CHANGING the wording of the question voters would be asked if there was a second Scottish independence referendum would be “very confusing”, the Constitutional Relations Secretary has said.
Michael Russell said there was a “clarity and consistency” to be gained from having the same wording as in the 2014 ballot, when people were asked: “Should Scotland be an independent country?”
He said because this question was “still current” there was no need for the Electoral Commission to test it if there is another referendum in 2020 – as First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has already proposed. The commission has made clear it “firmly recommends” it should provide its “views and advice to the Scottish Parliament on the wording of any referendum question”, regardless of whether it has previously done so.
Russell said this is not necessary, adding: “This is not a new question, this is a current question.
“It is still being asked. I can’t see why you would suddenly decide ‘oh we’d better brush this one down and have it tested again’. It’s still there, it’s still being asked, it’s current.”
READ MORE: Electoral Commission must mind its language over indyref2 question
He spoke out as he was being questioned by MSPs on Holyrood’s Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee as part of their consideration of the Referendums (Scotland) Bill – legislation introduced by Scottish ministers drawing up a framework for any future referendums.
Committee convener Graham Simpson suggested it would be “better” for the independent Electoral Commission to “make a ruling or recommendation” on the referendum question if there was a second vote on independence.
Fellow Tory MSP Alison Harris said: “Surely it would be more simple and a simple solution just to follow the recommendations of both the Electoral Commission and the Law Society and just basically require that a question must be assessed and the assessment to be put before the Parliament regardless of when that question was examined before.”
Russell disagreed, saying re-examining the question could “lead to endless repetition”.
He argued: “There is a clarity here that should be stuck with. I think if you have got a question that is still being used, is used on a monthly basis, I think frankly it is tautologist to say we had better examine that again. If you have got a fresh question, new question, new subject, of course you start afresh.”
READ MORE: First independence referendum question can be used for indyref2
Russell told MSPs: “In my thinking the question that was asked in 2014 remains a current question, it was a question that was approved in 2013 by the Electoral Commission.
“In fact, the question as it is phrased now is not the same question that he Scottish Government put in for testing ... there was a change to that question as a result of testing and the Scottish Government accepted that.
“That question then was used up until 2014 in every opinion poll and it has been used since then in over 50 opinion polls on independence.”
He added: “I think there is an issue of clarity and consistency. If a question is current and is in current usage, why would you change it, it would be very confusing to change it.”
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 hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel