DESPERATE Unionists have launched a petition with the Scottish Parliament aimed at insisting any future Yes vote on Scottish independence requires a two-thirds majority to pass.
Featuring figures from the Better Together campaign of 2014, Scotland Matters’ bid to block independence coincides with the advancement of the Scottish Government’s Referendums Bill.
The petition comes after a poll at the weekend showed a clear majority across Great Britain for holding a second independence referendum.
READ MORE: SNP's Ian Blackford hails ‘significant’ new support for indyref2 poll
A separate poll – conducted last month by Lord Ashcroft, former deputy chairman of the Conservative Party – put a Yes ahead of No by 46% to 43%. When don’t knows were removed, support for independence those backing independence rose to 52%.
READ MORE: Scottish independence soars ahead as Ashcroft poll predicts Yes win
Nicola Sturgeon has said she will seek from the UK Government in the coming months powers to hold a second independence referendum, with the plan to hold the vote in late 2020.
The petition launched by Scotland Matters claims that a two-thirds majority for constitutional change would avoid any dispute over a narrow result.
Scotland’s first attempt at securing devolution was backed by a majority of Scots but failed to pass due to the Cunningham amendment.
Brought by George Cunningham, the amendment required 40% of the registered, as well as a simple majority to pass. Despite 51.62% of ballots cast backed devolution, this equated to 32.9% of the registered electorate.
The petition, cited in a report to Holyrood’s constitution committee, says a two-thirds vote for change would avoid a disputed result.
It reads: “The narrow Brexit vote and ongoing difficulty of a British Government to negotiate and implement a settlement is an example of the problems resulting from deciding an issue on anything less than a substantial majority that gives a widely accepted mandate.
“Very few people questioned the 75/25 per cent result of the 1997 Scottish devolution referendum.”
Mark Openshaw, of Scotland Matters, said: “With the division and chaos caused by recent referendums, it’s time for our MSP’s to set the bar high enough for everyone to accept a result. Recent events prove the 50% plus one threshold is not enough.
“A two-thirds majority would put the result beyond doubt. There are precedents for such a system: the SNP itself needs a two-third benchmark for changes to its party constitution.”
Professor John Curtice dismissed the idea of a threshold last month, saying that any constitutional position opposed by a simple majority of people was unsustainable.
Mark Openshaw, of Scotland Matters, said: “With the division and chaos caused by recent referendums, it’s time for our MSP’s to set the bar high enough for everyone to accept a result. Recent events prove the 50 per cent plus one threshold is not enough.
“A two-thirds majority would put the result beyond doubt. There are precedents for such a system: the SNP itself needs a two-third benchmark for changes to its party constitution.”
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