irrelevant to opinion on independance nowadays, of course, but it makes the Tory challenge to the referendum on 'legal' grounds a total joke. The only morally and ethically valid option open to them is to quietly transfer the powers to Holyrood and stay out of it.
10 January 2012 2:07AM
I suggest you check our Australian system of eight states/territories and a Federal Government in Canberra. It's a model of waste and inefficiency where we have nine governments creating and re-creating the same set of policies, licensing systems, rules and regulations. It's a great way of creating employment for those with little practical aptitude or life skills. We have massive mineral resources yet due to over-government we cannot afford a lot of fairly basic items that other countries with fewer resources take for granted. Scotland needs to do a bit of financial modelling before getting carried away with nationalism. Ex-Carlislian
10 January 2012 2:11AM
I think Scottish Independence is inevitable,why? Because no one in England apart from myself seems to give a flying fuck about Scotland or its people. Apart from a subsidy story in the Daily Fail,Scotlands just is not on the radar,some of my mates thought you were independent already!!
Pity, a proper debate for the Union should have been made by now,but I belive the Union is finished due to a total indifference on my side of the boarder.
Anyway as a previous poster wrote "Goodbye and Good Luck Scotland", belive me you are best off out of it.
10 January 2012 2:15AM
So the Tories, with virtually no support of representation in Scotland whatsoever, only in power in the UK with the support of a party that supposedly disagrees with them on most things, wants to now dictate the terms of a referendum.
Cameron is on a par with Putin as regards his interpretation of democracy!
10 January 2012 2:16AM
Well, if Scotland becomes independent, your problem will be solved, won't it? Though how many generations back would you go with the 'descendants' ?
10 January 2012 2:21AM
After Cameron's disgraceful handling of the EU referendum vote, he deserves to be shafted on this one by Alex Salmond at every turn and condemned to live in the Cameron heartland of Lochaber, which I believe to be quite singularly damp. There he will be obliged to tumble before Alex Salmond and his nobles on their occasional visits, and fish the Mars Bars out of a huge red-hot boiling spitting cauldron of oil for their delectation. He will grow a beard like one of the more outlandish creations of William Blake and after a few zillion midge bites and slugs of whisky will have forgotten who he ever was. He will be buried in a haunted Cameron cemetery and scarify nice old ladies who come to do the flowers. Eventually he will be be acted by Mel Gibson and become a hero.
10 January 2012 2:25AM
Devo Max will be on the ballot whether Cameron likes it or not.
Incidently the UK has shed more countries than a lizard does skin, questions surrounding legality of independence are ludicrous, the UK SC has no jurisdiction over fundamental principals of Democracy.
How can anyone seriously expect anyone else to actually want to live in a country that would try and deny its citizens self determination on the basis of redtape or deny people a fully furnished array of constitutional options surrounding something so important as, how they wish to be governed.
Their cynicism is utterly sickening.