I RECENTLY read a lot of unfounded speculation, which I might even go so far as to describe as fevered, about the possibility of including a third option in Scotland’s independence referendum. While that’s a load of rubbish as far as I know, it is an interesting subject and it got me thinking about the whole idea.
As someone who is a bit of a popular sovereignty fundamentalist, I’ve always been uncomfortable with the way the 2014 referendum was framed. We all knew – in fact it was an accepted truism on both sides – that the most popular option for the Scottish people would have been devo-max.
There were regular reports that such an option, should it appear on the ballot, would receive nearly 80% of the vote. Neither side wanted that outcome. The SNP leadership wanted nothing less than independence and the anti-independence lobby wanted to preserve the status quo as much as possible.
READ MORE: Former SNP policy chief backs three-option referendum to break indyref 'logjam'
To my mind that’s an outrage. The sovereign people of Scotland had a clear preference and the way the leadership on both sides of the debate avoided giving it to them was to intentionally not ask them about it. However much I personally want independence, I am of the opinion that intentionally frustrating the sovereign will of the Scottish people because you don’t want the outcome is unacceptable.
Devo-max isn’t my preference and maybe, given the changed circumstances, it might not be the choice of the majority of the people of Scotland. But part of me remains of the opinion that excluding it from the ballot paper is just plain wrong. The people must have the option of choosing the path the largest percentage of them favour.
So what would that look like? Well, it would have to be an single transferable vote (STV) ballot for a start off. That risks not getting independence straight away but if that’s what the Scottish people want, that’s what they should get, and I’ll just have to lump it in the short term.
But what would devo-max mean? That’s what really got me thinking. In the end I’ve come up with something I’m going to call devo-min-max. It’s the smallest amount of increased devolution that I think those who support independence can live with.
It would be a triple lock, three guarantees that increase the power of Holyrood and put us in a place where we, the people, are firmly in charge of our own future:
- A guarantee the permanence of the Scottish Parliament. Holyrood cannot be closed, overruled, or have its powers reduced without the consent of a supermajority of the Scottish People in a referendum.
- A guarantee of the supremacy of the Scottish Parliament on devolved matters. The UK Parliament may not pass laws that affect Scotland in devolved areas without a legislative consent motion. Ever.
- A guarantee of the voice of the people of Scotland. Holyrood can call a referendum by simple majority to amend the Scotland Act that is implemented based on a simple majority of the Scottish people approving it.
READ MORE: Keir Starmer says UK is 'better together' as he rules out pact with the SNP
That would probably involve amending the Acts of Union but that would be a relatively simple matter of recalling the Scottish and English parliaments solely to approve the pre-agreed changes.
It would barely expand the powers of Holyrood at all, it would make the Sewell convention enforceable and would guarantee that we could hold a referendum on whatever we want whenever we want and that’s about it.
What it would do however is create a path to independence that we can walk down at our own pace whenever we choose.
Chris Hanlon was the SNP’s policy development convener during 2020/21
What do you think of the proposal for a third option on the independence referendum ballot?
Tell us how you feel about the suggestion from the former SNP policy chief Chris Hanlon.
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