Changing the rules of the game
It’s taken 306 years for the people of Scotland to be allowed a democratic voice on the constitution of their country. It’s a thing that was never supposed to happen. The Scottish Parliament’s electoral system was constructed deliberately and explicitly to prevent any party achieving a majority – in theory ensuring that the SNP could never pass a referendum bill – even though the two main UK parties still resolutely defend the First Past The Post system that produces them at Westminster.
But that’s all sorted out now, right?
Yesterday the Scottish Conservatives leader Ruth Davidson gave an interview to Andrew Neil on the BBC’s Daily Politics (from 50m). It was largely unremarkable, covering most of the same ground Davidson did earlier in the week on Scotland Tonight. But one passage, not picked up on by Neil, set all our alarms ringing.
The so-called “neverendum” is a primal fear of the No camp. The word isn’t in the dictionary, but what it actually translates to is “democracy”. It’s not a “neverendum” if the Tories lose an election but then get to contest another one five years later. Some UK Parliaments have lasted barely eight months before asking the electorate for their opinion again. Even dictatorships eventually fall. Nothing in politics is forever.
This site doesn’t want to see an independence referendum every five years. We very much hope – just as Ruth Davidson does – that only one will ever be required, though for the opposite reason. But whichever side loses the 2014 vote, they will be perfectly entitled to stand for election on a manifesto offering another one, and to implement that policy if they are democratically elected with a majority. That’s not only how democracy works, it’s how it must work. No government can bind its successors. “Stability” is every despot’s excuse.
If Scotland votes Yes, the Tories are perfectly at liberty to stand in 2016 on a platform of re-establishing the Union, and to hold another referendum on merging Scotland right back into the UK should they then get a democratic mandate to do so. But the same applies the other way. Just because a groundswell of popular support for the SNP in 2011 “broke” the Holyrood system which was designed to foil them, the Unionist parties don’t have the right to rig the system again.
Davidson’s comments are worrying, but revealing. Next year’s referendum was never meant to happen, and the UK parties are, to use the words of former Labour Chancellor Denis Healey, “scared stiff” of it. Should they survive, they never want to hear the voice of the people of Scotland again – not even, Davidson notes, in the form of a plebiscite on “some more powers or other”.
We suppose it’s possible there could be a clearer signal that the UK government has no intention of devolving any meaningful new powers to the Scottish Parliament, but not very much clearer.
(Alistair Darling, chair of the “Better Together” campaign, has repeatedly said that any further devolution would require the consent of the entire UK, and it might reasonably be assumed that the rest of the UK would not permit any settlement beneficial to Scotland at the rest of the country’s expense.)
Because it’s a punchy slogan, this site is fond of using the phrase “Vote No Get Nothing”. But the more evidence we collect, the more apparent it is that such a view is a seriously over-optimistic assessment of the reality.
If Scotland gives up its only bargaining chip next year by voting for continued Westminster rule, the powers of the Scottish Parliament – which has so ungratefully exceeded the limits of what it was meant to be permitted to achieve – will be curtailed, not extended. It won’t be one chance in 307 years. It’ll be one chance forever.
Davidson also re-emphasised the point in her conference Q&A with Brian Taylor on the BBC website today:
“We cannot have this paralysis in Scotland again. We need a stable, devolved settlement.”
link to bbc.co.uk
(About 17m 50s.)
I was skimming a Brian Taylor report on Scotconf, covering their “devo plans” or lack thereof yesterday. I had a “wait, is this real life?” moment – why on Earth is such a fanciful subject even covered in the media? Its clear that there’s only a vanishingly small level of support for more devolution from the Tories. It’ll never happen! And MacWhirter’s Road to Referendum doc illustrated just how anomalous and contingent was Labours eventual support for it. You can see that 2013 Labour have well and truly reverted to 70’s type. Vote No, get nothing indeed.
Davidson is very clearly telling the Scots what to do in that photo.
I’m sure she also said something on GMS along the lines of how the overall majority won by the SNP in 2011 was an example of how devolution wasn’t working properly and had to be “fixed”. Â If I wanted to lose the will to live on I’d try to listen to it again, but it’s such a lovely day. Â
BTW the scottish Tory conference hash tag shows real chutzpah, being, I think, a reference to the poll tax: #scotland1st. Hats off to them!
I’ve been accused of scaremongering when I point out in conversations, the prospects for Scotland post-no vote. Â So the more evidence for the actuality of Scotland’s impending emasculation is I think, beneficial. Â That way (as long the media notice this or the YES campaign highlight it) the public will be well aware of the consequences. Â The truth will and always does come out, as long as this truth is out before the vote.
Â
agitate?
Â
Is this the new word for winning a majority?
Â
Davidson a democrat? I don’t think so.
I think ‘require the consent of the entire UK’ is very pertinent.
The momentum for a Yes vote is going to only head in one direction over the next 460 days.Â
@Anne “The truth will and always does come out, as long as this truth is out before the vote.” That is my biggest worry that the truth of McCrone, Healey, Scotland’s wealth and potential etc. does not reach the general public of Scotland in time. No use in crying over a no vote after the event, people have got to realise just what is at stake here. ‘SCOTLAND FREE OR A DESERT’!
Ruth Davidson will be replaced shortly after the YES vote as the Conservatives in Scotland are not going to put up with their party going nowhere under her leadership. There is rather a lot of openly unhappy conservatives in Scotland – not all of them will vote no either.
Â
On a separate note ‘requiring the consent of the UK’ for more powers is an interesting one as at present rather a lot of people South of the Border would like us to go it alone and stop whinging. I don’t think she understands this ‘self determination’ thing at all – it must seem a rather scary prospect to her.
Â
Entertaining the notion of a no vote for two minutes – how will 30% of devo thinkers and 30% of Independence thinkers be happy with any likely settlement? Dream on hen, your days are numbered.
Â
Â
She’s a kick boxer, don’t you know?
The original “devolved settlement” was easy. All Westminster did was to move control of the old Scottish office functions to the new Scottish Parliament. Law, education, the NHS and so on was already separate and they didn’t need to break up any UK departments to do it. They also simply funded the new Scottish Parliament as if it was another government department with a block grant to keep the principle of fiscal equality for public services across the UK.
Â
They’re not going to offer anymore apart from schemes like the new 2012 Act which despite all the fanfare only really does two things, it increases the current never used 3p income tax variable rate to 10p and runs part of the block grant through HMRC before the Scottish Government gets it. As long as the Scottish Government doesn’t change the tax rates then Scotland gets funded to the Barnett formula level as before.
Â
Since neither Labour nor the Tories have offered anything as an alternative to independence as we run up to the independence referendum then the chances of getting anything after a no vote are nil.
Â
I suspect that after a no vote they’ll change the voting system for the Scottish parliament to ensure that it becomes even more difficult for any party to get a majority and they’ll reserve the right to call a referendum with Westminster.Â
Â
“It won’t be one chance in 307 years. It’ll be one chance forever.”
Â
Quite right. Forget Al-Qaeda, Libya, Afhganistan, the Taliban or whoever the current “threat de jour” is, this referendum is the most serious threat the British state has faced since the second world war. They’re going to make damn sure that they never have to face the threat of an independent Scotland again.
Given that we’ve had two devolution referenda in 18 years, the railway bill in 2005, Calman commission 2007 creating the new Scotland Act and a conservation bill in 2008. The notion that if we vote no there can only be one indy referendum bill ever, is frankly riduclous.
Aye, it looks as if “Vote No, get Nothing” is wildly overoptimistic – Vote No, get Gunned, looks to be far closer to the mark.
Â
I sincerely hope enough people waken up and see that before next September – if they don’t we may never have the opportunity again.
Damn autocorrect – that should read “Vote No, get Gubbed”
The first version is probably more accurate.
I’ve said similar before but Vote No and we’re fucked! SAOR ALBA!Â
Interesting quote from Socrates on PB – Scotland gets far more attention than any other part of the country because it’s always threatening to leave. Well, once you vote to stay in, that will thankfully end … -.
Â
And you thought voting Yes was burning our bridges?
On the subject of what can be achieved in the realms of further devolution, my understanding is pretty much that of Dougthedug, above.
Â
I think it was Mike Forsyth who looked into  the situation and reported back that to devolve anything more of substance would require the amendment of the 1707 act.Â
Â
Dissolving the act can be achieved by either the people of Scotland, or the English “government” (the nearest to which today is the English membership of Westminster.)
Â
But amending the act is entirely different. That would require the agreement of both parties to the act…Scottish parliament and English parliament (constituted as above).
Â
Someone mentioned that the English would love us to go and take our whinging and scrounging with us. But that is independence. What further devolution would be asking them would be to let us stay, but with a better deal.
Â
They already consider that we have a way better deal (and we probably do compared to people outside of the South East corner), so the chances of them voting to give us proper tax raising powers, or control over social security, or defence (so that we need not go to war at the drop of a hat), is most unlikely.
It has to be emphasised that the referendum is a game changer whichever way it goes.
Voting No, Scotland should not be an independent country will not restore the status quo ante. Some possibilities; there wont be a SNP to vote for or to run Scottish affairs, Westminster will “adjust” the devolution setlement so that referendums are absolutely reserved to themselves, “national” teams will be sidelined and Scots will have to qualify for British teams. This will be in addition to the “joys” that the status quo will bring us anyway such as the cuts to social care, the NHS, policing, dualling the A9, etc.
Voting Yes may cause uncertainties but a) every problem we will have has been solved by somebody else somewhere else and b) we will have the choice of how to address them.
Â
Next years referendum is not like the AV referendum, where things would only have changed if it had answered yes. For this referendum, it is dishonest to say that voting No or not voting at all will preserve the status quo. For good or ill there will be a referendum and, whatever the result, things will change.
Westminster on the make is a sight to behold.
This time the dangling of ermine, titles, the selective application of phoney admiration, the soft soap and forced smiles will not work.
Scots are democrats by nature not manipulators – the bribing gold of yesteryear has been soundly trumped by Scottish oil – and integrity.
i find it impossible to believe scotland will not be punished severely for holding the referendum in the first place in the event of a no vote.
I too really fear what the aftermath of a No would be.
It really needs to be driven home to the undecided that there will be no status quo.
Rev, the Tories and Davison are, in her context, the neverendum!
In recent memory we have had 9 Tory unelected and imposed Westminster Governments in Scotland – we all know the latest based on “1” elected Scottish Tory MP.
She’s got a point – that’s not democracy – it’s a never end of them!!Â
Thanks Ruth for pointing out the need for change in the Westminster Neverendum Voting System!
So what would suit the Unionist agenda in setting out new Scottish powers after a no vote?
Â
Let me suggest how they might wrestle control back under the Westminster umbrella.
On the run up to the Independence Referendum, the Tories, Labour and Libs campaign for a no vote, each promising different powers following a no vote.
Â
In the run up to the 2015 Westminster election, each of these parties set out their own policies within their own manifestoes. The winner will get to put these policies into action following winning the Westminster General election. The people of Scotland get to vote as well, but the South East of England get the largest vote, thereby deciding by default on Scotland future.
Â
Vote no and kiss democracy in Scotland goodbye. Those bastards won’t stop till our right to self determination is off the books for good. We’ll be signing over our claim of right to people who will consign popular sovereignty to the bin. We’d be lucky to keep the shirt on our backs. Ruth Davidson and all her ilk believe in the UK as one nation with no cultural divide. She neglects to mention the cavernous social ones however and clearly doesn’t give a monkeys about the social division and carnage which she is an active participant in right now.
Â
If you want a choice about how you want your kids to grow up, vote yes.Â
Figure 3 thus suggests that, in so far as the independence debate is about identity, it is the intensity of people’s British identity that matters, not that of their Scottish identity.
Scottish identity is a near ubiquitous attachment that unites rather than divides most people in Scotland. It is how British they feel that divides them, and is reflected in different attitudes in the independence debate.
From the 2012 Scottish social attitudes survey. Probably peed off Curtice having to write it, but the data spoke for itself.
300+ years of attempting to beat the Scottish out of the Scots and make us all one British nation has singularly failed.Â
link to scotcen.org.uk
Have faith in your countryfolk people. They’ve brought us this far against all the odds.
2014 Scotland votes No (narrowly)
2015 Tory-UKIP government
2017 Euro referendum. Scotland votes to stay in, but the UK votes to leave.
Â
Should the above nightmare scenario unfold, I think that a second referendum on Scottish independence would be fully justified.
@Luigi
Justified? After “No, Scotland should not be an independent nation.”, we will be part of the UK, just a region like the North East, so what justification?
Â
Apart from which Westminster will have made sure that only they can initiate any referendums.
I certainly expect Westminster to make it much more difficult for the SNP to call another referendum, and certainly not at a time of their choosing.
Do the Tories intend to apply the ‘neverendum’ principle to the EU as well? Or are they going to call for a referendum on Britain’s EU membership time and time again, as at present?
In the interview the night before , standing outside the conference hall,Ruthi said
” Scottish parliament is broken, it is not a democracy, our review is looking at that”
Â
What does that tell you?
Â
Â
Â
Considering that the actual meaning of the word ‘feisty’ is ‘a stifled fart’, I think you can see that picture shows Ruthie as a feisty gel.
As I have said before, voting Yes will mean us being able to look other Europeans in the eye, Voting No will mean us staring at our feet.
That picture of Ms Davidson: ”Aw naw! Ah’ve jist shat in ma knickers!”
A YES vote will alter the whole political climate of the uk, or what is left of it post 2014. That can only be a good thing, it’s time to take a look at how our countries, societies and communities are organised, I mean in a civilised democracy, change will be a good thing. Otherwise the concept to stagnate,  springs to mind, and eternal winter….to be rather dramatic. It’s time the labtories started to reassess their position and role, if they can’t even do that, they have truly lost all integrity. Intelligence is about changing  and evolving, not staying stuck in your old ways forget the future type of mentality. Oh, am I giving them ideas now..yikes!,Â
Scotland can have a referendum every two years or so if it wishes through Holyrood and Westminster elections. The SNP make independence their sole policy for the election. If they geta majority of seats and/or votes they then form an independent parliament and begin negotiations.
Â
Ah, so the Torie want to set an arbitrary limit on the scope of Scotland’s democracy. I see. Now, what shall we call this then?
“Austerity Union handcuffs”?
Have I gone mad, or is this a senior politician calmly telling the world of their desire to undermine democracy?
@ Luigi:
Doesn’t matter whether it is justified or not. You can be quite sure Westminster will ensure it never happens. I happen to think your scenario is perfectly plausible if Scotland votes NO. That is why we MUST – absolutely MUST – vote YES. However, IF the country votes NO, it will send out a signal to the whole world that it had its chance and bottled it. We will have the debacle of Ally’s Tartan Army followed by the aftermath of the 1979 Referendum all over again, only 10 times worse, and we will have shouted out loud and clear to the world that we VOTED for this all by ourselves. If we vote NO then we only have ourselves to blame for what is coming to us – and believe me, retribution will be swift and severe!Â
They cannot stop people voting in a majority of SNP MPs at the next GE. Unless they ban the SNP of course!
“They cannot stop people voting in a majority of SNP MPs at the next GE.”
And then what?
Greece, Ireland, Italy make it quite clear that it doesn’t matter a whit which way Scots vote. You’re either owned by the Bank Of England, or you’re owned by the European Central Bank.
He who pays the piper calls the tune. It should be pretty obvious to anyone not entirely asleep at the wheel that the people who control the money, who control the central banks are the people who run the world. They replaced the prime ministers in Greece and Italy for goodness sake.
So Scotland is either going to remain controlled from Westminster or will be controlled from Brussels, no matter how you vote.
In my lifetime the trend towards independence has been clear. It sometimes ebbs and flows but the waves are relentless and they reach ever higher up the beach. Nothing, and I mean nothing that the unionists have tried to do to subvert it, has stopped the tide coming in.
They’ll never stop it, never.
Paul
Â
That is what the late  Margaret Ewing said in 1979 when she lost her Dunbartonshire East seat.
For pity’s sake, will someone tell the lassie about the benificial effects of Syrup of Figs! 🙂
Paul Martin
Thats an interesting observation, and it was also made some time ago by a UK Labour politician – I think it may have been David Owen (he was still with Labour at the time) and he described it as a “ratchet” effect – it may back off a bit but always comes forward again, each time a bit further.
Wish I could find the quote  – I have searched for it but cant find it. It may have been a newspaper article or interview.
Â
one might well believe banks control countries, and one might even have a slightly valid point, however banks don’t tell countries to go to war with outher countries, neither do they suggest countries ought to have WMDs on thier shores, they may well say this is the money you’ve got to play with but as long as they themselves are assured of survival and decent profits they tend not to care a great deal what countries do with their money. Canada kept the banking practices of scotland while a Westminister Government got rid of them in Scotland, now both countries have banks, who accroding to this argument control both countries, but Canada did not suffer from a banking crisis, her banks are fine, Scotland’s banking sector entwined as it was/is with the City did not. You can’t ignore the effects of banks but you can quite clearly work in a more equal way with them that the current people in charge of that aspect of Scotland namely Westminster. No one on the independence side is talking about the kind of independence that the Better Together side is talkng aobut, because it simply doesn’t exist, and can’t exist in today’s world. On the independence side they are talking about reality, and ackonwledging some things will be outwith a new Scottish government’s control, what they are saying is let’s get as much control as we can, like every other independent nation on the planet so we stand a better chance of a better future, becasue just now we are simply being run for the benefit of the population centre of England – London and the South East, like everywhere else in the UK, true, but with a chance of changing that. Take it.
Ruth Davidson is correct, the Scottish Parliament isnt working, anything that allows her to become a quoted figure is clearly broken!
In the event of a No vote then why doesn`t the SNP go into the next GE promising that if they get a majority Scottish vote then they will renegotiate the terms on which Scotland wishes to remain in the union.
A referendum of the people to see what powers they wish Scotland to have. What could be a more democratic way to move forward in the event of a No vote?We were never asked in the first place whether we wanted to be controlled from London.
Maybe we should be discussing this now cos it might just focus minds to the fact that a No vote means we have to fight even harder afterwards for anything as we return to being ignored and called a bunch of whinging Scots for merely trying to get heard in England`s parliament.
scotty says:
8 June, 2013 at 1:52 pm
i find it impossible to believe scotland will not be punished severely for holding the referendum in the first place in the event of a no vote.
Â
Could not agree more. The prospect is frightening. The SNP will implode with infighting due to the failure of their dream and there will then be no one there to fight the cause for decades. English retribution will be swift and brutal and Scotland will wither (even more) on the vine.As has been said many times. We have but one chance. DO NOT lose it.
@Garfield Tait
Don’t worry, in the event of a no vote the SNP will pick itself up, dust itself down and start all over again. Item #1 on the agenda, Independence!