I think I'm against a Devo-Max entry on the referendum

[andrewducker]

Two reasons:
1) It wouldn't confuse me, but I've seen plenty of evidence that even the simplest question is going to confuse _some_ people, and I'd rather keep something as important as an independence referendum as simple as possible.

2) I don't think it's necessary. The negotiation of powers inside a United Kingdom is an ongoing process. We have, for instance, The Scotland Bill, which is making its way through parliament at the moment. There will always be back and forth and renegotiation, and I'd expect any government (both Scottish and UK) to push things in the direction that they feel is best. If Scots want more powers then they can vote for a party that will push harder that way*. If they want to align more closely with Westminster then they can vote for a party that will streamline things in that direction. It's not a Big Bang change, and thus doesn't need a referendum.

Between the two of them I think I'm pretty-much convinced. Any arguments on the other side?


*I mean, does anyone think that the SNP could be in power and _not_ constantly push for more powers for Scotland?

Comments

[ciphergoth]

*reads your icon* I didn't know you identified as a transhumanist!

[andrewducker]

Who wants to be stuck with their physical limitations? (Or mental ones)

[bracknellexile.livejournal.com]

I can see your point but there are a lot of powers that are currently not even up for negotiation under the current setup (eg. tax). A public mandate to pursue those powers would give the avottish parliament much more leverage with Westminster., far more than if it was just on their manifesto when they got elected.

I suspect (although it's just a gut feeling) that a no vote in a simple yes/no* referendum would give Westminster a mandate to say, "Scotland doesn't want to be more devolved from the union." and fight harder against further devolved powers.


* autocorrect on my phone had this as "a tea/no referendum". Now that's one I'd vote for! :)

[andrewducker]

A public mandate to pursue those powers would give the avottish parliament much more leverage with Westminster

I don't really agree with this. You've already had Cameron saying that Devo Max isn't going to happen - I don't think that a referendum up here would make any difference on that, he's not interested in competing tax rates across the UK.

[bracknellexile.livejournal.com]

Cameron's not, no, but Westminster elections would be due not too long after Salmond's proposed referendum date. A referendum would give a mandate that's not limited by party or this election term's manifesto. I don't know if any other party would pursue devo-max as vehemently but a Labour or SNP government in Holyrood with Labour in Westminster might go differently.

If for example Scotland voted for devo-max it would be hard for anyone to get elected in Holyrood hext time without some sort of manifesto to pursue that and if Labour ended up in both it would be tough for Westminster's Labour to fight against its sister party in Edinburgh.

[bracknellexile.livejournal.com]

Out of curiosity, are you against a "yes/devo-max/no" question as too complicated, a "yes/no" and then "if no how about devo-max? Yes/no" pair of questions (simpler) or both?

[andrewducker]

If we had them both on there then I'd want a
1) Should we tell the English to fuck off?
2) If we continue to put up with them, should we have more powers so we can make them look bad?

type of thing.

[danieldwilliam.livejournal.com]

That Referendum Question in Full.

They Aenglish should get tae fuck?

Aye.
Nay.
Maybe’s Aye; Maybe’s Nay.

If Maybe’s Aye; Maybe’s Nay should we mak oor ane hoose a bit mair coothie and cannie?

Aye - We (Wha’s like us?) should make they wicket Sassanachs look richt stupit, so we should by the way.

Nay – they Aenglish may be bampots but it’s no richt to mak em look like richt bampots.

[akicif.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure if autopope's analysis of Cameron's position was on his LJ or over at Antipope, but it seems to have been borne out by events (DC first saying the referendum should be all or nothing and then, last weekend, saying that he was against any further devolution of power to Scotland short of independence): the idea of the Conservatives in particular not liking the idea of Scotland as a nearby example of how it would be possible to govern with a completely different set of priotities to Engerlandnwales seems to have hit the nail on the head. (edited to clarify this sentence - a bit).

So, my heart is definitely against DevoMax, while my head thinks it may be the best bet (I work in the higher education sector, providing an all-UK service: I've already seen funding calls saying that any bids for projects or new services from Scottish institutions will be de-prioritised because the SFC is now providing a lower percentage of funding to the JISC than HEFCE (as ever, the W is not just silent, but invisible) are - which I think ignores central funding from HEFCE falling away as the universities will be expected to pay for previously centrally-funded services from the vast sums they make in fees).

On the other hand, Cameron may have shot himself in the foot: apparently more proponents of DevoMax would choose independence over the status quo if push came to shove.

[marrog.livejournal.com]

I dunno, I think, if Simon says, that if it's two questions.

Do you want independence?
Yes/No

AND

Do you want Devo Max? (Assuming independence is off the table.)
Yes/No

..should be simple enough for even the numptiest of numpties...

[andrewducker]

I agree with what the two questions should be. But I also think that if (1) gets 51% and (2) gets 85% then there will be a huge amount of shouting.

I'd be happier with two referendums (as NZ did when it changed its voting system):
1) Should things change?

If (1) passes:
(2) Do you want A, B, C or D?

Putting them on the same ballot will cause a lot of shouting.

[marrog.livejournal.com]

Le Sigh.

This would all be much simpler if people would just understand AV already.

[octopoid-horror.livejournal.com]

The second question isn't remotely simple.

Your understanding of "devo max", if you're not the kind of person who takes an interest in political news, could be minimal or coloured by whatever biased media coverage/pamphlets you've seen.

Look at the frankly fictional claims made about what would happen if the voting system changed. Was everyone going to vote with a full understanding of the issues? Fuck no, Andy said as much himself.

The problem is that it isn't a simple question, but for a lot of people, independence is a simple nationalist yes/no question. They want the idea of independence, and don't care about the details as long as it fits a nebulous idea that they have, when unfortunately actually -getting- independence is a complex thing. DanieldWilliams' post above, while a joke, is a useful illustration because that's how some people (since I work with a few) see independence.

Of course, since the runup to any vote will be filled with sloganeering and probably flat-out lies about what will happen afterwards if you vote one way, it's going to be hard to get a clear picture.

[danieldwilliam.livejournal.com]

I think I disagree with you on this one.

I think Devo-Max is a significant enough shift in our constitution to warrant a plebiscite. Granted there are other ways to arrive at Devo-Max than a straight jump from devolution light to devolution max but from where we are now to Devo-Max is a big jump.

Secondly, whilst we could arrive at Devo-Max, or Devo- A Wee Bit More Than We Currently Have by a Gina Gee process I think (and I am ready to be proven wrong) that there is a significant body of public opinion who would either like significant additional powers for the Scottish Parliament or would like to have their opinion asked rather than have the results of a negociation between politicians imposed on them. I think having Devo-Max on the ballot allows us to define the broad starting point for a couple of decades of negociation straight away and then have the politicians haggle over the finer details.

Thirdly, I’m not sure Scotland should have to negotiate with the rest of the UK about what power and responbility we have over our own affairs. We might have some *small* negotiation amongst ourselves about what our collective position should be but I think we should have that position as a matter or right.

[andrewducker]

Other than "We raise the tax locally" what else is different in Devo-Max?

And if that's it, then why is it so hard a leap?

Also, if we're part of the UK then we have a shared government, and we can't just unilaterally start raising local taxes any more than Manchester can. We specifically, legally, do not have that power. In order to get it it either has to be granted by the people legally responsible, or we have to become independent so that we have the legal power.

[danieldwilliam.livejournal.com]

What else is different about Devo-Max? Well that’s rather the question – it’s a bit ill defined.

I would include in Devo-Max

Tax raising (both the size and shape of the tax base)
Tax spending.
Borrowing (and the consequential ability to default on loans).
Energy policy.
Benefits policy
Minimum Wage
Formal agreement from the Devolved Parliaments and Assemblies on negotiating positions at the EU and GATT on matters that materially affect them.
Nationalisation of Industries. (The Devo-Marx option)
Formal influence over defence matters (specifically the billeting of nuclear submarines in Scotland and the consequential targeting of Scotland by hostile nuclear powers)
Repatriation of civil appelate functions from the House of Lords or the Supreme Court to the Inner House of the Court of Session

[alitheapipkin.livejournal.com]

I'm still torn on this issue but I'll concede you make a good argument.

[philmophlegm.livejournal.com]

I'm a long way from Scotland, but I think I share your view on the referendum question. Since the devo max / somewhere-in-the-middle option is complex, it isn't something that is really suitable for a referendum.

Some people for example might support tax rates being set locally if those rates would be lower, but not if they were higher than in the rest of the country.

I'd have the referendum question in Scotland as something like "Scotland should remain part of the United Kingdom / Scotland should become a nation in its own right outside of the United Kingdom but within the European Union"*. That strikes me as pretty neutral wording, unlike the SNP wording which if my memory serves was something along the lines of "Are you a true bagpipe-playing Scotsman who eats his porridge with salt and therefore wants Scotland the Brave to be free of those posh f***ing English bastards who think they're so f***ing clever just because of a blind Russian linesman or are you a poof?"

I don't agree with the argument that the other three** parts of the UK should be able to vote to keep Scotland in the Union against Scotland's wishes. However, I do think that the same logic means that the other parts of the country should also be able to vote on whether they want to leave the Union and whether they want to kick one of the other parts out.




* Since nobody seems to be talking about the possibility of Scotland not being in the European Union after all this, I would strongly question the concept that Scotland would be truly 'independent', but that's another discussion...

** Or four if you include Cornwall!

[andrewducker]

People are talking about it, but largely in a "I hope we still will be" sense. Anti-EU sentiment seems to be a lot lower in Scotland than most of the rest of the UK - second only to London:
http://cdn.yougov.com/today_uk_import/YG-Archives-Pol-YouGov-EURef-100910.pdf

I totally agree that if England decides to leave the Union then they should be allowed to, or Wales, or NI. Clearly Cornwall would have to be restrained even if they wanted to leave. Although we should let Devon out, just for fun.

And yes, interesting piece here on the question:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/7622888/what-difference-the-scottish-independence-question-makes.thtml

[khbrown.livejournal.com]

Did you have the same problems with the devolution referendum, which asked two questions:

1. Should there be a Scottish Parliament
2. Should this Parliament have tax-varying powers

If people aren't able to handle being asked two questions then maybe they're too stupid to be allowed to vote at all

[andrewducker]

That doesn't have a problem if people vote for (2) but not (1).

If 98% of people vote for Devo-Max, but only 51% vote for Independence, the arguments will rage for _ever_.

[octopoid-horror.livejournal.com]

I think that a referendum on non-specific independence is in some ways a bad idea because people may vote yes when they would be horrified by the degree that some politicians want to be independent, or might be horrified by all the things that some politicians versions of independence doesn't include.

A basic "yes/no" referendum then a later, detailed one, would make sense to me, but I suspect if there's a large yes on the basic one, there would be a risk of politicians saying "the public have spoken, let's go, they obviously want whatever our current spokesman sees as Independence.."

Independence but keeping currency, tax & military linked; independence but with a separate military pity we can't do anything about tax; independence and fuck you guys we're joining the Euro are three very different things, as an example.

[andrewducker]

The thing is, once we're independent (if we become so) then the Scottish government will have control over the currency, tax, and military, so it will be up to them (and their future voters) to decide what to do about currency, tax and nuclear weapons. That's what independence means - we have to make those decisions.

[allorin.livejournal.com]

I think you need to keep posting about this - I like reading the comments!

[andrewducker]

Yeah, lots to think about!