We reach the end of a momentous week, yet again, in Scottish politics, a week in which our small but suddenly vibrant and recognised country has made the front pages of newspapers the world over. A week in which the enthusiasm and support for Independence has visibly increased - whatever our Unionist supporting friends in the media might try to tell us.
Last night, the BBC broadcast what amounted to little more than a pathetic attempt at a discussion about our future during which the possibility of a two question referendum was, essentially, ridiculed. It appears to be generally accepted that the referendum will take one of only two forms. Firstly, it might be a straight yes or no question about Independence and, secondly, as we are all aware, there might be the inclusion of a second question asking whether the voter supported full fiscal autonomy or devo-max as it seems to have been Christened.
Strangely, and presumably coincidentally, I was presented yesterday with a specimen voting paper containing two questions which had been commissioned by a "national Sunday newspaper" as part of a poll to be published this Sunday, 15th January. I admit that I was confused but, then, that seems to have been the raison d'etre of said voting paper. Question 1 was straightforward and along the lines of "Do you wish Scotland to become Independent and separate from the rest of the United Kingdom?" which, whilst suggesting a Unionist leaning question setter, was easy to answer. Question 2, however, was much more confusing to this respondant. "Do you favour full fiscal autonomy for Scotland and Scotland remaining within the UK?". How was I to answer this? No, I most definitely do not favour this but, yes, it is significantly better and preferable to the situation we have today. I, therefore, answered that I didn't know.
When the result of the poll is revealed, please bear in mind that I would not be the only respondent who would be unsure of how to answer. Going off on one of my regular tangents, I should advise that the poll went downhill from there on in with questions like: "If Scotland became Independent and were to separate from the rest of the UK, should everyone in Scotland continue to have more money spent per person on them than anywhere else in these islands?", "Should Scotland be allowed to have access to monies from North Sea oil?" and "Scotland, it has been suggested, would have to join the Euro if it separated itself from the rest of the UK. Would you be in favour of this?". All things considered, therefore, I suspect it might be the Mail on Sunday or The Sunday Express setting the questions!
It need not be like this and I am fed up of being treated as if I am stupid.
Scottish Government Referendum on Future Constitutional Arrangements, 2014.
Voter guidance:
You may answer Q1 & not Q2, you may answer Q2 & not Q1. You may answer both questions. If the result of Question 1 is yes then Question 2 will be rendered invalid.
Question 1:
Do you wish Scotland to become an Independent country? Y/N?
Question 2:
If the answer to Question 1 is "No" then would you wish to see Scotland granted Full Fiscal Autonomy? Y/N?
Granted, I have scribbled this down on the back of the proverbial fag packet but, honestly, was it that difficult? I am truly unsure as to whether I wish one question or two but to stifle the debate on the grounds that it might cause confusion is, simply, insulting. Having ruled out the possibility that we are too stupid to cope with two questions, I can only conclude that those such as Douglas Alexander who seem hell bent on preventing Scots choosing what we consider to be the best option are scared they might not like the result.
Possibly, therefore, Joan McAlpine was quite right if a little naive in believing she would not be misquoted.
So if 51% of people answer "no" to question 1, and then 51% of people go on to answer "no" to question 2, then roughly 25% of the vote would decide that the status quo is maintained. Can that be considered reasonable?
ReplyDeleteIn your suggestion above then yes the status quo would be the outcome. I do feel it unlikely all the same given that I believe each and every yes vite to q1 would then vote yes to q2. Similarly, very many who voted no to q1 would like to see more powers and would vote yes. This is why I am uncertain about the addition of q2. It is, obviously, the wish of many and, therefore, why should it be precluded? From a Unionist perspective, I think I would be taking the view that removing q2 would make Independence more likely. I think that is what a lot of people cannot understand. Why are they opposed to pretty much everything - they are completely out of step with the Scottish people.
DeleteI am sick of this discussion. In the referendum on devolution in 1997 voters were asked two questions - yes Labour invented it and they invented in the hope that the second question got a no vote because they wanted to limit devolution!Not that they would admit any of that but they did invent a two question format!
ReplyDeleteThose who wanted maximum devolution said vote YES/YES to
1 do you want a parliament?
2 do you want a parliament with tax raising powers?
The result was 74% yes to 1, and 64% yes to question 2
Did that mean that question 1 was the answer??? Of course not
SO...if we ask
1 Do you want devo max(yes I know it has to be defined!!)
2 Do you want to go beyond this and have full independence?
If the result is 74% yes to 1 and 64% yes to 2 wht's the answer?? It's Independence and it's not difficult is it cos we've done it before - or actually Labour who say it confuses/won't/is illegitimate etc etc DID IT!!!!!!
Absolutely. The debate then would seem to be what the order of the questions are! I have suggested the opposite to your suggestion and yet yours is equally clear and equally valid. When the likes of Michael Moore (my MP!) goes on about 51% yes to Independence and 75% yes to FFA and what then happens then he totally misses the point. Really, we are not stupid people and it is easy to frame the questions in such a way that no-one can be in any doubt about what they are voting on. It is equally easy to cause confusion as the Sunday Telegraph (for it was they!) deliberately did.
DeleteI agree that there is an unfortunate tendency to treat the Scots are though we're electorally illiterate on these matters. We managed fine in 1997 and we'll manage fine in 2014.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I would advise that Douglas Alexander be allowed nowhere near the running of the referendum, based on past performances and his generally unpleasant demeanour.