INTRODUCING a super-majority in a second independence referendum would leave democracy in “tatters”, Michael Russell has warned.
The Constitutional Relations Secretary responded at FMQs to suggestions a two-thirds majority may be required for indyref2.
Unionist campaigners recently tabled a petition at Holyrood calling for such a threshold, but the Scottish Tories said they would not support that position.
After the issue was raised by SNP MSP Sandra White, Russell hit out at Unionist politicians and journalists for promoting a two-thirds minimum. Citing the 1979 devolution referendum, which did not pass because too few voters backed it, he warned of a potential “cheat”.
READ MORE: First Minister: Unionists 'wondering how they can rig' indy process
The SNP minister said: “A fundamental tenet of democracy is that one person’s vote is worth as much as anyone else’s. The suggestion of a super-majority would leave that principle in tatters.”
White said the Venice Commission on referendums, the advisory body on the Council of Europe, had warned a super-majority could encourage people not to vote.
Russell added: “I know that Tory-supporting journalists and indeed Tory MSPs are actively promoting a variety of issues in a referendum, including a variety of turnout requirements and quorums.
“The Venice Commission is entirely clear. A turnout quorum, threshold or minimum percentage is wrong because it assimilates voters who abstain with those who vote No, and an approval quorum, which is approval by a minimum percentage of registered voters risks involving a difficult political situation.
“If, for example, as of course happened in 1979, there is a simple majority, but an artificial, one might call cheat, applied by other people.”
Scottish Tory interim leader Jackson Carlaw said support for a super-majority was not party policy.
Russell said he was "delighted" to hear Carlaw outline that position.
He also criticised Scottish Tory MSP Murdo Fraser over a tweet sent on the fifth anniversary of the referendum last week, in which he wrote: "Leave/Remain and a two-thirds majority required. Bring it on", including a "wink face" emoji.
Fraser responded: "What a sensitive soul the Cabinet Secretary is. He clearly can't take a light-hearted comment on Twitter with a wink emoji as anything other than that.
"But isn't it true that this Government is running scared of having a fair referendum, running scared of having the Electoral Commission decide on the terms of the question?
"We don't want another independence referendum, the people of Scotland don't want another independence referendum but we can't have the SNP gerrymander one if there is to be one."
READ MORE: FMQs sketch: Richard Leonard confused by SNP's clear and neutral stance
Russell said: "What the people of Scotland want is to move forward from the extraordinary Tory-created chaos of Brexit and the opportunity to do so exists if the people of Scotland choose their own constitutional future.
"Anyone who stands in the way of that isn't a democrat."
Scottish Greens co-leader Patrick Harvie said: "If a supermajority procedure had been in place for the last five years, there would have been neither a mandate for independence, nor for staying in the UK, neither for leaving or remaining in the European Union.
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