A question for Willie Rennie
Dear Willie, since you're implausibly still peddling this ridiculous fantasy hypothetical, perhaps you could quickly answer a similar one for us. It won't take a moment.
In a two-question 1999-style referendum of the sort you posit in your zany "99-51" scenario, the vote in autumn 2014 instead delivers the following outcome:
In favour of the status quo: 2%
In favour of devo-max: 98%
In favour of independence: 97%
So has Scotland just rejected independence, despite 97% of the electorate voting for it? By your logic it has. Is that seriously your position? With a straight face and everything? Are you going to be the one to tell the 97% of Scots who've just voted to leave the UK that they're staying in whether they like it or not?
If not, please shush with your daft, embarrassing haverings. But if so, we'll wish you the very best of luck with that. And then, if it's all the same to you, we'll run for cover.
I think you are missing the point of the question posed by Willie Rennie.
You have to show us readers each question (you suggest there are two) and the result. We then see whether the result is clear. At the moment, given what you have written above it seems that Independence is people's second choice, so it would be surprising if that was the outcome given there were more votes for staying within the UK.
…so your answer is "Yes, I would refuse Scotland independence even though 97% of the electorate had voted for it". Righto.
Well, at the moment it appears 98% want Devo-max within the UK. So it would be strange for Scotland to leave the UK as a result.
All you have to do is write out what the two ballot paper questions were under your scenario and the results and then we can see if you have solved the problem highlighted by Willie Rennie.
Look at today's Herald. The first two letters cover this point. The questions are somthing like….
1. Do you want Scotland to be independent?
2. If there is not a majority vote for independence, do you want the Scottish parliament to have increased powers within the devolution settlement.
Willie Rennie is trying to make out that if the first question gets a majority, but then the second question shows an even bigger majority for devo-max, we should not get independence.
The point is that pretty much everyone who wants independence will also favour devo-max over the status quo. And then there are people who don't want independence who also favour devo-max over the status quo. So if you ask two questions along the lines of
1. Do you want an independent Scotland
2. Do you prefer devo-max to the status quo
You will always get a bigger majority in the second one. Because all the pro-independence voters are in there too, added to the votes of those whose first choice is devo-max.
Willie Rennie can't understand that the questions are conditional. The second question is to allow all voters to express their opinion on devo-max IF independence fails to get a majority. The way he seems to want to play it, everyone who wanted independence would have to vote no to devo-max, to prevent it getting a bigger vote than independence, which is bananas.
No. The SNP have not proposed to put the questions in that way. They have quoted the 1997 example as a precedent and their 2010 referendum propositions were not those you have quoted.
I don't know if this is any clearer, but what Willie Rennie is saying is that if you look at the number of people whose first choice is independence, and that number is smaller than the number of people whose first choice is independence plus the number of people whose first choice is devolution, then independence loses.
The blog post a few below this one – We are the 51%, and the 99% – maybe makes it clearer.
Mal, sorry, cross-posting.
The SNP's 2010 proposal was unclear and poorly set out – I believe the person who wrote it thought it was obvious the questions were conditional, but he didn't spell it out. This may indeed be the source of Rennie's confusion, but he's not thinking very straight on his own account.
However, 2010 was superseded by 2011, and we don't yet know what the SNP's current proposal is. The general tenor of their conversation seems to suggest however that they intend to have the yes/no to independence as the first and main question. Whether there is a second question about devo-max is anyone's guess, but if there is it will have to be made clear that the question is to ascertain preferences IF independence doesn't win.
Do read that other blog post and its comments.
Thank you Morag.
I think what you have written about how the 2010 questions weren't right shows the problem. And it is not a problem from Willie Rennie. He has also taken 2010 as questions that are conditional and shown the flaw in that method too.
Given that you have said 2010 was a mess and we don't know what will be proposed next week, it looks like Mr Rennie's suggestion that matters are not clear is right. I guess everyone in this thread will have to wait until next week to find out if their preferred option is going to be the one promoted byt he Scottish Government.
I don't agree. I don't think there was any substantial flaw in the 2010 proposals so long as it is understood that the the questions are linked.
Obviously, in such a system, everyone has two votes. Rennie's interpretation would imply that the second preferences of the independence supporters would cancel out their first preference votes, which is just silly. He is effectively saying that if the number of people who support independence, added to the number of people whose first preference is devo-max, is larger than the number of people who support independence, then independence has lost the vote. This is simply brain-dead. Or deliberately and maliciously obfuscatory.
No. You can't offer a criticism of the 2010 proposals and then say Willie Rennie is wrong to agree with you and say that they are flawed. He seems to understand entirely that they are linked. Hence his further point that, if they are consequential and dependent then, if Devo-Max loses, Independence automatically falls. I guess that isn't something that independence supporters would like to happen.
But to return to the question at the top of the page, Devo-Max is inside the UK and gets more support than Independence which is outside. That is the major divide between those two questions which is not picked up at all by the other analysis offered on this page.
…so to recap, your position is that yes, you’d deny the Scottish people independence even though 97% of them had voted for it. I’m glad we’ve got that clear.
Yes, I think that's what he's saying. If he isn't, then maybe he can explain himself more clearly.
Yes, happy to help further.
The main thing is for RevStu just to clear up the point I made right at the top – to show me his theory on the ballot paper wording that gives 98% for the UK option and 97% for the Independence option.
I know that Morag has had a bash at coming up with some questions. But they aren't anything like any of the questions that were puiblished for 1997 or 2010.