THE refreshed prospectus on independence would be better written by campaigners than civil servants, a political scientist has argued.
Anthony Salamone, managing director of political analysis firm European Merchants, said the papers which had been published so far were “vague” and “non-committal”.
At an event in Edinburgh, he suggested the documents would have been “less bland” if they had been written by a campaign body or the party.
The Scottish Government has so far published three papers outlining its vision for independence, covering topics including making the case for leaving the UK by using comparisons with other European countries and arguments around renewing democracy.
READ MORE: Our year-long subscription – at a price you can afford – is ALMOST over
The most recent document, unveiled by First Minister Nicola Sturgeon last month, outlined the currency and economic plans for an independent Scotland.
It is understood a team of 22 civil servants have been tasked with drawing up the prospectus, with further papers expected in the coming months.
Salamone said while the series was “far from complete”, there was plenty of material on which to assess the “current state of the revised case for independence”.
He said the papers were often “vague and non-committal”, arguing this was partly due to “political decisions”.
But he added: “It could also reflect in part that civil servants – with ministers and special advisers obviously involved - have written these papers.
“Pros and cons come with publishing the prospectus through the Scottish Government, instead of a political party or a campaign body.”
Salamone said this included that the papers were “blander” than otherwise might have been.
He added: “In my assessment, it would be better for proposals to be written and published by proponents of independence, not outsourced to civil servants whose function is to deliver public policy in the present.”
However Salamone acknowledged there were also “inherent challenges” in producing such a prospectus, as no government could promise with certainty what a state might look like in the future.
He pointed out that the Government could change after independence, which could render any current proposals obsolete.
“In any independence referendum, whether it be 2014 or in the future, voters must decide based on incomplete information, that is the nature of constitutional change,” he added.
READ MORE: Scottish independence: The key points from Nicola Sturgeon's 'scene setter'
But he argued the prospectus could focus more on answering major questions on independence, rather than attempting to be a “neutral provider of information”.
“This Government wants Scotland to become an independent state and the entire purpose of this prospectus is to further that objective,” he said.
“It would make far more sense for the Scottish Government to acknowledge those realities and present a prospectus which is open about them and which provides its own substantive proposals."
He added: “For instance, on EU membership, we do not require the Scottish Government to tell us how joining the EU works … such information can certainly be useful to voters, but government does not need to provide it, and providing it is not a substitute for its own proposals.
“Indeed we should expect the Government to tell us instead how it proposes to undertake EU accession.”
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