UKH

No matter what Brexit is defined as at the moment, I feel I've got to get my oar in about the lack of a comparative referendum on the detail. I use "comparative" rather "confirmatory" as the latter is loaded. I hope to never see this principle of democracy undermined again. "Referenda" - not one simply put referendum- is the precedent that should be followed for us, the electorate's, sake. A simple question needs that back up of a complex definition and comparison.

And that should apply to any referenda.

I can see where you are coming from and I would like to agree.  The problem is that where the final outcome depends on a negotiation, a confirmatory referendum gives an incentive for the other party in the negotiation to simply refuse any compromise in the hope that the outcome is so bad it will be rejected in the confirmatory referendum.   It means the negotiation is not 'for real' as far as the other party is concerned so you never find out what their actual bottom line is.

Ah, So the SNP position may arguably be to repeat that simplified process we have had re Brexit, based on leverage tactics being undermined in negotiations.

I know you are not a spokesperson, .....but support from a SNP supporter is interesting . { I hope I am correct inferring  from the past you are a SNP supporter on independence- correct me if I am wrong}

I am very wary of the handing over of detail to  a sole party for definition   without electorate participation via referenda . I consider the actual  outline of a process a huge consideration for any vote in May for that process to begin, should it gain a majority to act. 

So, a withdrawal from the union could be as  simplified as a withdrawal from the EU with carte blanche for a single party to define it as it wishes. I may even suggest Scottish Unionist parties would not be included in the discussion. It would be a deja vu, the other way round.

As a process, other countries have successfully introduced detail into referenda. I'm trying to gauge how weakening referenda are to a negotiating position- or whether it is an excuse for high handed party control of the detail.....a trajectory into an unacceptable one party domination of ideas.

I thought (as an SNP member for full disclosure) the independence white paper that the Scottish government produced prior to #indyref1 was a decent compromise. 

It didn't lay out the final deal we would be aiming for, but it did give a roadmap for how we would decide many matters after a Yes vote. I hope that #indyref2 will follow a similar format, but I'd like us to be a bit clearer this time about the options such as currency that caused so much uncertainty the last time.

I wouldn't want us tied to a currency option, but I would like a lot more detail on how the options could be put into practice.

That way, the people have a solid understanding of the decisions that will need to be made, if they vote to start the process, but once it's started, those decisions are not hampered by an impending second referendum, to be used as leverage by Westminster.

Well, it is becoming quite obvious as to the absence of a principled commitment to a comparative/confirmatory referendum{ after a withdrawal agreement}, on the detail of a separation deal with R UK, - really I would see that as a patronising { in my view} imposition. A real put off. Certainly not a reassuring process or any democratic improvement on the use of referenda  in the light of what we've just encountered.

not much of a constitutional improvement as regards the use of referenda in politics. But maybe a transparency as to what the electorate don't get rather than keeping it quiet could be useful to the electorate.....

You started out about Brexit and immediately changed to Scotxit, make up your mind. As Tom says if the other party is unwilling then that's it, they don't have to negotiate beforehand (and in the case of Brexit this was made very clear) until it's done and dusted. It's for the referendum proponents to make it quite clear to the voters what the worst-case scenario could be as well as promising milk and honey.

I intended the discussion to be  about referenda as a political tool in our system. So I think Brexit and Scotxit are related and the experience of one is relevant to the next possibility of another.

What's patronising about saying "here's what you're voting for, here's the path we'll take if you vote yes, but the vote is binding"?

My gripe with the brexit referendum was the lack of any sort of information (like the white paper) and the complete bullshit that allowed the leave campaign to spout. As long as the people are allowed to make an informed decision, I see nothing wrong with saying that the decision is binding, unless and until the elected representatives decide there had been a material change that necessitates going back to the people. 

That way, although there's nothing to stop the representatives going back to the people with another referendum should they feel the need, is not there in legislation to be used as leverage.

I think a confirmatory referendum might work where the counterparty in the negotiation is reasonable and looking for a win-win compromise.   The EU has consistently behaved reasonably during the Brexit negotiations.   

The Brexiteer Tories however have shown themselves to totally unreasonable, to the point of passing a law saying they can renege on parts of signed agreements they don't like.  If they know there will be a confirmatory referendum they are going to make sure the negotiation fails as a way of getting the first referendum reversed.

I'm not a member of the SNP or a spokesperson for them.   My sense is Nicola Sturgeon is a fair bit more moderate than I am.   She's also more politically astute than I am and she quite often makes calls which I disagree with which prove to be correct.

I don't think the next Indyref is going to be anything like the last one.  Things are going to be pretty sh*t as a result of Tory mismanagement of Covid and Brexit and their whole scheme of a quick US trade deal falling apart as Biden takes control.   The Brexiteer Tories are far to cosy with Trump and the money behind Trump for Biden to do them any favours.   They are going to be in the process of removing substantial powers from the Scottish Parliament under their UK single market power seizure.  

It is going to be about whether we jump off a sinking Tory ship before it is too late rather than selling a rosy vision of the future.

Agree with much of what you've said there, but not this. The campaign should always be about carving a better path for the country, to create a more equal, supportive society.

It may not be in the MSP 's { and it would be SNP majority MSPs}  interest to go back to the people if there is a material change. It is always tempting to seize the first vote and hold on to it. Rather better to enshrine consent in a confirmatory referendum because Despite a white paper, that is still only a point of departure and not the final destination.  

Tom's point about negotiation "failure" as a way of getting the first referendum reversed {basically discouraging the idea of an SNP supporting the idea of a confirmatory referendum, }  is an interesting and very real one - but,  say, once the first referendum has taken place with a majority for independence, any attempt to undermine that result and stymie negotiations could go through the court systems of Scotland and England and Northern Ireland { like when Johnson lost prorogation distortion}. Would that not make sure a process of genuine negotiation went forward constitutionally [ Despite Conservatives} that  could avoid stalemate - and then there would be  no obstruction to a confirmatory vote on a final deal as the overall process  to be laid down right at the beginning ?? 

I’m not sure that there is a legal pathway that says (for example) that rEU is being unreasonable with UK in  negotiations and they can be made to be reasonable - and so I share Toms qualms about a confirmatory referendum - it seems very reasonable, but it would hand the party in a negotiation that did not want change a very strong hand (another time UKIP and the SNP agree )
 

I’m not sure how to side step that - as Ciro says a well set out destination before the vote is probably the best option. I suppose what would help with that would be some impartial published advice on the legal and likelihood status of such plans.

The trouble is with referendums that in order to get a result that is in the interests of the electorate they need to be rational and well informed. They're neither, hence the horrible choices that are sometimes made. A county in the US once shut down most of its fire brigade as a result of it putting its budget to the electorate. The result was predictable.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/05/world/americas/colombia-brexit-referendu...

An alternative to a confirmatory vote is to hold negotiations on the terms of a deal before a vote so the electorate know exactly what they're voting for. 

Why would the other party in the negotiation be willing to spend time and effort if it is not clear that the negotiation is for real?

Indeed it may not. However that's how a representative democracy works. The trick is to vote in decent politicians who are going to do a reasonable job. A trick that we sadly seem to be missing at UK level.

What laws would force the other party to negotiate in good faith? Even if there was one, the Westminster government has shown it's willingness to abandon international law even after a treaty has just been signed.

I'd like it to be that way but I think with these Tories there isn't going to be a 'status quo' option.  They're going to move money and power away from Holyrood using Brexit laws to make it irrelevant as a first step to reversing devolution and neutralising the SNP.   

They are going to hand us an open goal to win the referendum with a negative campaign.  If we go positive they'll get back to the same fear/uncertainty/doubt tactics as in 2014 and won't need to talk about Tory f*ck ups.  If we go negative and focus on how bad staying in the UK would be they need to defend the UK government record.

The only way to know the true view of the electorate  on a detailed deal is to consult the electorate directly. We have learnt that in the last few years. A party can claim to know the people's will and , as Brexit has proved , the starting position can be different from the final destination and comparisons made initially can be very different down the line and may affect the electorate's consent. I think direct consultation takes precedence over all other fears and is a truly democratic position. I'd insert a confirmatory referendum because the requirements of a functioning economy on our landmass would ultimately require a functioning agreement for both sides, despite nasty tactics. 

I still think the courts would be used to unstick certain sticking issues as a safety net. The Law follows the logic, once it is enshrined in law that an  agreement must be made on separation. It is a fundametally different problem to the EU/UK separation as we are dealing initially with a 4 nation court system within our own system.

Plenty of clutching at straws going on here, probably encouraged by seeing how wonderfully the Brexit negotiations are going. Lost in your utopian view of replacing representative democracy by rule by referendum is the fact that it works both ways, the rUK government should and could also give the rUK population the right to agree to whatever deal has been agreed.

I live in Germany which is a federal republic and any of the länder can leave at any time so long as a majority of the population vote to leave AND the rest of the German population also vote to allow them to leave.

Be careful for what you wish for.

It is not what I wish for, but I'm trying to work out what the SNP could present to the electorate in May. Although I voted to be part of the Union in 2014, and I have no opinion at the moment: I also recognise that, should independence be presented to Scotland as an option in May, that should incorporate much more democratic accountability than what was presented  to the electorate in the referendum process as regards EU membership. It was/is a terrible process using all sorts of processes, some very shonky.

I haven't worked out what other Scottish parties will be present us with in May because they haven't worked it out yet!

You are avoiding the issue, if the Scottish people are to be allowed to vote on the negotiated deal why are the rUK not to be also given this right? 

I'm a member of the electorate with no paid up membership of any party so haven't given that particular perspective much emphasis at the moment.

but maybe a member of the SNP could answer that one whilst I have a think......

That would be the rUK's decision to make, not Scotland's. As long as Scotland maintains the right to self determination, there's no reason the people of rUK shouldn't be consulted by Westminster when agreeing future arrangements.

A comprehensive constitutional convention is the best way forwards from a Yes vote IMO. Bring together government, prominent institutions and members chosen from a cross section of society to draw up the detail of the path we're going to take, based on principles set out by the Scottish government before the vote.

These principles should be binding on the government formed by an election to be held soon after the vote - to determine the makeup up the govt the Scottish people would like to guide us through the next steps. In practice of course, the SNP are going to win that as well, but I would like to think there would be a stronger green party vote once Westminster is taken out of the equation, to help show the SNP the importance of such matters to the electorate, and perhaps a stronger opposition from a more traditional Scottish labour party, should they decide to break ties with the Imperial Labour Party.

That way the people know what they're voting for, but there's much less threat of stalemate situation arising.

I thought the premise was that the Scots would have a referendum on the deal which presumably be binding (otherwise it would be pointless) but you are suggesting that the people of rUK would only be "consulted".

Why should there be two differing democratic principles at work? Or is it the fear that the great unwashed would reject any deal leaving Scotland to become independent with nothing?

  > Or is it the fear that the great unwashed would reject any deal leaving Scotland to become independent with nothing? <

I'm probably oversimplifying things but wouldn't leaving Scotland with "nothing" be advantageous to Scotland? They'd be leaving the UK which would be left with the entire vast national debt, leaving Scotland with a clean sheet. Fishing and oil rights (probably not so valuable now) would become Scotland's. Almost certainly they'd be permitted to join the EU (might need to accept the Euro).  It would be logical for any UK government-owned buildings and institutions to be inherited by the new Scottish government.

The Edinburgh Agreement did make a Yes vote legally binding. The Brexit agreement on the other hand wasn't legally binding, but brexit still happened, so clearly such referenda are not pointless. They do, however, give those championing change carte blanche to make up shit like NHS promises on busses; not finalising them means they van be very loosely defined.

So I'd say they are worse than pointless - they are a spiv's charter.

Scotland were only ever having a referendum on leaving the UK. After that it would be up to the governments of Scotland and rUK whether they wanted to conduct further plebiscites regarding future relationships or not.

The proposal in Scotland was for a constitutional convention following the vote to leave, not another plebiscite. I would envisage the same for #indyref2. 

It's not two democratic principles at work, it's one fundamental principle of self determination - members can vote to leave themselves, but can't vote to force another stay.

I'm quite surprised to hear an attempt to override this fundamental democratic principle is written into the German laws.

The Tories are certainly doing their best to make remaining in the UK a poor choice, and there's no harm in pointing that out, but the thrust of the campaign should still be what we are striving for, not what we are fearing if we stay. 

Many simply won't believe the severity with which the UK is shooting itself in the face, until it's on life support. The Tories will counter with "we're going to sign all these trade deals and live in a land of milk and honey, we are better than everyone else, we once had an empire don't you know, you are too small to regain the glories of such status without us", and a great many people will be fooled.

We need to look outwards. Point at other small, progressive nations and say "look how they run themselves with greater social equality - we're going to build that future for Scotland."

Empire and Imperial is really coming up strongly with you. Sort of odd. Look the less dramatic alternative to independence is for a reformatory approach  with a strengthening of the devolutionary position. I agree that your position is  quite formed. I also think the alternative position will be formed in the next 6 months for consideration by he electorate plus an understanding of the Brexit deal and its implications for devolution.

I agree that the Labour party under Johann Lamont complained bitterly of a centralised Labour Party, the lack of a distinctive federalised Scottish Labour Party- Lb dems and greens are federalised Scottish parties with distinctve Scottish issues statements.

Nobody believes this any more.  Every time there is an Indyref or an election some Labour party tw*t like Gordon Brown goes on about more devolution.  The most shameful was the 'vow' on the eve of the last Indyref which didn't even last until the morning after the referendum.

The London parties want a power duopoly where only the Tories and Labour ever get elected and all the decision makers live in London no matter who gets in.   The Tories are trying to remove powers from the Scottish Parliament, not give it more.  Having a Scottish Government which is manifestly more competent than they are and gives the media something to compare their nepotism and incompetence against is a constant embarrassment and annoyance to them.

The other parties haven't issued their manifestos yet. You can believe what you want now and decide now- your prerogative. I'm not. I'm waiting - it will be a very fast moving 6 months politically and responses may not be  as you think now or maybe they will.

The use of the word Imperial may have been a slightly provocative act, there are some in this parish who still believe the labour party has some resemblance to a left wing, progressive political party. But the empire is central to the Brittish exceptionalism sentiment that is being used to push a radical right wing agenda in England, and it will be used in the next referendum campaign. 

Your less dramatic alternative is not ours to command, we can only ask Westminster to allow it - how do you think that will go?

Do you remember The Vow? We were going to get "extensive new powers" for the Scottish parliament and a no vote would "deliver faster, safer and better charge than separation"

The Smith commission resulted in very little additional powers to the Scottish parliament, and now matters which would be devolved, were they not superceded by our membership of the EU, are to be brought back to Westminster, not Edinburgh.

Scotland wants to align it's standards with Europe - the government is passing legislation to ensure that can't happen, and that we will be forced to align our standards, accepting low animal welfare foodstuffs from the US (or anywhere else we strike trade deals with) for example. The NHS will not be exempt from those trade deals, and Scotland simply will not be able to continue to fund the NHS as the English system gets privatised, resulting in a reduction of the block grant.

A no vote had certainly delivered fast change - we've been dragged out of the world's largest trading bloc against our wishes. I for one don't believe that to be safer, nor better change.

https://ukandeu.ac.uk/more-powers-to-scotland-wales-and-northern-ireland-or...

interesting current legal position. Not quite as you say. I've got to counter a simplification/hyperbole that could be written on the side of a bus.

No you're right the manifestos are not out.

But for me it doesn't matter what's in the Labour, Tory and Lib Dem manifestos.  I really don't care because none of the three unionist party leaders has any credibility whatsoever.   Richard Leonard is a joke that his own party would get rid of if they could find someone else that wanted the job.  I can't even remember who runs the Scottish Lib Dems these days.  It doesn't matter anyway, their whole thing was being the pro-EU party and they gave that up.   If they give up on the EU then they'll give up on anything else in their manifesto so who cares what they say.

So there is the Tories and we have the linesman who won't give up his weekend job because he thinks he's going to lose his seat and every week comes up with another 500 million quid spending plan with no thought behind it or explanation as to how spending extra billions squares with his often repeated statement that Scotland has a terrible deficit.   Not that it matters what is in their manifesto because it only lasts until the boss in London says something different.

The Tories current strategy for winning votes is 'SNP Bad we are unionists and we support Rangers' (or as they say 'the Queen's eleven').

I'll refer you to the rest of my post. The government are currently passing legislation to ensure Scotland cannot in practice keep the standards that we currently enjoy unless England decides to follow the same path. Do you really believe that they will allow Scotland to have an equal say on the decisions that will be made, having legislated to ensure we are going to be bound by Westminster's path?

Yes, they are presenting a bill. But there is a Parliament in the way of it. Admittedly, not a proportionally elected one, which I object to.

Yes a bill is being presented to Parliament. There is a Parliament in the way of it, not  proportionally represented, I agree. My gripe. And the independence referendum ticket to be run in the  May  Scottish election should be taken very seriously.

Outcomes can't be determined at the moment as regards Brexit which is as yet unknown. Not just yet.

Parliament is in the way of nothing - the Tories have a massive majority and labour are whipping their MPs to abstain on abhorent legislation in order to avoid offending right wing nationalist english voters.

Whether or not I'll climb 9b this year can't be determined either, but I can take a pretty well educated guess.

If we wait for the outcome of brexit, all the signs point to economic damage and lowered standards of trade, human and animal rights, and of course massively reduced opportunities for our young people to live, study, work and settle abroad.

There is no Brexit bonus, unless you are a member of a select group of wealthy people.