Alex Salmond unveiled the Scottish government’s referendum plans today, calling it the “most exciting in Scotland’s modern history”; we look ahead to the campaign.
First minister Alex Salmond unveiled the Scottish government’s referendum plans today, saying the period in the run-up to the independence vote would be the “most exciting in Scotland’s modern history”; Left Foot Forward’s Mike Morgan-Giles looks ahead to the campaign
The general concept of holding a referendum does seems particularly appealing, given it gives genuine decision-making power to the people on major issues. Yet after the fiercely fought – and some, myself included, would say nasty – referendum campaign on a new electoral system last year, it seems a sense of déjà vu is upon us once again with the Scottish campaign.
The NO2AV campaign was littered with lies, damn lies and statistics.
The posters they used during the campaign had images of babies lying ill in hospitals, using these spurious and emotive pictures to link AV with reduced healthcare spending. They even deliberately misrepresented the amount AV would cost to implement on their posters.
This campaign of misinformation really was a sign of a failure in democratic institutions. People only have the means to make a fair value judgement when they have accurate information, but sadly the lack of oversight in this case allowed for a perverse agenda to win through. The Electoral Commission should have been able to step in last year during the referendum campaign, but unfortunately lacked the powers to do so, as it only deals with political parties.
There are signs, however, that this approach has started again in Scotland.
For example, suggestions Scotland wouldn’t be able to set its own interest rates if it continued using the pound. Yet after Czechoslovakia split, two new currencies were used – the Czech Koruna and Slovak Koruna – with both countries having control over their own rates. However, it is not just the policy in the spotlight, with Jeremy Paxman even comparing Alex Salmond to Robert Mugabe on Newsnight last night.
Today, Salmond launched a formal public consultation on the dynamics of the 2014 referendum, despite earlier attempts by David Cameron to impose the rules of the game on the Scots himself.
The strong mandate of the SNP gives them complete legitimacy to consult the Scottish people and then organise the referendum themselves.
There is also simply no legal reason for an order has to be passed to make a Scottish independence referendum binding – unless of course the UK government itself intended to ignore the result, which would provoke a constitutional crisis. Rather, this is simply yet another attempt to shape the agenda from Westminster and undermine Salmond.
The UK government should more than most understand the right to self-determination, following invasions in recent years of places such as Kosovo, Iraq and Libya. It is difficult to understand how the government can justify intervention in others parts of the world in the guise of human rights and democracy, when it seeks to restrict Scotland’s own right to choose.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states “all peoples have a right to self-determination” and that “by virtue of that right they are free to determine their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development” – this is surely therefore the most important principle; indeed the world’s most recent nation state, South Sudan, was recognised quickly by the UK following its independence.
What we now need is a fair campaign, with the Scottish people deciding the rules, with a respected oversight body monitoring the campaign. After the farce of the electoral system referendum last year, another tainted campaign won’t speak volumes for fairness or democracy.
See also:
• Salmond has questions to answer, because the evidence doesn’t support him – William Bain MP, January 24th 2012
• Questions multiply over financial status of an independent Scotland – Alex Hern, January 20th 2012
• Win or lose, Scottish independence referendum heralds a revolution in UK politics – Ed Jacobs, January 16th 2012
• Cameron got it wrong on Scotland, and he probably knows it – Ed Jacobs, January 10th 2012
• SNP: Cam’s “economic uncertainty” argument is nonsense; we’ll stick to our timetable – Humza Yousaf MSP, January 9th 2012
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
32 Responses to “Déjà vu as Scottish referendum campaign turns nasty”
Derick
Aye. there will be dirty tricks from the British State. There will be (from my Shetland perspective there already have been) attempts at Partition. Remind me, how did that go in Ireland? And in the end Scotland will be independent.
Keir Husband
You really have to think about your over the top reactions and tone and consider what you are saying. You cannot win an argument over whether independence is a god idea by insisting that:
an elected Scots majority government does not have the right to hold a plebiscite of its own electorate on whether it should have independence. That principle would have seen you insisting that Latvia and Lithuania had no right to hold similar polls without permission from Moscow – and indeed without the Russia having a vote.
You cannot try to say to Scots that you respect their choice, and right to do so, whilst calling their elected government ‘a cabal’. Was Dewar’s government, McLeish’s or McConnell’s a cabal?
You must understand the nature of devolution. The government of the UK holds a different position now. Scotland has a parliament and though some powers are reserved, Holyrood is the seat of the government of Scotland. The UK government and Prime Minister have an overarching role, but suggesting that they hold a position sovereign to Holyrood and that they an elected Scots government should defer to Westminster is to invite scorn and more from independence campaigners. Simply speaking, the more you insist that the Scots government has no right to act in what it sees as the best interest of the Scottish People, the more you play into Salmond’s hands.
Ed's Talking Balls
‘sadly the lack of oversight in this case allowed for a perverse agenda to win through’
Sadly for you there isn’t a “progressive majority” in this country: never has been and never will be one. The people overwhelmingly rejected a rubbish system and voted to keep the status quo. Get over it. You took one hell of a beating. Probably best to lick your wounds somewhere quietly.
Stephen Wigmore
I’m sorry, you’ve just compared the UK to the Soviet Union, a communist totalitarian dictatorship. You’ve also just compared the Union between Britain and Scotland to the illegal conquest and rape of the Baltics by Stalin, possibly the most evil mass murderer in human history. I suggest that if you really think that’s a good analogy you’re coming from a far more radical position than I am.
You also seem to be confusing me with someone who thinks England should have a referendum as well. I’m not that person. The facts are these however. The British government, that is the government of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, pointed out the law of this country with regard to the Scottish parliament and constitutional matters. What they got in response was a load of abuse from Alex Salmond, and suggestions in Holyrood that anyone who dared disagree with the SNP was ‘anti-Scottish’, an absurd and abusive attempt to stir up jingiostic and xenophobic setiment to shore up the SNP’s position.
Do I think the SNP leadership is a disgraceful cabal? Yes. Would I be quite happy to call the Scottish Labour leadership a cabal, and corrupt, lazy and incompetent to boot. Yes. However none the less I respect the choice of the Scots and their right to do so. This is a democracy, in a democracy one may criticise a politican while still respecting the electorate and the constitutional position. It’s called free speech and debate. Politicians are not the embodiment of the people. Do you consider criticism of the British government to be a disgraceful attack on the British people and their right to choose?
I’m sorry but the facts are these. The sovereign government and parliament of Scotland and the rest of Briton are in Westminster. In Holyrood there is a devolved assembly with certain competences to legislate for Scotland. This idea of allowing that devolved assembly to style itself the parliament and government of Scotland was one of Blair’s stupidest mistakes. I don’t doubt that independence campaigners would scorn those facts. But they are true none the less and need ramming home. Treading softly around the nationalists has only allowed them to creep forward until we’re in this ludicrous situation where the future of the UK is seriously threatened by these charlatan. They are a would be emperor with no clothes and need ramming back into their place.
They have a perfect right to act in what they see as the best interest of the scottish people. But so does the British government. And it cannot be afraid to use it. If we deliberately abandon all scottish issues to the SNP government then half the nationalists work is done for them.
Charles Currie
Stephen, let me ask, are you from Scotland, do you live here?, if the answer is no to the latter, butt out, it is not a question for English, Irish or the Welsh, indeed, i would go so far as to say, any other nationality that has not resided in scotland for at least the last 15yrs, have no say either but then that would make me look like i’m being xenophobic but i’m anything but, just a proud scot that wants to see the betterment of Scotland, because all i can remember from the last 40yrs, is Westminster reaping the benefits of the union while Scotland had it’s Industrial base raped from it, neutered to the point it’s going to be a long road to rebuild it again!.
As for Alex salmond being the dirtiest operator in UK politics, pfff!, that title goes to the three in a bed party!, a coalition government that seems to be made up of all the major party’s, right now you couldn’t put a cigarette paper between them?.
I put two thing’s to you,(1), If for instance, if the UK decided to have a referendum on whether it should stay as a member of the EU, only for the EU to turn around and say, ” Well, we’l have a referendum on whether your referendum means anything and even if it did, our referendum will supersede it!?.
How does that sit with you?.
Also, as i understand it, Scotland, is constitutionally answerable to the people of Scotland!, not the PM, The Queen and not Merkozy!.
Here is why
By Kenyon Wright
Dear Prime Minister
The superficial nature of your proposals on the referendum simply proves that you have little understanding either of Scotland’s constitutional tradition and history, or of the mood of the people of Scotland.
There are two major reasons why most Scots will, I believe, firmly reject your ideas.
The first is constitutional. In the ‘Donald Dewar Room’ in the Scottish Parliament there is an important document from 1989. It bears the signatures of the great majority of Scotland’s MPs and of our local authorities, of representatives of civil society, the trades unions, the churches and much of the business community. Signed at the first meeting of the Scottish Constitutional Convention in March 1989, it is the fundamental principle on which the Scottish Parliament is founded. It is called ‘A Claim of Right for Scotland’ and states simply: ‘We hereby acknowledge the sovereign right of the people of Scotland to determine the form of government best suited to their needs’.
It is clear and unambiguous, and reflects a principle deep in our history, that the people, not the Crown in parliament, are sovereign. The nature, questions and timing of any referendum are matters for the Scottish people and their parliament.
The day before the new Scottish Parliament met for the first time, I handed that document over to Donald Dewar and David Steel. I said then that one day that Claim of Right would come into its own if any Westminster government attempted to impose any constitutional development on Scotland. That day has come.
Second, there are important democratic reasons to reject your proposals. Despite the fact that the electoral system in Scotland, which I had a hand in devising, was intended to be proportional and therefore to ensure that no party got an overall majority; to our surprise the SNP achieved that. This means quite simply that the present Scottish Government is more democratically representative of Scotland than yours is of the UK.
As early as 2009, I proposed to the then SNP minority government that any referendum should include a third or middle option, which I defined as ‘Secure Autonomy’ rather than ‘Devo Max’, on the grounds that ‘power devolved is power retained’. There are many views, but the point is that there is a growing debate in Scotland over all these issues, and the details of the referendum, whenever it comes, will certainly reflect that debate. It is not for you to
pre-empt that process.
The Constitutional Commission of which I am president, which is politically non-aligned, has published a draft constitution for Scotland, and is initiating a nation-wide discussion not just of the referendum, but on the very different kind of democracy, already partly embodied in the present Scottish Parliament, we aspire to be. We hope to ensure that the options in the referendum are clearly understood as involving something more than simply a shift of political power. The people will, I believe, understand the full implications for Scotland’s democracy of each of the options, be they two or three.
Yours sincerely
Kenyon Wright
Kenyon Wright is president of the Constitutional Commission
This letter is reproduced courtesy of the Constitutional Commission
That is why there should be no more arguments, no more nashing and wailing of the teeth and no more dirty tricks!?
If you want to talk about legality’s, then you can look no further than in the Scottish Constitution.
If and when Scotland get’s Independence and i sincerely hope it vote’s that way, some how i don’t see this being detrimental to the UK partnership, only difference being that one partner has the wisdom and fore site to look after it’s own affairs and better itself, for the good of it’s people!, now wouldn’t that be real democracy at work!.