THE indyref has failed to deliver a “decisive” verdict on how Scotland should be governed, contrary to the hopes of the UK Government, according to a leading academic.
Professor John Curtice, of the University of Strathclyde, has said that a year on from the referendum, voters “lack enthusiasm” for the Smith Commission proposals, yet it was not clear that a majority would vote Yes in a second referendum.
His report, Scotland, One Year On, concludes: “Scotland faces the potential prospect of being governed under a constitutional settlement that few love, but to which there does not seem to be an alternative.”
Since the referendum, Curtice said, the Unionist parties had begun to legislate for extending devolution, yet had so far “failed to develop much support, let alone enthusiasm” for it.
“The SNP, meanwhile, find themselves a significant player at Westminster – and thus in Britain-wide political debate – for the first time in their history, yet are left with the awkward question of whether they can contemplate risking a second throw of the referendum dice,” he said.
The paper gives an account of how Scotland’s constitutional debate has evolved since the referendum and how public opinion has reacted.
Curtice looks in depth at the Smith Commission, trends in support for independence and the SNP, and at moves to introduce English Votes for English Laws (Evel).
He said there were two serious impediments to the ability of the Smith Commission plans to offer Scotland a more stable constitutional settlement.
“First, more devolution is an issue on which public opinion is not wholly consistent – willingness to take on powers seems more widespread than readiness to accept responsibility for funding them. No settlement is likely to prove stable until this tension is resolved,” he said.
“Second, not only are the proposals seemingly little known, but also the impression that has been formed in many people’s minds is that they are inadequate.”
Curtice added it was surprising that the Unionist parties had not contemplated putting Smith’s proposals to voters in a referendum.
He said: “Quite why the advocates of more devolution in Scotland should want to eschew the possibility of demonstrating public support for their answer to the country’s constitutional debate is far from clear. Their reluctance certainly gives the impression that they are more interested in elite manoeuvring than in matching the ability of the SNP to develop a popular movement.”
The report – published by the David Hume Institute (DHI) and the Strathclyde’s International Public Policy Institute (IPPI) – will be discussed at an event in Glasgow on the eve of the indyref anniversary.
Curtice will be joined on the panel by Sir Harry Burns, former chief medical officer for Scotland, Sally Brown, Professor Emeritus in the School of Education at the University of Stirling, and Professor Richard Kerley, editor of Scottish Policy Now and chair of the Centre for Scottish Public Policy.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here