CONFIRMATORY referendums should not always be required, Michael Russell told Scottish ministers in a discussion about how such ballots would take place.
The Constitutional Relations Secretary spoke after MSPs rejected a bid to ensure any future referendums on the constitution would need to have a second confirmatory vote.
He argued the legislation was designed to cover all possible future referendums and did "not seek to prescribe different referendum processes for particular subject matters".
Labour MSP Jackie Baillie's amendment to the Scottish Government's Referendums Bill was to ensure any future referendums on the constitution would need to have a second confirmatory vote. It was rejected by nine votes to two by MSPs on the Finance and Constitution Committee.
They voted down Baillie's amendment after Russell argued the legislation was designed to cover all possible future referendums and did "not seek to prescribe different referendum processes for particular subject matters".
Russell said "automatic second referendums are not required", although he did accept there could be case for them in situations such as the 2016 European referendum "where the information provided to voters was flawed" or "where circumstances have changed, where things are no longer what they were".
Baillie said she was "disappointed" the Scottish Government had not backed her amendment "given the very fulsome comments from the First Minister and the Cabinet secretary about a People's Vote".
She argued: "I do think it is slightly hypocritical to make the argument a second confirmatory referendum is required in the case of the EU, while at the same time insisting a major constitutional change in Scotland's status in the UK, in a much longer established union, wouldn't require that.
"Major constitutional issues, in my view, require consent based on what it would mean rather than a vague notion of simply taking back control.
"I would much rather run the risk of voter fatigue on substantial issues of constitutional change than make a change which would harm the country without consent."
With the committee considering the detail of the Referendums (Scotland) Bill, Scottish Greens co-leader Patrick Harvie made a call for the law to be changed so it would be an offence to make false statements during a referendum – as it already is during election campaigns.
"If we are going to have more referendums in Scotland in the future we should hold them to a higher standard," he said.
Russell said while the Green MSP has raised an "important issue" he could not support such changes to the legislation.
He warned the committee: "Regulating the truthfulness of campaign statements cannot be done effectively at this stage and cannot be done by these amendments.
"The likely outcome of this approach would be severe curtailment of freedom of speech."
Harvie withdrew his amendment but said he would "consider if there is another way to bring this debate to the chamber".
Conservative MSP Adam Tomkins also put forward an amendment that would, if passed, have required ministers, the Scottish Parliament, MSPs and public bodies to "respect decisions made by referendums".
He said: "I suppose it is an attempt to prevent referendums becoming what the Canadians once called 'neverendums', that referendum outcomes are somehow not determinative of the question which have been put to the people."
But he did not press this to a vote after Russell told the committee that as referendum results were "not always clear cut" there "needs to be space" for politicians to consider how to move forward.
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