The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland


We are the 99%, and the 51%

Posted on January 16, 2012 by

While this blog commends the Guardian's continuing commitment to quantity of Scottish coverage, its quality is too often dismaying. Today it runs with the tired, feeble line introduced by Willie Rennie into the independence-referendum debate a few weeks ago, and laughingly dismissed by most grown-up commentators minutes later – what happens if there's a referendum with a devo-max option and 99% vote for devo-max but 51% vote for independence?

(To be fair, the Guardian impressively increases the precision of the question tenfold by adding a somewhat gratuitous decimal point into the equation, but to keep things nice and tidy we'll stick with the whole numbers.)

Rennie's question is so feeble because the answer is so obvious. If a majority votes for independence, Scotland should become independent. Devo-max is a wholly-contained subset of independence (despite some very silly recent assertions to the contrary by new Scottish Labour leader Johann Lamont, who has suddenly decided that "some powers – more powers – all powers" isn't a linear progression), and we can say so without fear of contradiction because in Rennie's hypothetical example the number of votes totals 151%, which you clearly can't have in a vote between opposing options.

You can self-evidently ONLY have a vote adding up to more than 100% if people are allowed to vote for two (or more) things at once, and you can't do that if those two things are in conflict with each other. In an election, we'd call that a spoiled ballot.

Rennie's complaint is irrational and illogical whether taken on face value or examined more closely. Either devo-max and independence are exclusive concepts – in which case you can't let people vote for both of them – or one is a subset of the other, in which case supporters of devo-max are getting everything they wanted if Scotland becomes independent (plus more on top) and there's no problem. But for the sake of argument, let's indulge him for a moment and see where it leads.

If we let Rennie have his cake and eat it, and the result comes out as absurdly extreme as his example, what does that actually tell us? It tells us the Scottish people have the following order of preference for their governance:

The Union: 1%
Devo max: 48%
Independence: 51%

…because of the 99% who approved of devo max, more than half of them also approved of independence. There is no sane way of spinning a poll in which most Scots have voted for independence, but the country doesn't end up independent.

We know Unionists do like to rig a referendum in exactly that way, because the last time 51% of Scots voted for something in a referendum (51.6%, in fact) they didn't get that either. You can bet your last Royal Wedding teatowel that the SNP will not allow Scotland to be stitched up the same way twice.

10 to “We are the 99%, and the 51%”

  1. Morag says:

    Small point of order.  99 + 51 = 150.

    Reply
  2. Morag says:

    They were wittering about this in the autumn too, and I couldn't get my head round why nobody seemed to understand what you've just said.  Not just the Labour MSPs, who're as thick as mince anyway most of them, but BBC interviewers.
     
    Part of it seems to be down to the SNP's own 2010 consultation document on a referendum, which suggested two questions, but didn't make the conditional nature clear.  Reading it, I thought the person drafting it probably thought it was bloody obvious, but hadn't actually said so.  It's not two separate questions, these questions are linked by either "if not, then…." or "if so, then…."
     
    The question that exercises me is, if we're going to have a two-stage question, which order should the questions be posed in?  There are two quite different ways of asking what is essentially the same thing.  Roughly paraphrasing, they look like this.
     
    1.  Do you want more powers for the Scottish parliament (insert here whatever committments can be tortured out of the Westminster parties)
    2.  If Scotland gest more powers, do you want these powers extended so that it becomes an independent country
     
    In that version, over 50% for 1 gets you devo-whatever-is-on-the-table, but if you then get over 50% for 2 you get independence.  And of course it doesn't matter if question 1 got a higher yes vote than question 2, so long as question 2 gets its 50%.  These 50% can be safely assumed also to have voted yes in question 1.  (It would be a bit daft to be forced to vote no in question 1 so as not to nullify your yes vote in question 2!)
     
    Or alternatively,
     
    1.  Are you in favour of Scotland becoming an independent country?
    2.  If independence fails to gain a majority, do you favour the Scottish parliament gaining additional powers within the union?
     
    In that version, over 50% for 1 gets independence, end of story.  But if it doesn't, and 2 then gets over 50%, you get whatever the unionist parties have agreed to concede.  And again, it doesn't matter if question 2 gets a bigger yes vote than question 1, if question 1 gets over 50% question 2 is moot.
     
    Either of these versions should be perfectly simple to explain to anyone with an IQ higher than that of a begonia, given that the person doing the explaining is acting in good faith and not trying to stir up trouble.  This is what Professor Q tried to explain in November, but nobody was listening.
     
    Except, having said that, and remebering the mince being talked about the AV system last year, am I wrong that this is easy to explain?  Would we be inundated with irrational tripe misrepresenting the arithmetic, which people would then fall for?
     
    My question is, which way round should the questions be asked?  This is our independence referendum, and my instinct is very much to favour the second version.  The independence one first and in the headline, the one which is the big decision.  The extended devolution one an afterthought, just in case.
     
    On the other hand many people seem to be assuming the first version.  The "logical progression" as it were, from some more autonomy to full autonomy.
     
    Anyone have any opinions?

    Reply
  3. John Böttcher says:

    After returning from the SNP conference last October, I thought of something along these lines:
    Referendum On The Future Of Scotland
    Q1 – Do you want more powers for the Scottish Parliament?
    Yes (  )
    No  (  )
    Q2 – If you selected Yes in the above question, do you want
    Full Fiscal Autonomy/Devolution Max? (  )
    or
    Full Independence (  )
    ….
    I thought that was a reasonably concise way to formulate all three options. I also think Q1 would be answered overmelmingly in the positive, leaving the parties and other groups to argue their cases for what sort of range of powers.
    Regards
     

    Reply
  4. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    "Small point of order.  99 + 51 = 150."

    Yes, but if 99% voted for devo max that means 1% voted against it, so the total vote is (99+51+1) = 151.

    Reply
  5. Morag says:

    Well, presumably 49% also voted against independence in the second question, making a total vote of 200%.  Which sounds a bit right if every individual has two votes.
     
    You can twist this quite a few ways, mostly silly, and you've got my head in a spin now.  But of course the point is that if 50% + 1 vote for independence, that's it.  If all these people plus a few more ALSO support FFA, that's neither here nor there.
     
    It's pretty much axiomatic that everyone who supports independence would also support FFA over the status quo.  Plus of course some more people will also prefer FFA over the status quo, even though they don't favour independence.  So the FFA option is ALWAYS going to score more than independence, looked at in that way.  Are the people touting their twisted logic suggesting that everyone who supports independence should vote against FFA, or something?
     
    It's nuts.

    Reply
  6. Morag says:

    John Böttcher, that's a re-worded equivalent of my version 1.  Maybe it's OK.  But what about the essential difference between that and asking the yes/no question on independence first?  Would people be inclined to vote differently depending on which way round it's worded?
     
    For what it's worth, the mood music coming out of the SNP suggests they're looking at the second option.  If any sort of enhanced devolution gets on the ballot paper, I think this may be what the basic argument boils down to.  Well, that and whether the language includes words like separation, ripping apart and barbed wire at Coldstream I suppose.
     
    My own view is that we've got all the devolution Westminster is minded to give us.  The response to the Calman commission demonstrates that.  Indeed, I think we should be very wary of attempts to repatriate some powers to Westminster unilaterally.
     
    Some people seem to think that all Scots have to do is vote for FFA with a convincing majority, and Westminster will have to grant that.  I think they're suffering from dangerous naivety.  We can't claim self-determination, when we don't have self-determination.  We can vote for sun in July all we want, but who is going to give it to us.
     
    That's the rock the FFA lobby are going to founder on.

    Reply
  7. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    "Well, presumably 49% also voted against independence in the second question, making a total vote of 200%."

    We're not counting votes AGAINST anything, though. We're counting votes FOR the three available options – status quo, devo max, independence – and counting them via Rennie's idiotic system whereby you vote as if devo max was a subset of independence, but then count as if it was a completely separate choice.

    Reply
  8. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    "My own view is that we've got all the devolution Westminster is minded to give us.  The response to the Calman commission demonstrates that.  Indeed, I think we should be very wary of attempts to repatriate some powers to Westminster unilaterally.
     
    Some people seem to think that all Scots have to do is vote for FFA with a convincing majority, and Westminster will have to grant that.  I think they're suffering from dangerous naivety."

    I agree on both counts. At the end of the day a devo-max option is extremely unlikely to happen, because the only credible way to have it is for the government of the day to define and agree it in advance, and I see VERY little prospect of the coalition doing that.

    (We also need to consider that the referendum is likely to predate a UK general election by only a few months. There's no way negotiations will be completed by then in the event of a Yes vote, so what happens if a completely new government is voted in, which isn't bound by the promises of the previous one with regard to accepting the referendum result?)

    Reply
  9. Morag says:

    "Rennie's idiotic system".  That's the problem, I think.  The whole concept is nuts, so any playing with the figures in the way that he does is going to remain nuts.
     
    In the example you give, the only sane way to approach it is to say that 51% voted for independence.  Of the 99% who voted for FFA, 51% would be the same people as voted for independence.  Leaving 48% voting for FFA as their first choice.
     
    So FFA loses.

    Reply
  10. Morag says:

    The first two letters in today's Herald make exactly this point.  Both lay out the ballot as per my second alternative above, that is, with the independence question first, followed by, IF independence doesn't gain a majority, do you want….
     
    I think this is the way to do it, IF a party with the power and the will to delive FFA was prepared to go that route.  Hell will freeze over first.

    Reply


Comment - please read this page for comment rules. HTML tags like <i> and <b> are permitted. Use paragraph breaks in long comments. DO NOT SIGN YOUR COMMENTS, either with a name or a slogan. If your comment does not appear immediately, DO NOT REPOST IT. Ignore these rules and I WILL KILL YOU WITH HAMMERS.


  • About

    Wings Over Scotland is a thing that exists.

    Stats: 6,787 Posts, 1,222,036 Comments

  • Recent Posts

  • Archives

  • Categories

  • Tags

  • Recent Comments

    • sarah on According As We Need Them: “@ Northcode: “mirkie watter”. I like it, Northcode. Your knowledge of poetic forms puts me to shame.Jul 15, 22:58
    • sam on According As We Need Them: “https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/52524-europeans-would-welcome-an-independent-scotland-into-the-eu “That Scotland may vote in a second independence referendum to leave the UK cannot be discounted, and Scottish nationalists…Jul 15, 21:43
    • sam on According As We Need Them: “The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) is a United Nations treaty that the UK has ratified (meaning…Jul 15, 21:38
    • Northcode on According As We Need Them: “Thanks, James. Here’s another: mirkie watter Rever stanes smuithed roond; shaped by watter no thair ain; drouned in silence, worn…Jul 15, 19:17
    • Hatey McHateface on According As We Need Them: “Thanks for the info, Aidan. On the face of it then, it sounds like just another ruse by which the…Jul 15, 19:11
    • Hatey McHateface on According As We Need Them: “Fair enough, sarah, I stand corrected. How about a link so we can all see what it’s about?Jul 15, 18:58
    • Captain Caveman on According As We Need Them: “@TwatByName You know what they say, “there’s no fool like an old fool”. Silly old sod. Take up bowls or…Jul 15, 18:56
    • Hatey McHateface on According As We Need Them: “Sure, TH. I have little doubt that the humous boys will be hunted down to the ends of the earth…Jul 15, 18:54
    • Aidan on According As We Need Them: “I’ll save you the trouble, it’s another cunning plan which says that if the Scottish Government implemented the ICCPR, because…Jul 15, 18:34
    • sarah on According As We Need Them: ““clearly a good thing because Angus R…oppose it.” This is an example of humour.Jul 15, 18:32
    • Hatey McHateface on According As We Need Them: “Guid Gowd, sarah, but you’re a dunderheid. Things are intrinsically good or intrinsically bad. Their goodness or otherwise is not…Jul 15, 18:17
    • twathater on According As We Need Them: “Ewen used to be a regular contributor BTL on Yours For Scotland and was asked by Iain Lawson to do…Jul 15, 18:16
    • twathater on According As We Need Them: “There’s Chas focusing his inner franchise fanny and CLAIMING that he knows what the MAJORITY of visitors to WOS are…Jul 15, 18:10
    • Hatey McHateface on According As We Need Them: “Writing of drunk arses …Jul 15, 18:08
    • twathater on According As We Need Them: “The problem wi that is the humous boys have probably witnessed what is currently being done to innocent women and…Jul 15, 18:03
    • twathater on According As We Need Them: “And as if any proof were required about the relationship of yoons and lunacy, immediately up pops Bastard Tax MOAN…Jul 15, 17:50
    • Hatey McHateface on According As We Need Them: “Ah come oan noo, sarah. We need to all focus on supporting the good news you report above to a…Jul 15, 17:50
    • sarah on According As We Need Them: “O/T Ewen Kennedy [retired lawyer and an independence supporter] has made a submission to Holyrood’s petitions committee in support of…Jul 15, 17:45
    • Hatey McHateface on According As We Need Them: “There is much truth in what you write here, James. A phrase I read a little while back sticks with…Jul 15, 17:38
    • James Cheyne on According As We Need Them: “Sven. Indeed it appears that Labour are finishing and finalising what the Tories Started, with considerable help from the greens…Jul 15, 17:27
    • Hatey McHateface on According As We Need Them: “Seriously, Alf? You’re now getting info from the scatological ravings of Confused? ‘as the saying goes : “a drunk arse…Jul 15, 17:26
    • sarah on According As We Need Them: “Rev, have you a proposal for the campaign over the next 9 months? It would be useful to hear which…Jul 15, 17:22
    • Hatey McHateface on According As We Need Them: “That is good news, sarah. I expect they’ll agree a stern resolution calling for the humous boys to come out…Jul 15, 17:14
    • Hatey McHateface on According As We Need Them: “@DaveL says: 15 July, 2025 at 2:20 am “Can you explain why or how?” I think you’re new here, Dave.…Jul 15, 17:09
    • Chas on According As We Need Them: “Congratulations Sven. You must be one of the very few people who actually read any of the repetive gibberish produced…Jul 15, 16:30
    • Sven on According As We Need Them: “James Cheyne @15.29. Dear Lord, “James”, how I wish I wasn’t in complete agreement with so many of those points.Jul 15, 15:55
    • James Cheyne on According As We Need Them: “The social engineering experiments on the populations is an ideology effecting all governances from enforced migrations across borders being encouraged…Jul 15, 15:29
    • Captain Caveman on According As We Need Them: “‘… hence also that “the moon is made of cheese” (Cesaire)’ I’m sorry, but you just have to laugh, right?…Jul 15, 15:21
    • sarah on According As We Need Them: “O/T Good news today – Republic of Ireland, Spain, China, Brazil, South Africa and 15 other countries are meeting today…Jul 15, 15:19
    • Alf Baird on According As We Need Them: “Thanks for the info, Confused. In particular, “Fanon’s theory of “disalienation” — the idea that for the colonized to escape…Jul 15, 12:53
  • A tall tale



↑ Top