RealNews

Wendy Alexander made a response to an interviewer's question concerning the SNP's desire for a referendum on Scottish Independence which implied that the SNP were scared of an immediate referendum on the issue. This has been interpreted in many ways including a rift with Westminster Labour policy. But the SNP leader Alex Salmond made the position on a referendum very clear when he launched the largely successful National Conversation. Alex Salmond admitted that he favours Scottish independence but that he respected the views of people with opposing positions. Indeed, the National Conversation was meant to provide a forum for people to review matters over a reasonable period leading up to a possible referendum in 2009 or 2010. Given the importance of the topic with UK implications, this approach is reasonable.

Alexander's judgement that people can take a snap referendum on a topic which has not been sufficiently analysed would be the height of irresponsibility. Naturally the Labour, Liberal Democratic and Conservative parties rest assured that a snap referendum would not support Scottish independence and therefore discredit the SNP. This is the typical mindset of British politicians who prefer a brash contest with muddy information as a basis for getting their own way. The issue of Scottish independence is too serious an issue to become a football of political parties and yet in taking the position she did, Wendy Alexander reduced the issue to apparent irrelevance.

Let us be plain. It does not matter if one is in favour of independence or against independence the issue if so important and the implications so significant that anyone who equates this process to a game of snap is not understanding the level importance the people of Scotland give this topic. It is the case that British political parties do tend to see issues in terms of a tactical game to advance their power relative to other political parties, even if this means debasing the quality of participaion afforded the electorate. Therefore, as the leader of Scottish Labour, Wendy Alexander's statements are to be as expected as they are to be deplored.

Many politicians respond to this accusation that the National Conversation and a referendum is a "waste of time" because the electorate does not support independence. Such people do not appear to have fully appreciated that the process of a National Conversation, in itself and whatever the outcome, will leave the people of Scotland far better informed on the issues.

"The people of Scotland and the United Kingdom must be provided with the time to identify and assess the wider range of options which exist. A rush to a decision on a limited range of options is unacceptable. Being an issue of constitution we are addressing issues of society, representation, the economy and the expectations of the community conscience as to where we as a people wish to go. Those who would wish to manage this process, the political parties, are not the best equipped to undertake this mission. This is a mission of the people strengthened by direct participation and the review of options identified at some distance from partisan qualifications and judgement. On this basis I have no doubt that the people will make the right decision."

Hector McNeill

Alex Salmond and his party have cut through the traditional approach of setting up a commission or review with limited terms of reference and restricted input and have opened up the process to be one which is fully participatory. Salmond has recently decided that the SNP office holders will travel the country in the summer as a further step for his group to engage more effectively and to hear about issues.

Limited options

When the National Conversation was announced by Alex Salmond the main UK parties reacted in an inappropriate manner by not participating and, indeed, deciding to set up their own review. It is not clear what this review will address. In the meantime a separate review series under the title "The Scotland Effect" was initiated last year as a private initiative by SEEL (Systems Engineering Economic Lab) as a contribution to the National Conversation. This should have reported ¹ at the end of last year but has been delayed because the range of issues which need to be covered with an adequate level of detail and careful analysis is far greater and more extensive than the main political parties and, perhaps, the SNP had imagined. For example, the SNP paper introducing the National Conversation identified three options for Scotland as being a continuation of the current devolutionary arrangement, a strengthened devolution or complete independence.

Far more feasible options

The SEEL study has identified far more options. Hector McNeill, Director of SEEL and who is managing the study, says that the SNP shortlist is too simplistic. The original focus of "The Scotland Effect" was the topic of fiscal autonomy because SEEL has considerable experience in economic modelling and analysis. McNeill says that once the participatory needs of both the public as well as business, what he calls the economic constituency, are identified outside the confines of the political party process, the range of rational options expands significantly because, for example, it is necessary to analyse the interactions of macroeconomic policy and fiscal policy (revenue raising). In following this "political party neutral" pathway one ends up with a far larger range of options for Scotland, and indeed, the whole of the United Kingdom.

Constitution is about people, not political parties

McNeill explains that if one attempts to consider the referendum as a choice between variants of "as is" and "independence" then one falls into the typical confrontational trap created by British politicians aiming to advance the power of their party. Since this is a constitutional issue, politicians therefore think it is a political - read political party - issue. In reality being a constitutional issue it is therefore fundamnetally an issue of how to better identify a system which upholds the individual preferences of the population. Responding to this expressed desire is a way to uphold the individual freedom of expression of the people. The process becomes the basis for securing the expression of the sovereignty of the people. This has significant implications for participatory models as well as economic management approaches. The identification of options is therefore an unavoidably complex process of defining constitutional settlements which can reduce the perverse outcomes resulting from intended and unintended outcomes of political decisions in such areas as legislation and macroeconomic policy. Part of the problem is a lack of ready access on the part of the electorate to good information as well as knowledge about all feasible options upon which to base decisions. Therefore the processes of decision analysis need to be embedded in the constitutional model.

McNeill says he expects the initial draft to be ready by 12th May, 2008 and release within the following week.

Concerning timing, McNeill considers any referendum would be best left to 2009 or 2010 since the range of issues to be considered is large. By holding a snap referendum as hinted by Wendy Alexander, the people of Scotland and indeed, the UK, would be robbed of the opportunity to explore extremely interesting options. McNeill considers that even although the National Conversation was launched by the SNP who have a declared a specific party agenda, it has been welcomed by most people as an opportunity to review options. According to reports and CybaCity, the levels of interest in politicis in Scotland have rocketed as a result. McNeill considers this to be exactly the type of environment where people are more open to an objective review and analysis of a large range of interesting options.

¹ Last year SEEL produced an exploratory Part I to "The Scotland Effect" but the final report Part 2 contains considerably more analysis and detail.

7th May, 2008
Updated: 8th May to include footnote.