SNP to launch fresh Scottish independence campaign

[Butts]

It does not "ignore a prior democratic vote" any more than a general election ignores the last one! If the opinion of the Scottish people has not changed, the referendum will get the same result. And if it gets a different result, clearly the opinion of the Scottish people has changed, in which case as a democrat I'd assume you'd be happy they had an opportunity to express that view. What on earth is the problem?

Possibly another close result similar to the last one followed by endless years of procrastination ?

Incidentally are you in favour of Independence for Yorkshire where I note you reside ?

 

[windingroad]

The current Scottish Government would be better working with others to address the challenges within the economy (low number of working age tax payers compared to others, the higher proportion of public sector workforce which leads to less wealth creation, the high welfare bill and attracting more people from other parts of the UK) which could affect the economic case in a more positive way.

I am not an SNP or independence die-hard, so I wouldn't vote Yes no matter what, and I don't disagree that there are some key areas where the Scottish Government needs to be doing a better job. But I do think that independence would reinvigorate the Scottish political system and (somewhat ironically) be a very good thing for the unionist parties, as the left and right would, in time, drift back to their natural homes.

I also think it's fair to say that the current stalemate is partially the fault of unionist parties, too. I wouldn't vote for a party that was explicitly hostile to independence, but I would consider voting for a unionist party that had a more moderate view. If Labour articulated a strong, exciting vision for government that didn't boil down to "we're not the Tories, and we're not the SNP" I might consider voting for them! Sadly I suspect I will be waiting some time for this to materialise.

Incidentally are you in favour of Independence for Yorkshire where I note you reside ?

I don't really have a view either way (as I haven't lived here for long enough to have an informed view) but I'd certainly be in favour of greater local devolution, yes.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I am not an SNP or independence die-hard, so I wouldn't vote Yes no matter what, and I don't disagree that there are some key areas where the Scottish Government needs to be doing a better job. But I do think that independence would reinvigorate the Scottish political system and (somewhat ironically) be a very good thing for the unionist parties, as the left and right would, in time, drift back to their natural homes.

I also think it's fair to say that the current stalemate is partially the fault of unionist parties, too. I wouldn't vote for a party that was explicitly hostile to independence, but I would consider voting for a unionist party that had a more moderate view. If Labour articulated a strong, exciting vision for government that didn't boil down to "we're not the Tories, and we're not the SNP" I might consider voting for them! Sadly I suspect I will be waiting some time for this to materialise.

The SNP aren't flawless, but for this exact reason I'd be voting for them if I lived in Scotland. They are positive and say what should happen and why (even if I might disagree with that). I'm fed up - as someone who would normally vote Labour - about them just plugging on with "Tories bad" without saying how they would change things for the better.

 

[najaB]

The SNP aren't flawless, but for this exact reason I'd be voting for them if I lived in Scotland. They are positive and say what should happen and why (even if I might disagree with that). I'm fed up - as someone who would normally vote Labour - about them just plugging on with "Tories bad" without saying how they would change things for the better.

Same here. I voted Labour in the first few elections (local, General and European) after I came back to the UK but recently have shifted my support to SNP - not because I want independence, but because of all the parties they seem to be the ones who say what they intend to do and then try to do it.

 

[DustyBin]

The SNP aren't flawless, but for this exact reason I'd be voting for them if I lived in Scotland. They are positive and say what should happen and why (even if I might disagree with that). I'm fed up - as someone who would normally vote Labour - about them just plugging on with "Tories bad" without saying how they would change things for the better.

As much as I’m a Tory voter, the current lack of credible, effective opposition is bad for democracy. The government can quite literally take the p**s and get away with it.

 

[gabrielhj07]

If this referendum were to go ahead, I believe, as I did for Brexit, that the threshold for victory should be raised, possibly to two-thirds. A simple majority of 1 is too small a margin on which to base a large and divisive constitutional upheaval.

 

[Butts]

If this referendum were to go ahead, I believe, as I did for Brexit, that the threshold for victory should be raised, possibly to two-thirds. A simple majority of 1 is too small a margin on which to base a large and divisive constitutional upheaval.

You'll get "The Brexit Comparison" thrown at you for that one !!

 

[Bletchleyite]

If this referendum were to go ahead, I believe, as I did for Brexit, that the threshold for victory should be raised, possibly to two-thirds. A simple majority of 1 is too small a margin on which to base a large and divisive constitutional upheaval.

To be fair I could be tempted to agree with this, or as an alternative that a simple majority of the electorate (whether they vote or not) should be required, i.e. for a vote where the choice is "as it is now" or "something else very different" then anyone not voting should be assumed to think things should not change.

Yes, for Brexit too.

 

[gabrielhj07]

You'll get "The Brexit Comparison" thrown at you for that one !!

Shocking!

Indeed if any such comparisons are to be avoided in the future we'll need to learn the lessons from Brexit, of which the narrow margin of victory was one.

To be fair I could be tempted to agree with this, or as an alternative that a simple majority of the electorate (whether they vote or not) should be required, i.e. for a vote where the choice is "as it is now" or "something else" then anyone not voting should be assumed to think things should not change.

Now there's an idea!

 

[Butts]

Shocking!

Indeed if any such comparisons are to be avoided in the future we'll need to learn the lessons from Brexit, of which the narrow margin of victory was one.


Now there's an idea!

Interestingly the two thirds margin was what scuppered the original proposal for Devolution back in the seventies- 1979 if I remember correctly.

Think about 51% voted yes and it went down.

 

[gabrielhj07]

Interestingly the two thirds margin was what scuppered the original proposal for Devolution back in the seventies- 1979 if I remember correctly.

Think about 51% voted yes and it went down.

It's definitely a good idea, although I imagine the only hope it has of being implemented would be if Westminster held a referendum on its own terms.

 

[windingroad]

The SNP aren't flawless, but for this exact reason I'd be voting for them if I lived in Scotland. They are positive and say what should happen and why (even if I might disagree with that). I'm fed up - as someone who would normally vote Labour - about them just plugging on with "Tories bad" without saying how they would change things for the better.

Same here. I voted Labour in the first few elections (local, General and European) after I came back to the UK but recently have shifted my support to SNP - not because I want independence, but because of all the parties they seem to be the ones who say what they intend to do and then try to do it.

Absolutely. For all their problems, in the main the SNP have been a very effective government for people like me who want to see a more progressive society. I can count at least five big, meaningful policies they got done just while I lived in Scotland. I literally noticed my quality of life improving in certain ways as a direct result of their government, and whatever you think of Nicola Sturgeon she's a strong and effective communicator, and makes it very clear where she stands without the constant hand-wringing you get elsewhere.

Scotland felt like a confident country that knew where it wanted to go and had the guts to make that happen. A lot of people here will scoff at that, and I realise it's a very emotional, rose tinted view, but I felt it very viscerally. I think most progressive people with experience of Scotland will understand on some level what I mean.

(And yes, before some of you inevitably say it: ferries, education, ferries, drug deaths, ferries. I am absolutely not saying they are perfect or anything close; just that they at least have a vision for Scotland, even if you disagree with it, and are trying to make that happen.)

Meanwhile, Labour have spent the last decade or two turning fence-sitting into an art form, or repeatedly tearing themselves to pieces on both sides of the border and, with a couple of exceptions, failing to even articulate a worldview, let alone actual policies. They're too afraid to advocate for progressive policy, so they lose the left, but they also aren't conservative enough to attract the right. And even the centre ground is occupied by the Lib Dems! So who on earth is Labour trying to cater to, other than a dwindling subsection of the unionist vote which now sees them languishing in third place? It's maddening.

As much as I’m a Tory voter, the current lack of credible, effective opposition is bad for democracy. The government can quite literally take the p**s and get away with it.

This we agree on. It isn't healthy for one party to have a near-permanent monopoly on government. The thing is, I really don't see that changing unless Labour softens (even a little) its position on independence so that a portion of SNP voters feel able to switch over. Many voters may not want independence, but do want a leader they believe will fight for Scotland's interests. Does anyone really believe we have that in any of the unionist parties right now?

 

[gabrielhj07]

I agree with all of the above - it's good to find some common ground!

 

[Butts]

I agree with all of the above - it's good to find some common ground!

Some of us are old enough to remember when the SNP wanted to leave The Common Market as it was then and NATO.

They have been in power for to long though which is not as said healthy for any democracy.

 

[gabrielhj07]

Some of us are old enough to remember when the SNP wanted to leave The Common Market as it was then and NATO.

They have been in power for to long though which is not as said healthy for any democracy.

How times do change!

 

[windingroad]

If this referendum were to go ahead, I believe, as I did for Brexit, that the threshold for victory should be raised, possibly to two-thirds. A simple majority of 1 is too small a margin on which to base a large and divisive constitutional upheaval.

I can definitely see some benefits in this, even as an independence supporter, but isn't there a risk it just creates different problems?

While 2/3 thresholds might make sense in legislatures, I think in a democracy it's a tough sell to tell voters that even a strong majority of individual votes isn't enough to win a referendum. You end up in a situation where you might have to tell people "we know a big majority of people wanted to do [a thing], but we're not going to, because you didn't meet an arbitrary threshold" which will feel inherently unfair. How in a democracy do you successfully justify minority decision making?

To take it further, how do you go on to effectively govern a country where, for example, 65% of people voted Yes, but independence doesn't happen because you're 1% short? A lot of people are going to be very unhappy that their votes had less value, particularly if the 35% skews older as it likely would. If a much smaller Yes vote was enough to keep the issue rumbling on into 2022, I think that situation could become very ugly.

And in that scenario, what do you do if that 65% then go on to vote for the SNP en masse for the foreseeable future, because the 65% vote becomes a defining issue? What's to stop them just running another vote anyway and we're back to square one? (I'm aware my own argument is kind of eating itself at this point; maybe it's referenda all the way down? If we keep it up we can beat the Swiss!)

I'm not saying a 65% vote is at all likely, but it illustrates the example, and I feel like a supermajority requirement potentially causes more problems than it solves. I admit I don't really have any other solutions!

I agree with all of the above - it's good to find some common ground!

Print and frame it!

 

[gabrielhj07]

Many, if not most of the problems surrounding a two-thirds threshold (or any threshold other than 50 for that matter) are common to having a referendum in general.

but we're not going to, because you didn't meet an arbitrary threshold

This would be a particular problem, no real way around it as far as I can see, other than keeping it at a simple majority. You have to have a line somewhere.

it's a tough sell to tell voters that even a strong majority of individual votes isn't enough to win a referendum.

Of course you could say that by partaking in the referendum to begin with, you automatically agree with (or at least understand) the terms on which it is being carried out. We think like this in General Elections, we do not, for instance, cast our votes and then complain about the system used to count them (notwithstanding challenges to FPTP's suitability).

How in a democracy do you successfully justify minority decision making?

It's not so much minority decision making as not enough demand to change the status quo. On the subject of minority decision making, if brought up this would be a bit of a red herring. (No-one complained in 1997 when Blair formed a government with 43% of the vote.)

how do you go on to effectively govern a country where, for example, 65% of people voted Yes, but independence doesn't happen because you're 1% short?

Just as you would following the (similarly close) 2014 result, ie. no further action.

If a much smaller Yes vote was enough to keep the issue rumbling on into 2022, I think that situation could become very ugly.

How so?

And in that scenario, what do you do if that 65% then go on to vote for the SNP en masse for the foreseeable future,

I think this is vanishingly unlikely, especially in the medium-long term. No democratically elected government lasts forever.

What's to stop them just running another vote anyway and we're back to square one?

I'm aware my own argument is kind of eating itself at this point;

Well yes.

maybe it's referenda all the way down?

I do hope not!

I'm not saying a 65% vote is at all likely,

I agree that it isn't, which leads us back to the benefits of a higher threshold.


In summary, I believe that the best solution would be to raise the threshold to somewhere in the region of 15% above the current polling, to provide a basis for a clear mandate. One quite left-field approach to the perennial danger of a close result (close to the threshold in this case) might be to withhold the exact percentages and simply to issue a yes/no result. (Not practical as I realise it would be leaked, not to mention we'd all start shouting about democracy).

 

[najaB]

To be fair I could be tempted to agree with this, or as an alternative that a simple majority of the electorate (whether they vote or not) should be required, i.e. for a vote where the choice is "as it is now" or "something else very different" then anyone not voting should be assumed to think things should not change.

I agree and also think that that should have been the case for Brexit.

 

[windingroad]

Of course you could say that by partaking in the referendum to begin with, you automatically agree with (or at least understand) the terms on which it is being carried out. We think like this in General Elections, we do not, for instance, cast our votes and then complain about the system used to count them (notwithstanding challenges to FPTP's suitability).

I think for that to work you'd have to have established some form of consensus beforehand on what the threshold should be, rather than just imposing it. Perhaps an initial referendum to decide on the terms? (I'm being facetious. Although?)

(No-one complained in 1997 when Blair formed a government with 43% of the vote.)

I'm not sure that's the best example, given FPTP in a multi-party democracy will almost always deliver a majority on a minority of the vote, and is designed to do so. I do get the point you're making, though.

The reason I think it would be less tolerable for people with a referendum is it's a much simpler transaction. Either you vote yes, or you vote no, and your vote directly determines the outcome. There's no party affiliated middleman (ie. an MP) between you and the choice; you are making the choice yourself. So when you tell someone in a majoritarian democracy that most people directly voted for a thing to happen, but they still can't have it, a lot of people are going to ask you why.

If the Brexit threshold had been set at 66% and Leave achieved slightly less than that (say 62%) I think it would have been very difficult. I'd have been pleased at the result, but if asked if it was truly democratic I'd have my doubts, if I'm being honest. But maybe I'm alone in that.

How so?

With the 2014 vote it was close, but not that close, and Yes unambiguously lost, and even then it has still defined the next decade of Scottish politics. If you had another referendum and Yes won not only a majority, but a large majority, and still didn't get independence? I think it would be very, very hard to navigate. How do you avoid resentment (fair or not) that a minority is denying the majority their choice?

This is probably too militant, but personally I'd make voting in the referendum compulsory and make it a simple majority vote. That way, whatever the outcome, every single person has given their view and there can be no arguments about what the result really means. If you did that, I think your idea (to keep the exact percentages secret) would be a very interesting experiment.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

To take it further, how do you go on to effectively govern a country where, for example, 65% of people voted Yes, but independence doesn't happen because you're 1% short? A lot of people are going to be very unhappy that their votes had less value, particularly if the 35% skews older as it likely would. If a much smaller Yes vote was enough to keep the issue rumbling on into 2022, I think that situation could become very ugly.

Rather unusually, I agree with you here. A 65% threshold for 'yes' in a one-off referendum is manifestly unfair.

But at the same time there is an asymmetry that needs to be accounted for somehow: A 'no' vote can (and inevitably will) be revisited after a suitable time has elapsed. A 'yes' vote on the other hand is for all practical purposes irreversible: If Scotland does become independent, the practical difficulties involved in reversing that decision, say, 20-25 years later, would just be too great. There's also the issue that, while future events are always unknown and will always take you by surprise, there's a much greater uncertainty with a 'yes' vote: No-one will really know until the secession agreement is worked out what independence would look like. Both of those factors do merit some requirement for a 'yes' vote to be particularly decisive.

In fact I'd go as far as to say that the 2014 referendum was (like the Brexit referendum) incredibly badly designed: As far as I can see, David Cameron et al simply didn't bother thinking through the consequences of the rules for either referendum. However the rules (50% +1 vote either way is decisive, once-in-a-generation vote) were agreed and decided on and accepted upfront by both sides, so that's what we have to accept.

Personally, I'd be comfortable with something like this: A referendum on the basis of: A 60%-40% victory either way is considered decisive. Anything closer is considered indecisive and goes to a repeat referendum, say, 8-10 years later. In the event of a win for Independence, then the secession agreement is negotiated and once the Independence terms are understood, it goes to a follow up AV-style vote in which people order their preferences (1-2-3) between, Accept Independence on these terms, Renegotiate for different terms, or Abandon (similar but not quite the same as @najaB 's earlier suggestion). While no referendum design is perfect, I think that would answer the challenges of making sure a decision is decisive while being reasonably fair to both sides.

(And before anyone complains: No, I'm not contradicting my earlier posts in which I've argued for no new referendum for another 10-15 years. The difference is that the 2014 referendum was held on the clearly understood basis of it being a once-in-a-generation 50%+1 referendum, but the SNP decided after the result - in effect - to unilaterally demand that the rules be changed because they didn't like the result. What I'm suggesting here is an agreed-up-front basis for the referendum which treats both sides roughly equally).

 

[duncanp]

To be fair I could be tempted to agree with this, or as an alternative that a simple majority of the electorate (whether they vote or not) should be required, i.e. for a vote where the choice is "as it is now" or "something else very different" then anyone not voting should be assumed to think things should not change.

Yes, for Brexit too.

I think it is a little unfair to make assumptions about the intentions of people who do not vote.

Perhaps a better way of interpreting the outcome of a major vote in the future is to say

• If the margin in favour is more than 66%, then the change (eg Scottish independence) should go through once the necessary legislation has been passed.
• If the margin in favour is between 50.1% and 65.9%, then the change should be subject to a second referendum once the necessary legislation has been passed, with a simple majority required for approval.

Some democracies require a referendum before a change in the constitution can be approved, and the margin for approval is set at two thirds of the vote as a protection against small and unrepresentative minorities making unwanted changes in the law.

Nicola Sturgeon was very vocal in demanding a "people's vote" before Brext could be enacted.

I can't help thinking that she won't be quite as enthusiastic about applying the same principles to Scottish independence.

 

[Butts]

In the last Referendum in 2014 only three areas voted yes - Glasgow , Dundee City and North Lanarkshire.

I can see a situation due to the population spread where the central belts huge percentage of the electorate vote yes whilst the Borders, North, and Orkney & Shetland vote no but the Central Belts overwhelming share of the population carries the motion.

On a geographic basis you will then have a huge split in Scotland.

That's before you even start to consider the prospect that Orkney & Shetland no more want to be ruled from Edinburgh than London.

 

[windingroad]

Rather unusually, I agree with you here.

Another one to mount and frame!

There's also the issue that, while future events are always unknown and will always take you by surprise, there's a much greater uncertainty with a 'yes' vote: No-one will really know until the secession agreement is worked out what independence would look like. Both of those factors do merit some requirement for a 'yes' vote to be particularly decisive.

I take your point here, and I would agree that it's important with changes as big as these they they aren't undertaken as flippantly as (I would argue) Brexit was. A multi-stage process is probably essential to build consensus, and you're right that if we're going to do it, we should do it properly. I like most of your suggestions, but I think the thresholds/deferral period aren't necessary if you give everyone the following votes:

1. Referendum on the broader change itself (yes/no), simple majority.
2. Referendum on the specifics of that change (option a/b/c), ranked choice.
3. Referendum to finalise (proceed/renegotiate/abandon), ranked choice.

I think that would be sufficient because everyone gets an initial chance to express a view, and then a final chance to express another view once they have an educated idea of what an independent Scotland looks like, and can then abandon it should they wish to. The benefit of that is it also means the people opposed to the change do at least get a voice in shaping what the change looks like (if it gets a majority in stage one and proceeds) which is obviously important.

On the issue of repeated referenda, I wonder if the only real solution is to codify very specific criteria that must be reached before one is triggered? If it's there in law, it becomes less of an argument about interpretation/promises and more about one of fact. But then I don't know whether it's really possible to do that in a way that can't just be overridden by legislation.

 

[Falcon1200]

You are quite correct that a vote for the SNP was not necessarily a "vote for independence", which is why the SNP is not unilaterally declaring independence!

Yet ever since the results were declared Nicola Sturgeon has been saying she has a cast iron mandate for Indyref 2 !

Surely people who voted Green did not see Independence as their main concern, otherwise they would have voted SNP. They believed in the Green values, and Independence was just a side issue.

Indeed, I have been trying (without much success it seems) to make exactly that point.

whatever you think of Nicola Sturgeon she's a strong and effective communicator, and makes it very clear where she stands without the constant hand-wringing you get elsewhere.

That is something I do agree with, she is a consummate politician.

Rather unusually, I agree with you here. A 65% threshold for 'yes' in a one-off referendum is manifestly unfair.

I agree with that too ! The outcome has to be decided on a simple majority. As long, of course, that if there is a 'material change of circumstances' after a Yes vote in Indyref 2, Uniref 1 can then be held.

 

[gabrielhj07]

A number of excellent points raised by @windingroad here, although I have to say @duncanp’s suggestion strikes me as offering the best solution.

• If the margin in favour is more than 66%, then the change (eg Scottish independence) should go through once the necessary legislation has been passed.
• If the margin in favour is between 50.1% and 65.9%, then the change should be subject to a second referendum once the necessary legislation has been passed, with a simple majority required for approval.

1. Referendum on the broader change itself (yes/no), simple majority.
2. Referendum on the specifics of that change (option a/b/c), ranked choice.
3. Referendum to finalise (proceed/renegotiate/abandon), ranked choice.

Both of these are very sensible and pragmatic approaches.

 

[windingroad]

Yet ever since the results were declared Nicola Sturgeon has been saying she has a cast iron mandate for Indyref 2 !

She does have a mandate for another referendum, democratically at least, even if you believe she doesn't have a moral mandate. She does not have a mandate to unilaterally declare independence, which is what I was saying. I'm not saying you have to like or approve of the referendum; I'm just saying there's nothing undemocratic about it.

Indeed, I have been trying (without much success it seems) to make exactly that point.

Nevertheless, the Greens included another referendum in their manifesto, so it's hardly fair to cry bloody murder when they try and implement that, is it? If that's a deal breaker, don't vote Green. If it's not, vote Green in the knowledge they may pursue another vote. I don't see the problem here. There are plenty of unionist parties people can vote for if they are strongly anti-independence.

I agree with that too ! The outcome has to be decided on a simple majority. As long, of course, that if there is a 'material change of circumstances' after a Yes vote in Indyref 2, Uniref 1 can then be held.

You may be surprised to hear that I have no problem with a Uniref being held if there's a mandate for it. I am pro-democracy!

 

[Ediswan]

Referendum to finalise (proceed/renegotiate/abandon), ranked choice.

How would the electorate communicate which terms they wanted to be renegotiated ?

 

[windingroad]

Both of these are very sensible and pragmatic approaches.

Now watch as Scotland does none of the above!

How would the electorate communicate which terms they wanted to be renegotiated ?

Anything but another referendum. Even I have my limits! But that's a very fair question and I don't have an answer. I suppose you could allow that to be determined by representatives in the Scottish Parliament, which would still be democratic?

 

[gabrielhj07]

Now watch as Scotland does none of the above!

I am on the edge of my seat!

Seriously, these ideas aren’t bad at all, and all are much better than a 2014 re-run.

 

[windingroad]

Seriously, these ideas aren’t bad at all, and all are much better than a 2014 re-run.

Thanks, although the pessimist in me suspects we'll end up doing that anyway and learn none of the lessons. I live in hope!