Recent referendums from around the world:
Quebec: Do you agree that Québec should become sovereign after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Québec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?.
Montenegrin: Do you want the Republic of Montenegro to be an independent state with a full international and legal personality?
Transnistria: Do you support the course towards the independence of Transnistria and the subsequent free association with the Russian Federation?
East Timor: Do you accept the proposed special autonomy for East Timor within the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia?
Moldova: Do you want the Republic of Moldova to develop as an independent and unitary state, in the frontiers recognized in the day where Moldova declared sovereignty, to promote a policy of neutrality and to maintain mutually-benefiting economic relations with all the countries of the world, and to guarantee its citizens equal rights, according to international law?
Bosnia: Are you in favour of a sovereign and independent Bosnia....?
Georgia: Do you support the restoration of the independence of Georgia in accordance with the Act of Declaration of Independence of Georgia of May 26, 1918?
All of the above questions involved a "yes" answer for those seeking independence but our esteemed former Secretary of State Lord Forsyth would like any future Scottish independence referendum question to be: "Do you want to remain part of the United Kingdom? Yes or no? " as would, incidentally, someone called Chekov over at Three Thousand Versts.
Being on the side of the 'Yes' can mean as much as 20% of the overall vote so you can see why the unionists are pushing for such a question. Sadly for them, it seems history is not on their side
(Note, the title was shamelessly ripped off of Tony Hawks' excellent Playing the Moldovans at Tennis book...)
Carla in bronze
3 minutes ago
26 comments:
My question would be - Do you want Scotland to have the same status as Germany, France, Italy and all other countries in the European Union?
Don't see it making the cut Marcia, focusses the mind though...
I heard Annabel Goldie is lining up 'Do you think voting in this referendum is a waste of time when there are bread and butter issues to be worrying about and prisons open at Christmas?'
One does live in hope. I can remember when in the 50's and 60's support for Independence was in single digits. We have come a long way since then and journey still moves on.
The Tories mantra on in recession could be turned on its head. Why have a Sec State for Scotland - that would save money? We cannot afford Trident in a recession. I could fill the blog up with other examples but won't.
Marcia
"I could fill the blog up with other examples but won't."
I can think of at least 646 to add to your list.
Apologies for displaying frankly ridiculous levels of cynicism here, but I have a feeling that if the question is any longer than 25 words, the electorate will get bored after the first ten... ;)
Best is to model on the Bermuda Question from 1995.
Dead simple.
Are you in favour of independence for Bermuda?
A fifth of people just vote Yes no matter what the question is?! As they say on Wikipedia, citation needed.
Sounds like for fairness we need a question which doesn't have a yes/know answer. Ideally, that'd be one which was set by the people through a Constitutional Convention, not one set up by whoever wants a yes.
Pessimistically assuming that doesn't happen, and assuming a single question set by readers of Jeff's admirable blog without a more powers option of any sort, I think it would be better to ask:
What is your preferred constitutional settlement for Scotland?
A) Independence
B) Continued membership of the UK
That way no-one gets your supposed Yes bonus.
Cynical Highlander:
Then there are 750 + or - reasons just along the corridor from your 646.
It's beginning to mount up.
Hi James
Sorry to be a pedant but your prefered choice of question is constitutionaly flawed:
"What is your preferred constitutional settlement for Scotland?
A) Independence
B) Continued membership of the UK"
When Scotland achieves independence Queen Elizabeth will still be head of state. Therefore we will still be a member of the United Kingdom which was formed by the Union of the Crowns a full 104 years before Scotland lost it's independence.
Therefore, until we vote for a Scottish republic in a subsequent referendum we will have independece in the UK as well as in Europe.
What about this for a question:
Do you want Scotland to be an equal, sovereign member of the global community of nations?
It would be interesting to hear the "isolationists" and "seperatists" of the Unionist camp argue that Scotland shouldn't be a fully fledged, equal member of the international community! :-)
If 20% of people vote Yes, irrespective of the question, then it calls into question the whole point of a referendum.
Also, if the Nationalist referendum is rejected then will that be the end of the matter? Or they will come back again in 10 years saying they want another one? And another one? Until such time as they get the 'right' result and it becomes 'the settled will of the people' and no more referenda will be held on the subject?
Is that how it will work?
Anonymous said "Also, if the Nationalist referendum is rejected then will that be the end of the matter? Or they will come back again in 10 years saying they want another one"
No generation of Scots can decide once and for all for future generations.
Probably there could be a referendum on the issue every 20 years or so and, in principle, there could be a vote reversing (perhaps, say, returning foreign affairs to some joint UK body) aspects of independence if already voted for in an earlier referendum.
Don't forget there were 2 devolution referendums in the space of 18 years-of, course, if the first one had not been rigged by a Labour MP with the 40% rule, only one would have been necessary as both resulted in a "Yes" vote.
I don't forget that there were two devolution referendums. Though I seem to have missed the referendum since asking us if we wish to maintain devolution. It appears to be the case that now we have it then it's a done deal and can't be reversed.
I expect same with any independence referendum. Rejection is only ever temporary (cf. ROI and Lisbon Treaty) and the result is only permanent when it's the 'correct' one.
What a bleak prospect. Either accept full independence or be subjected to decades of constitutional turmoil and flux.
Brilliant. What a glorious vision for the future.
Anonymous said "It appears to be the case that now we have it then it's a done deal and can't be reversed."
Or,more likely, any referendum trying to eliminate the Scottish Parliament would fail miserably and therefore even extreme unionists can't be bothered to try and set one up.
You might also want to consider how very, very few countries ever surrender independence willingly. There are far more independent countries now than when the UN was set up-and that trend continues.
'Welsh Assembly Member Defects to Tories'
Mohammad Asghar, Plaid Cymru member of the National Assembly for Wales for South East Wales, has today defected to the Welsh Conservatives.
http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2009/12/welsh-assembly-member-defects-to-tories.html
So, 20% of the population vote 'yes' anyway in a referendum regardless the question. That's a comforting thought! Not good though if such a question were to be accepted .. 'do you want to still be part of the United Kingdom?' pfff!!
In Scotland, research shows that that 20% vote yes rule you mentioned is reversed. In Scotland, at least a third of the people automatically vote No to any question asked of them. (citation needed). If it's an English person asking then this rises to more than 50%.
Obviously Forsyth would like to rig any referendum for the UK. The man is beneath contempt and would have denied us devolution if his party had remained in power.
Unfortunately he might even be our next Scottish secretary if Cameron 'does a Mandelson' and appoints part of his cabinet from the House of Losers.
There are a few ex Scottish secretary of states in the HofL (every member of the UK cabinet gets an automatic offer of a seat) and no doubt Jim Murphy will end up there eventually as well.
As to the question it should be the one the SNP had in their first paper because it reflects the reality of the devolved settlement. If the unionists can come up with a genuine devolution max position not just vague talk of federalism or the tiny tweaks of Calman then we could stick that option on the ballot paper as well, however any change to devolved powers would ultimately rely on Westminsters approval and that won't be forthcoming from the Tories.
"Or,more likely, any referendum trying to eliminate the Scottish Parliament would fail miserably"
There shouldn't be any problem putting that to the test, then.
It's not the wording of the question that's crucial it's the timing of it.
Get the Westminster election settled and the tax and Vat rises known, then ask the question.
"20% Vat in England and a commitment to hold to the 17.5% in Scotland will gain more 'commitment' than any phrasing.
I suspect including the status quo ante as an option would lead to further accusations about a "rigged question". Wherever it took votes from, it wouldn't be from independence.
This idea of a 'rigged question' is completely absurd. The preferred question stated by the SNP reflects the parliaments current powers and asks the Scots people to give it their permission to negotiate independence. This reflects the constitutional position in Scotland that ultimate sovereignty rests with our people. (Something which Westminster denies incidentally, claiming that the UK parliament is actually sovereign.)
If the SNP Government asked a straight question "Do you want Scottish independence, in other words the normal powers of an international state for Scotland Yes/No" then the unionists would claim that constitutional matters were reserved to the British Government and would attempt to block the referendum through the courts. Now this might turn the Scottish people against the unionists, however the Scottish courts might also block a referendum. It is more sensible to make the referendum consultative and thereby within the parliaments existing powers. Labour know this which is why they are repeating this 'rigged referendum' lie.
I agree that complaining about the actual wording is daft, as it's not likely to make much difference to the outcome following a long campaign which makes everyone aware of exactly what they're voting for. But concerns about the multiplicity of options on the ballot are legitimate, as they can quite obviously make a difference to the result.
Jeff
I think freescotlandnow has put his finger on it. This story says more about Michael Forsyth, and his desire for a phoenix-like comeback, months before a likely Tory party victory. He is the only Tory in Scotland to take an initiative on a referendum, through a press briefing! That sort of thing doesn't happen without the approval or knowledge of Cameron and Goldie.
However, what Michael Forsyth must remember is that WE remember his antics during Thatcher's reign. In fact, him and the old bird were probably the catalyst for the realisation of our Scottish Parliament!
I wonder if Mr Forsyth has hopes of becoming Scottish Secretary
For the record, in the case of the East Timor referendum to vote for independence the East Timorese had to vote no. Voting yest to autonomy meant voting for autonomy within Indonesia. Indonesia's president had pledged that if the Timorese voted no, Indonesia would "let them go" Everyone understood this and the East Timorese voted overwhelming no. The Indonesian military had a problem with this and went on a last killing and destruction spree.
I assisted an observer delegation of parliamentarians, including an SNP member of the Scottish parliament.http://www.etan.org.
Post a Comment