By Matthew Pitt

The political heavyweights in Westminster are beginning to fathom the dire consequences of letting Alex Salmond build up unhindered his own arguments for Scottish separation.

His vision for Scotland’s future are rather catching and seem to hail in a new era of prosperity, growth and power for everyone. But pierce through the superficial shell of Salmond’s broad assertions and you quickly begin to realise that it rings rather hollow and is missing something fundamental. In other words, it lacks substance.

Take Scotland’s currency. The House of Commons Library has just published independent research (pdf) on the issue, which is published alongside this article for the first time and will be quoted throughout.

The SNP have moved in favour of keeping the sterling, with or without an agreement with the remnants of the UK, instead of issuing its own currency or using the euro. Known as the process of dollarization – or sterlingisation in this case – a separate Scotland would retain the pound either by way of a currency union or unilaterally. For now, I will focus on the latter option.

The most crucial part to understand about sterlingisation is that a separate Scotland, without a currency board, will have no control whatsoever over monetary and exchange rate policy. Salmond has been mistakenly pushing the argument that goes along the lines of:

‘The Bank of England has had independent control over monetary policy since 1998 and therefore will continue to take Scotland into account’.

Not so. The Bank of England is currently obliged to regard the effects its decisions will have on Scotland. Without Scotland being part of the UK and with no currency board, this will not apply. In other words, decisions that have an impact on Scotland will be taken in another country that is focused on stabilising the national economy, not the Scottish one.

Instead of actually attaining independence, a separate Scotland will ironically tie itself to the rest of the UK through the importation of the effects of monetary policies conducted by the Bank of England.

The independent Library research paper states that it is thereby “more directly and irrevocably exposed to instability in [the rest of the UK]” by sharing a currency and adhering to the decisions by the central bank on matters of inflation and interest rates.

One of the many issues that slippery Salmond continues to dodge that I wish to address is that of Scotland being left with no lender of last resort.

To take just one example, the Bank of England presently oversees the provision of short-term liquidity to failing banks – logically a rule that will not apply to banks in a State of Scotland. Acting as a poor replacement for a central bank, the only entity able to step in and rescue the banks from collapsing is the Scottish government itself.

Added to this, the financial services bill that is going through Parliament will allow the chancellor, under clause 57, to give directions to the Bank of England governor on matters of support for the financial system or companies where there is the potential involvement of public funds. Still think the Bank of England will step in?

Without power over monetary policy, the Library research paper points out that any such institution would be:

“Unable to respond to a crisis affecting the entire banking system because its inability to print money”.

Vitally, this obviously:

“Means [Scotland] cannot guarantee the whole payments system, or fully back bank deposits.”

Such impotence is underlined further by the report stating that the Government acting as the central bank:

“cannot be an unlimited lender of last resort and it can literally ‘run out of money’ to respond to crises”.

What this entails is that the absence of any lender of last resort will actually:

“in itself make a crisis more likely.”

It is almost unnecessary to point out that Scotland would be unable to bail out its banks, even if a minor financial crisis occurred – as was admitted by Salmond.

The Edinburgh-based Royal Bank of Scotland, an entity that Salmond actively encouraged to make the disastrous takeover of ABN Amro a reality, had to be bailed out during the financial crisis and exposed the UK government to a total of £187 billion, of which £129bn are toxic assets.

To make sense of this, the nominal GDP of Scotland in 2010 was about £111bn.

As Alistair Darling pointed out:

“The disaster that overtook the bank was made in Edinburgh not London”.

Instead of standing truly on its own two feet and forming its own destiny, a separate Scotland under Salmond will give up many powers that a ‘normal’ State enjoys.

It will put the country in danger of being incapable of responding to another financial crisis and being tied to monetary decisions made in another country that will have a direct effect on pensions, mortgages and savings.

See also:

• Credit rating agencies weigh in on independent Scotland – Alex Hern, February 6th 2012

• Polls apart? The news for the SNP might not be as good as it looks – Ed Jacobs, February 6th 2012

• Swinney on Scotland currency – more questions than he answers? – Ed Jacobs, February 2nd 2012

• Salmond’s Scottish referendum is a textbook example of a leading question – Alex Hern, January 27th 2012

• Questions multiply over financial status of an independent Scotland – Alex Hern, January 20th 2012

The three major credit ratings agencies have told the Financial Times that an independent Scotland would not be able to count on receiving a triple-A status, echoing doubts raised last month, but adding fuel to concerns that the agencies have too much unaccountable power.

Chris Giles, the FT’s economics editor, writes:

The three leading credit rating agencies - Standard & Poor’s, Moody’s and Fitch - indicated an independent Scotland would not automatically inherit the UK’s top-notch rating.

Scotland could expect to receive an investment grade rating, but some notches below triple A, one agency told the FT privately.

The agencies declined to comment publicly on the precise ratings Scotland could achieve because they do not undertake unsolicited ratings and the Scottish government has not yet sought a draft opinion.

Last month, Martin Wolf wrote for the paper that:

A newly independent small country with sizeable fiscal deficits, high public debt and reliance on a declining resource for 12 per cent of its fiscal revenue, could not enjoy a triple A rating.

The ratings agencies seem to be aware of the impropriety of commenting on such a hot-button political issue, however.

As the FT’s Alphaville blog points out, their excuse that “they do not undertake unsolicited ratings” doesn’t hold true:

[Unsolicited ratings] would be the way they are solicited for Italy, France… actually, the entire eurozone… the US and presumably most other sovereigns?

They have good reason to be so coy, however, with the Party of European Socialists being just the latest group to call for much tighter regulation to ensure that “democratic standards” of society are maintained.

As Left Foot Forward reported last month:

The president of the Party of European Socialists, Sergei Stanishev, of the Bulgarian Socialist Party, said:

A dozen anonymous analysists with no shred of legitimacy and a proven track record of gross inefficiency, effectively decided on Friday to make life much harder for millions of Europeans… This is an international scam that has to stop.

Either we accept the domination of CRAs and we continue to weaken our societies, or we rebuild democratic standards in our society.

The debate around Scottish independence needs to be held with every party being in full possession of the facts – but if the ratings agencies step in, they risk sounding less like they’re giving advice and more like they’re making threats. They seem to understand this fact, but all sides in the debate should be wary of making political capital out of unaccountable power.

See also:

• Polls apart? The news for the SNP might not be as good as it looks – Ed Jacobs, February 6th 2012

• Swinney on Scotland currency – more questions than he answers? – Ed Jacobs, February 2nd 2012

• Salmond’s Scottish referendum is a textbook example of a leading question – Alex Hern, January 27th 2012

• Salmond has questions to answer, because the evidence doesn’t support him – William Bain MP, January 24th 2012

• Questions multiply over financial status of an independent Scotland – Alex Hern, January 20th 2012

Scotland is speaking on the issue of independence. What they are saying however remains far from clear.

Sunday saw polling by Panelbase for The Sunday Times and Real Radio Scotland asking the same question as that being proposed by Alex Salmond, namely:

Do you agree that Scotland should become an independent country?

Based on this, 37 per cent of those questioned agreed with the statement, while 42 per cent disagree, with 21 per cent declaring themselves undecided. However, of those who argued that they were certain to vote, 47 per cent said they supported independence whilst 53 per cent were opposed.

In declaring her pleasure at the results, deputy first minister, Nicola Sturgeon declared:

After just the first few weeks of the referendum debate, it is abundantly clear that the positive approach towards Scotland’s future is winning over the negative approach from the anti-independence parties – with support for independence now neck-and-neck with opposition.

The poll shows that the people of Scotland are extremely positive about our future as an independent nation – if there was never any doubt that the anti-independence parties are out of touch with the mood of Scotland, this poll proves it.

Dig a bit deeper however and despite the rhetoric from the SNP, the numbers aren’t quite as rosy for them as Ms Sturgeon would suggest.

Polling since the new year, whilst showing significant support for independence, doesn’t yet seem to have achieved the break through the SNP would need if they were to succeed in their ambitions for Scotland.  The Herald meanwhile today carries details of a TNS-BMRB survey suggesting that any hint of a tide in favour of independence might, if it ever existed, have been fairly short lived.

Outlining the findings, Robbie Dinwoodie, the paper’s chief Scottish political correspondent writes:

TNS-BMRB had just started sampling on January 25 based on the wording it has used since the first SNP administration announced its referendum proposals in 2007. It offers two options: To agree that the Scottish government should negotiate with the UK so that Scotland becomes an independent state, or to disagree with that proposal.

The survey of 998 adults, between January 25 and February 1, indicated 35 per cent would vote Yes in agreement, down four points on last August, and 44 per cent would vote No, with 21 per cent undecided, down two.

The poll also repeated a three-option snapshot first taken in October 2011 asking for preferences between maintaining Holyrood’s existing powers, giving the parliament more powers, or full independence.

Support for the status quo has risen from 29 per cent to 32 per cent, backing for more powers has fallen from 33 per cent to 30 per cent, and backing for independence drops from 28 per cent to 26 per cent.

Chris Eynon, head of TNS-BMRB Scotland goes on to conclude:

“From the initial skirmishes, it would appear that the independence bandwagon has currently lost its momentum, in spite of the poll timing coinciding with the high-profile launch of the consultation in Edinburgh Castle on Burns Day.”

For those, including myself, who have long argued that Alex Salmond cannot be underestimated in what he is capable of achieving, today’s findings provide a crumb of comfort. It is beholden on those supporting the union now to provide a positive alternative, vision for the future of Scotland that does not rely solely on a negative critique of independence.

See also:

• Scottish independence would leave Trident dead – and the MoD don’t care – Kate Hudson, February 1st 2012

• The Week Outside Westminster – Answering the West Lothian question – Ed Jacobs, January 21st 2012

• Cameron got it wrong on Scotland, and he probably knows it – Ed Jacobs, January 10th 2012

• SNP: Cam’s “economic uncertainty” argument is nonsense; we’ll stick to our timetable – Humza Yousaf MSP, January 9th 2012

• Referendum on Scottish independence? Time to ‘bring it on’ – Ed Jacobs, June 5th 2011

To receive The Week Outside Westminster in your inbox, sign up to the email service

Northern Ireland

In the week that David McNarry declared himself to feel “abused” by the way he was dumped by UUP leader Tom Elliott, the Conservatives announced their plans to enter the world of Northern Irish politics on its own, a development which received a lukewarm reception at best.

In an editorial, the Newsletter argued:

“If the ‘new’ party is to survive then it will need a new and articulate team of spokesmen and candidates: and it really must be very careful not to become a refugee camp for disgruntled and electorally unsuccessful former members of the UUP.

“But the ultimate test will be the next round of elections. For if it doesn’t breach the eight per cent barrier and start winning seats it won’t be given a second chance to get it right.

“The brutal reality is that this really does represent the last - slightly desperate - throw of the dice for ‘Conservatives’ in Northern Ireland.”

Former UUP staffer Michael Shilliday, meanwhile, declared on the Slugger O’Toole blog:

“The Conservative Party has no hope in Northern Ireland without an existing local base, the best fit being the UUP. The UUP is visionless and increasingly rudderless without the Conservative Party (the real one that is, not what passes for it in Northern Ireland). Seems obvious what to do really.”

Amidst the on-going debate over the future of the Union, meanwhile, Sinn Fein deputy first minister Martin McGuinness argued that a referendum on whether the North wanted to join with the Republic could be held by as early as 2016.

Speaking to the Irish Examiner he concluded:

“It just seems to me to be a sensible timing. It would be on the question of whether or not the people of the Six Counties wish to retain the link with what is described as the United Kingdom, or be part of a united Ireland. It could take place anytime between 2016 or 2020-21.

“I don’t see any reason whatsoever why that should not be considered. I think, in all probability, the people who have got the power to put that in place won’t even contemplate it this side of the next Assembly elections, which conceivably could be 2015 or 2016.”

DUP MLA Peter Weir dubbed the remarks “unrealistic”.

Wales

Having received the most number of nominations for her campaign, Plaid Cymru Leadership hopeful Leanne Wood told of her aspirations for independence.

Writing in the Guardian, John Harris explained:

“Leanne Wood is rather different from most of the UK’s politicians.

“Forty years old and a mother of one, she still lives in the same street in the Rhondda Valley where she was born and brought up.

“She thinks the crash of 2008 should have “resulted in the rejection of capitalism and many of its basic economic and political assumptions”, and that the UK’s coalition amounts to a “hyper-competitive, imperial/militaristic, climate-change-ignoring and privatising government”.

“She is also a proud republican, who refuses to attend the kind of official events at which the Queen turns up, and was once thrown out of the Welsh Assembly for referring to the reigning monarch as “Mrs Windsor”. If any of this chimes with your general view of what’s wrong with the world, it’s fair to say that you’d like her.

“If Wood pursued her political career in Westminster, her opinions might ensure she was kept safely on the fringes. But in her home country, she is a high-profile voice - and the current favourite to take over the leadership of Plaid Cymru, the nationalist party who, until 2011, shared power in Wales with Labour.

“With the result due on 15 March, Paddy Power has 4-5 odds on to win; in her Cardiff office, there is a sense of quiet expectancy.

“The prospect of life as party leader is not the only reason for her air of energised enthusiasm.

“Being a senior Plaid Cymru figure, Wood believes in Welsh independence. And with Scotland set to vote on whether to stay part of the UK in 2014 and the future of the union being argued over as never before, Wood and her fellow Welsh nationalists think there is an unprecedented opening for the most fundamental of their beliefs.

“Certainly, if Scotland makes the leap and leaves a rump United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland (“Little Britain”, as it has recently become known), Wales’s marginal position will be self-evident: it will have 30 Westminster MPs to England’s 502, and bump against the political and economic dominance of the English south-east as never before.

“With that grim prospect on the horizon, Wood thinks these could be fertile times for her and her party.”

Health secretary Andrew Lansley, meanwhile, was snubbed by the Welsh government over demands that they let him know before the press, about their decision to fund both the removal and replacement of PiP breast implants.

In a letter seen by the BBC, Lansley wrote to Welsh health minister Lesley Griffiths:

“I would… like to take this opportunity to seek your assurance that in the future you will inform my department if the Welsh government decides to take a contradictory approach to a public health issue before we learn of it through the media, which was the case in relation to your comments regarding the replacement of PIP breast implants on the NHS.”

Responding, a spokesperson for the Welsh government declared:

“Andrew Lansley’s letter is arrogant and patronising. Behaving like devolution never happened flies in the face of the respect agenda so often talked about by the prime minister.”

Scotland

Ed Miliband used a speech in Glasgow to argue that social justice was best achieved with Scotland staying in the Union, arguing:

“I say let’s confront the real divide in our society.

“Not between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. But between the haves and the have-nots. So I am not here to tell Scots that Scotland cannot survive outside the United Kingdom. But I am here to tell you that we need to make Scotland, England, Wales, and Northern Ireland, a fairer, more just, place to live.

“And we can do this best together.”

Assessing the speech, George Eaton at the New Statesman wrote:

“Buoyed by his victory on Stephen Hester’s bonus (he accused Cameron of failing to act as a “responsible shareholder”), Miliband presented his own brand of social democratic Unionism.

“The crux of his argument was that “the real divide” in Britain is not between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom but between “the haves and the have-nots”. The task of creating a “more equal, just and fair society” is one best performed by the nations of the UK working together, he said.

“He spoke of the Scotsman who founded the Labour Party (Keir Hardie), the Englishman who led the “most successful Labour government” in history (Clement Attlee) and the Welshman (Nye Bevan) who founded the NHS.

“In his Hugo Young lecture last week, Alex Salmond argued that an independent Scotland could serve as a “progressive beacon” for the rest of the UK, but Miliband turned this claim on its head.

“Scottish secession, he warned, would trigger a “race to the bottom” on bank regulation, wages and conditions at work. For instance, citing the example of Ireland, Salmond has pledged to slash corporation tax should Scotland win fiscal autonomy.

“Perhaps partly for this reason, Miliband argued for a single-question referendum, excluding the possibility of a “devo max” option.

“There are some in Labour, citing Donald Dewar’s echoing of devolution as “a process, not an event”, who argue that the party should embrace devolution max, which is favoured by a majority of Scots, as a positive alternative to independence.

“The danger in leaving devo max off the ballot paper, they note, is that Scottish voters conclude that the only way to win fiscal autonomy is to vote for full independence. But Miliband, like Cameron, seems wedded to the high-risk option of a one-question referendum.”

As “Fred the Shred” this week lost the “Sir” to become “Mr Goodwin”, Alex Salmond outlined his regrets at previous support for him.

He told the BBC:

“If we all had our time again we’d look at things differently. I think there are very few people who can justifiably say that they anticipated the full extent of the financial collapse – the financial crisis.

“I mean I know some people claim they did but I think if you examine the record you’ll find there’s very few people on the planet – and I am certainly not one of them – who anticipated it.

“So, yeah, of course, if we had the benefit of hindsight we’d do things differently and I am sure that is true of lots and lots of people.”

Also this week:

• Sign up to receive our weekly summary of the news from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, The Week Outside Westminster

• Swinney on Scotland currency – more questions than he answers? – Ed Jacobs

• “She calls her town a ‘s***hole’”: Irish newspaper smears Polish migrants – Alex Hern

• Conservatives in Northern Ireland – what’s the point? – Ed Jacobs

• Scottish independence would leave Trident dead – and the MoD don’t care – Kate Hudson, CND

• McGuinness in Irish unity poll call – Kevin Meagher

• UUP infighting as McNarry says he feels “abused” and has been “kicked in the teeth” – Ed Jacobs

• Miliband to outline vision of a fairer Union – Ed Jacobs

Amidst the ongoing air of crisis in Brussels over the future of the Euro, John Swinney is this evening expected to rule out an independent Scotland joining in the euro for at least a decade.

Publishing extracts of his lecture at the David Hume Institute in Edinburgh the Scotsman reports that the Scottish finance secretary will say to those gathered:

“I can’t foresee a set of circumstances that will see the economic conditions being correct for the euro for some considerable time. It would be difficult to define that but it feels neither to me like the short term or the medium term.”

In reiterating the SNP’s policy that independence should mean Scotland should retain sterling as its currency with the Bank of England as its central bank, Mr Swinney, the Scotsman reports will outline how he is planning for a “lengthy and solid agreement” with the Bank of England as Scotland’s lender of last resort.

Meanwhile, seeking to make contrasts between an independent Scottish government and the economic path taken by the UK coalition, Swinney today argues in a guest piece for the Scotsman:

My vision of an independent Scottish economy is one in which monetary policy acts to underpin price and macroeconomic stability, supported by fiscal and economic flexibility to promote growth and create jobs. Price stability is the key to creating an environment that is conducive to trade, investment and economic growth.

Indeed, this is one reason why all major industrialised economies including the UK, the Eurozone, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the USA have established independent central banks with the core focus upon maintaining price stability.

Scotland would continue with such an arrangement post-independence in a sterling zone with the Bank of England responsible for monetary policy.

But monetary policy cannot directly tackle youth unemployment, promote innovation, boost skills, target overseas investment or promote investment in key sectors. To address these issues we need greater fiscal powers and an opportunity to use them.

This vision, he said, compares with George Osborne’s plans which, he declares are:

“Proving to be self-defeating with borrowing now rising.”

The finance secretary’s remarks come as Whitehall appears to be in some state of confusion about whether Scotland would or would not be able to keep the pound.

Speaking just last month to the BBC in Scotland, Scottish secretary Michael Moore made clear that he did not see any legal problem with Scotland maintaining sterling. This as George Osborne gave an implicit threat to ban Scotland from keeping the pound.

Assessing Swinney’s thinking on the issue meanwhile, the Scotsman’s editorial has argued that his remarks raise more questions than they answer, concluding:

The more we learn of the Nationalists’ plans for an independent Scotland, the less we know for sure.

That is the only conclusion to be drawn from the interview with finance secretary John Swinney, which we publish today. Mr Swinney, a respected figure less prone than some colleagues to resort to the politics of assertion, has revealed significantly more about the SNP’s economic thinking. But for every answer, more questions arise.

Take the issue of the currency Scotland would adopt after independence. We learn, surprisingly, that the SNP believes Scotland will be part of the sterling zone for at least a decade.

On the face of it, this is welcome clarity with Mr Swinney ruling out any attempt to join the eurozone and stressing his determination to bring certainty and financial stability to a newly- independent Scotland.

Yet this attempt not to scare the unionist horses raises further policy questions. What will Scotland’s relationship with the Bank of England be exactly? How will it interact with and influence what will in effect become a mini-European Central Bank, the central bank for the nations of the former United Kingdom?

See also:

• Scottish independence would leave Trident dead – and the MoD don’t care – Kate Hudson, February 1st 2012

• Miliband to outline vision of a fairer Union – Ed Jacobs, January 30th 2012

• Salmond’s Scottish referendum is a textbook example of a leading question – Alex Hern, January 27th 2012

• Questions multiply over financial status of an independent Scotland – Alex Hern, January 20th 2012

• SNP: Cam’s “economic uncertainty” argument is nonsense; we’ll stick to our timetable – Humza Yousaf MSP, January 9th 2012

In a speech in Glasgow later today, Ed Miliband will seek to go beyond the process-driven debate over independence for Scotland, seeking to make a positive case for Scotland to remain within the Union.

In a direct response to first minister Alex Salmond – who last week used the Hugo Young Lecture to argue social progress north and south of the border would best be achieved by enabling an independent Scotland to become a “beacon for progressive opinion” – Miliband will say:

“I say let’s confront the real divide in our society. Not between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. But between the haves and the have-nots.

“So I am not here to tell Scots that Scotland cannot survive outside the United Kingdom. But I am here to tell you that we need to make Scotland, England, Wales, and Northern Ireland, a fairer, more just, place to live. And we can do this best together.”

Speaking of his “humility” at the scale of the task confronted by Scottish Labour, the Leader of the Opposition will add:

“I come here today with humility about the scale of challenge for Labour – just nine months after we lost the Scottish elections.

“With admiration for Johann Lamont – the first leader of Scottish Labour – who has shown she understands the scale of the challenge and Labour’s need to change. And with determination to play my part supporting her in the long campaign for the United Kingdom.”

Miliband will deliver his speech following a weekend of yet more debate and discussions over Scotland and its future.

* Speaking to the Sunday Mail in Scotland, former chancellor Alistair Darling gave the biggest hint so far that he is ready to take a leading role in the campaign against independence, declaring:

“I am ready to do everything I can. It is something I believe in. I am passionate about this.”

* The Scottish Sunday Express carried a poll showing 51% of people in Scotland support independence, coming days after the New Statesman put the ‘yes to independence’ campaign just one percentage point behind those against.

* After Alex Hern wrote on Left Foot Forward on Friday of Alex Salmond’s proposed referendum question being a “textbook example of a leading question”, the Daily Record said of polling it had commissioned:

“We tested two different questions asking if Scotland should be independent.

“Support for independence was just 36 per cent using a Labour version which asked: ‘Do you want Scotland to be an independent country or not?’

“But it rose to 46 per cent when we posed Salmond’s proposed question: ‘Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?’”

* Salmond’s vision of an independent Scotland attracting global investors with ultra-low corporation tax was dismissed as “a fantasy”.

Quoted in the Herald, Professor John Kay, who served on the first minister’s Council of Economic Advisers during the last Parliament declared:

“No-one is going to allow Scotland to have a low corporation tax. That’s just a fantasy.

“If Scotland’s an independent country, the EU will not allow it. It’s a non-starter. What has happened on corporation tax is Ireland has this low rate and everyone around the EU is determined that that should never happen again.

“So Scotland would have to negotiate EU membership – it wouldn’t be difficult, everyone’s going to have Scotland as a member – but you can be absolutely sure that one of the conditions is that you don’t have a 12.5% corporation tax rate.

“Since a fuss has been made in Scotland about doing that, it would be inevitable that you would get the determination on the part of the Europeans that you do not have it.”

See also:

• Salmond’s Scottish referendum is a textbook example of a leading question – Alex Hern

• Progressives need a positive vision for Scotland – Ed Jacobs

• Déjà vu as Scottish referendum campaign turns nasty – Mike Morgan-Giles

• Salmond has questions to answer, because the evidence doesn’t support him – William Bain MP

• Hughes makes the case for an English Parliament as Salmond faces fresh scrutiny – Ed Jacobs

To receive The Week Outside Westminster in your inbox, sign up to the email service

The Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) published research (pdf) this week pointing to a growing sense of grievance in England to the devolved nations.

Summing up the results, IPPR director Nick Pearce concluded:

“English identity is on the rise and it is increasingly expressed in terms that are resentful of the devolution settlement… Our mainstream political parties need to embrace Englishness.”

Scotland

Another week and the same issue continued to dominate Scottish politics, as the Alex Salmond independence band wagon continued at speed.

Having used the Hugo Young Lecture on Tuesday to argue that an independent Scotland would provide a “beacon of progressive opinion” for the rest of the UK, Burns Night saw the Scottish government publish its consultation on a referendum.

With polling for the New Statesman pointing to those in favour of independence being just one per cent behind those against, the Herald’s editorial on Thursday concluded:

“This consultation document and its Westminster cousin offer a vital opportunity to test public opinion on this most compelling of matters: the future of the United Kingdom and Scotland’s relationship with its constituent parts.

“It has suited the Westminster government to cast doubt on the credibility of a plebiscite organised by the Scottish government.

“The true test of that credibility, however, now lies with Mr Salmond. Having opened his proposals to public consultation, he and his Government must take on board the comments and criticisms and heed the will of the Scottish people whose interests he holds so dear.

“Scottish Labour’s new leader Johann Lamont made the point yesterday that the first minister does not speak for all the Scottish people. It is a valid point, given that he does not miss an opportunity to assert that the SNP expresses the will of Scots. Yet, until today’s New Statesman survey, the polls had continued to show that a minority favour independence.

“Mr Salmond has had his first big say. The opposition parties at Holyrood must now engage in making a positive case for the Union. There is a will to make sure that the referendum is legal, fair and decisive.

“It can be so as long as many people as possible make their views during the consultation period. The opportunity must be seized so that there is no room for dubiety or dispute when the people of Scotland take part in the most momentous vote in 300 years.”

At the Guardian, meanwhile, the paper’s Whitehall correspondent, Polly Curtis sought to establish how fair the SNP’s proposed question (Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?) was.

She explained:

“The experts I heard from don’t believe that the SNP’s question is the fairest phrasing on the question.

“Asking people to agree with something is more likely to elicit a positive response than asking them to disagree. The emerging “no” campaign would prefer to campaign on a question that asks people whether they would like Scotland to remain in the union – their favoured outcome. For the same reasons, this also wouldn’t be the fairest option.

“The fairest way would be to give the two options – independence or remaining in the union – and let people decide.

“However, John Curtice said that the phrasing of the question in this referendum is unlikely to have a very profound impact. Phrasing is far more important on issues that people don’t understand the ins and outs of, such as the AV referendum. With the Scottish referendum on independence people are likely to be well versed in the debate.”

Elsewhere, independent MSP Margo MacDonland reignited the debate over assisted suicide by reintroducing a bill on Tuesday to allow it in Scotland.

Summing up the difficulties the proposals will cause, the Herald wrote on Wednesday:

“With the exception of abortion, it is hard to think of a more emotive and contentious area of public debate and medical ethics than assisted dying.The rest of life demands of us few more agonising choices than those surrounding birth and death.

“In late 2010 Margo MacDonald’s end of life assistance bill was rejected by 85 votes to 16 at Holyrood. Yet yesterday the Independent MSP was back in the chamber with a new bid to legalise assisted suicide.

“Her return to this issue, so soon after her first bill was so decisively rejected, testifies to her impressive campaigning zeal on this issue, a zeal intensified by her own Parkinson’s diagnosis.

“It is also a reflection of the way the ground is shifting in this debate. With new members making up one-third of the Scottish Parliament and opinion polls suggesting growing support for the right to be helped to die, it would be a mistake to write off her chances of success this time around.”

Wales

First minister Carwyn Jones used a press conference to distance himself from Ed Miliband’s support for a cap on public sector workers pay.

Arguing that such a policy would be fundamentally unfair, he told journalists:

“I think it’s absolutely crucial that people see that those who are paid the most in financial services, those who the public believe were responsible for our current economic difficulties, pay their fair share as well.

“I don’t believe that this is being done and as a result I think it’s very difficult to say to those who work in the public sector, who didn’t cause the economic difficulties, that we have to bear the brunt of pay cuts when it isn’t happening in those sectors which are more appropriate.”

As the Scottish parliament grappled with the issue of assisted suicide, in Wales leaders of the main Christian denominations made clear their objections to the government’s proposals for a system of presumed consent for organ donation.

Outlining their fears, the Archbishop of Wales, Dr Barry Morgan, George Stack, the Catholic Archbishop of Cardiff, and The Very Reverend Archimandrite Father Deiniol, of the Wales Eastern Orthodox Mission, argued:

“Pastors, theologians and church leaders of all denominations agree that offering organs for donation is a significant act of charity, and a reflection of God’s freely-given love and care for us, including the gift of life.

“The positive ethos of donation as a free gift is endangered by an ill-judged if well intentioned proposal to move from voluntary donation to presumed consent.

“It is of extreme concern that while responses are being invited on the proposals in the white paper, the central proposal, which is the shift from donation to presumed consent, is presented as a fait accompli.

“There is a real danger that a change in the law would alienate a significant proportion of the public and undermine the positive image of organ donation and the reputation of Wales.”

Responding to the concerns, health minister Lesley Griffiths argued:

“We have made great progress in Wales in increasing the number of actual donors. However, there is still a shortage of organs and this is something the Welsh government wants to change by introducing a new way of making a person’s wishes known.

“International evidence shows organ donation has risen in other countries which have opt-out systems. I believe introducing a soft opt-out system in Wales, together with an ongoing public awareness campaign, will help increase the number of organs available.”

Northern Ireland

After it was claimed that the UUP and DUP had held secret meetings over a possible merger, one DUP strategist and blogger argued for a debate about the potential for such a move.

Writing in the Newsletter, Lee Reynolds, a councillor for north Belfast, concluded:

“Unionism has two electoral challenges - falling turnout and the need to expand its electoral base beyond its traditional community (without alienating the existing base).

“There is the political challenge of making Northern Ireland a beacon of political, social and economic success within the Union and regaining the global presence it once enjoyed. None of these tasks are easy.

“There are also shifts in voter attitude going on among the electorate that unionism needs to be conscious of.

“The present structures, relationships and attitudes among the unionist parties have been shaped by the peace process. Northern Ireland’s politics has begun to move on from the politics of the peace process.

“As we look forward to the centenary of Northern Ireland in 2021, would focusing our efforts on these challenges and changes not produce greater benefits for the Union and unionism than finding arguments for the sake of them?

“Unionist unity could be an opportunity to create something new and better. This is its litmus test. If after a thorough, intense and constructive debate the conclusion is that we can create something better then we should proceed.

“If it doesn’t then we shouldn’t. The debate itself is something no unionist or anyone else in Northern Ireland should be fearful of.”

In a sign of further progress meanwhile, Sinn Fein deputy first minister Martin McGuinness declared that he still hadn’t ruled out the possibility of meeting the Queen.

Reflecting on her visit to Dublin last year, he told BBC Ulster’s “Inside Politics” programme:

“I’ve made it clear that the visit of Queen Elizabeth of Britain to the south, was something that we looked at with considerable interest.

“And I think the fact that she was prepared to recognise the importance of the Irish language; that she was prepared to stand in a very dignified way to honour those patriots who struggled in 1916 to bring about a free and independent 32-county Irish Republic, that made an impact upon me.

“So that’s an issue that I will ponder and I wouldn’t rule anything out.”

Also this week:

• Sign up to receive our weekly summary of the news from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, The Week Outside Westminster

• Regressive of the week: Alex Salmond – Shamik Das

• Salmond’s Scottish referendum is a textbook example of a leading question – Alex Hern

• Progressives need a positive vision for Scotland – Ed Jacobs

• Déjà vu as Scottish referendum campaign turns nasty – Mike Morgan-Giles

• Salmond has questions to answer, because the evidence doesn’t support him – William Bain MP

• Hughes makes the case for an English Parliament as Salmond faces fresh scrutiny – Ed Jacobs

On Wednesday afternoon, Alex Salmond announced that the question the SNP would put to the Scottish people on 24 June 2014, the 700th anniversary of the battle of Bannockburn, would be:

Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?

As many picked up on, this question is may be “simple, straightforward and clear”, but it’s not quite as fair as Salmond suggests it is. By phrasing the question as “do you agree…” rather than the more neutral options of “do you agree or disagree…” or simply using “should”, there is likely to be a small but significant increase in the amount of people voting yes.

Time and time again, textbooks on survey construction warn against phrasing questions the way the SNP have, because it will lead to biased responses.

The CDC lists leading questions in its catalog of survey biases (pdf):

Different wording of the same question can guide or direct respondents toward a different answer… The preferred phrasing is, “Do you agree or disagree that . . . ?”

Taylor-Powell (1996) writes:

Biased questions influence people to respond in a way that does not accurately reflect their positions. A question can be biased in several ways:

(1) when it implies that the respondent should be engaged in a particular behaviour;

(2) when the response categories are unequal or loaded in one direction;

(3) when words with strong positive or negative emotional appeal are used, such as “freedom,” “equality,” “boss,” “bureaucratic,” etc.

Here are some examples of biased questions:…

3. Do you agree that funding for Extension in your county should be increased?…

This is a leading question. A better question would state:

Do you agree or disagree that Extension funding should be increased?

And Janes (1999) warns questioners against leading questions, saying:

Let them tell you what they think.

Salmond is not the first referendum writer to phrase his question thus, however.

The wonderfully obfuscated question asked of Quebec in 1995 read:

Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Quebec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?

While the question which decided Malta’s accession to the EU was:

Do you agree that Malta should become a member of the European Union in the enlargement that is to take place on 1 May 2004?

What else do these referendum questions have in common? They were all written by the group campaigning for a yes vote. The question may still be simple, straightforward and clear, but it’s looking less and less likely that it’s fair.

See also:

• Progressives need a positive vision for Scotland - Ed Jacobs, January 26th 2012

• Hughes makes the case for an English Parliament as Salmond faces fresh scrutiny - Ed Jacobs, January 23rd 2012

• Win or lose, Scottish independence referendum heralds a revolution in UK politics - Ed Jacobs, January 16th 2012

• SNP: Cam’s “economic uncertainty” argument is nonsense; we’ll stick to our timetable - Humza Yousaf MSP, January 9th 2012

• Referendum on Scottish independence? Time to ‘bring it on’ - Ed Jacobs, June 5th 2011

Sign up to our weekly “Week Outside Westminster” email service summarising the week’s news from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland

As 2012 began the prospect of Scottish independence seemed a distant thought, relegated by the SNP to a mere promise to hold a vote sometime in the second half of the current Scottish Parliament. Having indicated on the Andrew Marr programme just a matter of weeks ago that he wanted a vote sooner rather than later, little could David Cameron have imagined the speed with which the details of an independence referendum would be revealed.

In the space of just a few short weeks, we now have a date for the vote, Autumn 2014, and after yesterday’s announcements from Alex Salmond a suggested question; a proposed electorate; a pledge that the Electoral Commission will oversee the vote; and suggested spending limits for the campaign.

Indeed, we now also know that the SNP’s preference is to keep the pound and establish a Scottish Defence Force.

All of a sudden, independence is no longer an abstract idea, but a very real decision for Scotland to take. And if the latest polling, surveyed straight after the publication of the Scottish government’s consultation, is to be believed, those in favour of an independent Scotland are now just 1 percentage point behind those favouring the Union.

Make no mistakes about it, the game is on.

Yet for all the bluster from the SNP about full independence, as Professor John Curtice has pointed out in the Scotsman, the long term polls show that Salmond et al have a mountain to climb if those south of the border will be needing to wave their passports as they past Hadrian’s wall. Hence Salmond’s calls for the option known as “devo max” to be included on the ballot paper as an option.

Whilst recognising Matt Gwilliam’s argument on Left Foot Forward that the option opens a whole can of words, it would seem a travesty not to use this as an opportunity to settle Scotland’s future for a generation, once and for all.

The argument against has largely been around the idea that the option isn’t viable as:

a) It’s a simple front for Salmond to save face, knowing independence is unlikely; and

b) That, as Labour have argued, it is best to clear up the issue of independence and then consider further powers under devolution.

It has to be wondered, however, how Scotland’s economy would react to still more uncertainty about what powers Holyrood may or may not have. Salmond was right to argue Scotland is faced with the most important decision it has made for centuries. It would be perverse then to exclude from the debate the option which clearly has majority support from the people of Scotland.

The New Statesman’s figures themselves show that 51% of Scots support the option compared with 32% who do not, and as John Curtice argues:

“YouGov, ICM and Survation all find that more or less as many people think the referendum should take place this year or next year as reckon it should not take place before 2014.

“Equally, although Survation reports that half the Scottish public feel the referendum should ask about both independence and devo-max while only just over a third feel the choice should be confined to independence, YouGov find support for the two forms of ballot to be more or less evenly balanced.”

Political fall back it might be for Salmond, but the numbers clearly show that Scotland wants the option of devo max. If the “respect” agenda is to mean anything and if the referendum is to be truly Scottish-led, the voices of Scotland need to be heard.

What is more, for progressives in favour of the Union, it is Devo Max that provides potentially the best source of common ground around which they can unite to support a positive vision for the future of Scotland. Already the Liberal Democrats have indicated support for “Home Rule” whilst the former Labour first minister, Henry McLeish, has pledged to lead the campaign for this option, echoing support for it voiced by the senior Scottish Labour Peer and former MSP, Lord Foulkes.  

Progressives against independence need a way out. They need to be able to tap into the deep-rooted hostility across Scotland to the Conservatives currently fuelling their desire to run things themselves away from the nasty, regressive, savage Cameron-led government.

Devo max is the way out for them to provide a positive vision for Scotland and its people, and as Martin Kettle in the Guardian has concluded:

“It is understandable for supporters of home rule, not just in Scotland, to be squeamish about engaging whole-heartedly with a process shaped by formidably effective separatists like the SNP under the leadership of a man whose hero is Parnell. But it could also be disastrous to stand aside from it.

“The home rule option could open the door to a wide-ranging British democratic revival, of which directly elected mayors would also be part. Civic Scotland, and civic Britain, need to engage with that home rule alternative, to define it, refine it, promote it and assert some shared ownership of it. This is big stuff for all of us, as Wales’s first minister Carwyn Jones has been quick to grasp.

“The short three months’ consultation that Salmond has announced is a vital period. But it does not matter for the SNP government and Scotland alone.

“It also matters profoundly for the rest of the United Kingdom, which may eventually have to come to terms with the wider implications of the home rule option that Scotland now seems increasingly likely to choose.”

See also:

• Déjà vu as Scottish referendum campaign turns nasty – Mike Morgan-Giles, January 25th 2012

• The Week Outside Westminster – Sending Osborne to save the Union – Ed Jacobs, January 14th 2012

• It’s time to get real over threat to the union – Ed Jacobs, January 9th 2012

• Scottish Labour needs to wake up to the threat of independence – Ed Jacobs, October 17th 2011

• The five steps to Scottish independence – Professor Robert Hazell, May 7th 2011

First minister Alex Salmond unveiled the Scottish government’s referendum plans today, saying the period in the run-up to the independence vote would be the “most exciting in Scotland’s modern history”; Left Foot Forward’s Mike Morgan-Giles looks ahead to the campaign

The general concept of holding a referendum does seems particularly appealing, given it gives genuine decision-making power to the people on major issues. Yet after the fiercely fought – and some, myself included, would say nasty – referendum campaign on a new electoral system last year, it seems a sense of déjà vu is upon us once again with the Scottish campaign.

The NO2AV campaign was littered with lies, damn lies and statistics.

The posters they used during the campaign had images of babies lying ill in hospitals, using these spurious and emotive pictures to link AV with reduced healthcare spending. They even deliberately misrepresented the amount AV would cost to implement on their posters.

This campaign of misinformation really was a sign of a failure in democratic institutions. People only have the means to make a fair value judgement when they have accurate information, but sadly the lack of oversight in this case allowed for a perverse agenda to win through. The Electoral Commission should have been able to step in last year during the referendum campaign, but unfortunately lacked the powers to do so, as it only deals with political parties.

There are signs, however, that this approach has started again in Scotland.

For example, suggestions Scotland wouldn’t be able to set its own interest rates if it continued using the pound. Yet after Czechoslovakia split, two new currencies were used - the Czech Koruna and Slovak Koruna - with both countries having control over their own rates. However, it is not just the policy in the spotlight, with Jeremy Paxman even comparing Alex Salmond to Robert Mugabe on Newsnight last night.

Today, Salmond launched a formal public consultation on the dynamics of the 2014 referendum, despite earlier attempts by David Cameron to impose the rules of the game on the Scots himself.

The strong mandate of the SNP gives them complete legitimacy to consult the Scottish people and then organise the referendum themselves.

There is also simply no legal reason for an order has to be passed to make a Scottish independence referendum binding – unless of course the UK government itself intended to ignore the result, which would provoke a constitutional crisis. Rather, this is simply yet another attempt to shape the agenda from Westminster and undermine Salmond.

The UK government should more than most understand the right to self-determination, following invasions in recent years of places such as Kosovo, Iraq and Libya. It is difficult to understand how the government can justify intervention in others parts of the world in the guise of human rights and democracy, when it seeks to restrict Scotland’s own right to choose.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states “all peoples have a right to self-determination” and that “by virtue of that right they are free to determine their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development” - this is surely therefore the most important principle; indeed the world’s most recent nation state, South Sudan, was recognised quickly by the UK following its independence.

What we now need is a fair campaign, with the Scottish people deciding the rules, with a respected oversight body monitoring the campaign. After the farce of the electoral system referendum last year, another tainted campaign won’t speak volumes for fairness or democracy.

See also:

• Salmond has questions to answer, because the evidence doesn’t support him – William Bain MP, January 24th 2012

• Questions multiply over financial status of an independent Scotland – Alex Hern, January 20th 2012

• Win or lose, Scottish independence referendum heralds a revolution in UK politics – Ed Jacobs, January 16th 2012

• Cameron got it wrong on Scotland, and he probably knows it – Ed Jacobs, January 10th 2012

• SNP: Cam’s “economic uncertainty” argument is nonsense; we’ll stick to our timetable – Humza Yousaf MSP, January 9th 2012