Referendum 'Wasn't Decisive'

It's claimed the independence referendum has failed to deliver a 'decisive' verdict on how Scotland should be governed.

According to a report by a leading academic at Strathclyde University, voters lack enthusiasm for the settlement proposed by the Smith Commission.

However, polls continue to suggest the majority of Scots would still vote against independence if another vote was held.

Professor John Curtice says Scotland faces the potential prospect of being governed under a constitutional settlement that few love.

The report, Scotland ‘one year on’, will be published today by the David Hume Institute (DHI) and the Strathclyde’s International Public Policy Institute (IPPI).

Since the referendum, Professor Curtice wrote: “The unionist parties have developed and begun to legislate for a considerable extension of more devolution, yet have so far failed to develop much support, let alone enthusiasm for their project.

“The SNP, meanwhile, find themselves a significant player at Westminster – and thus in Britain-wide political debate – for the first time in their history, yet are left with the awkward question of whether they can contemplate risking a second throw of the referendum dice.”

The paper will be discussed at a joint IPPI / DHI event in Glasgow on 17 September 2015, on the eve of the anniversary of the referendum. Also on the panel will be Sir Harry Burns, former Chief Medical Officer for Scotland and now Professor of Global Public Health at the University of Strathclyde; Sally Brown, Professor Emeritus in the School of Education at the University of Stirling; and Professor Richard Kerley, editor of Scottish Policy Now and chair of the Centre for Scottish Public Policy.

Professor Curtice’s paper provides an account of how Scotland’s constitutional debate has evolved since the referendum and how public opinion has reacted. He looks in particular at the Smith Commission, set up after the referendum to produce proposals for further devolution of powers to Scotland, at trends in support for independence and the SNP, and at moves to introduce ‘English Votes for English Laws’.

Of the Smith Commission proposals, Professor Curtice, a leading commentator on UK elections and political attitudes, said: “There would appear to be two serious impediments to the likely ability of the Smith Commission proposals to provide Scotland with a more stable constitutional settlement.

“First, more devolution is an issue on which public opinion is not wholly consistent – willingness to take on powers seems more widespread than readiness to accept responsibility for funding them. No settlement is likely to prove stable until this tension is resolved.

“Second, not only are the proposals seemingly little known, but also the impression that has been formed in many people’s minds is that they are inadequate.”

He added: “The Smith Commission proposals were hardly developed on the back of a popular movement. They were a compromise between political parties, speedily forged in a smoke-free room. And while the SNP have subsequently been effective at pointing up their alleged inadequacies, there has in truth been very little public debate or discussion of their merits.

“Yet such discussion would appear to be vital if some of the apparent contradictions in public attitudes are to be acknowledged and resolved – one way or another – let alone enthusiasm generated for what is intended to be a stable constitutional settlement.”

Professor Curtice argued it is surprising that the unionist parties have not contemplated putting the Smith Commission’s proposals to voters in a referendum.

He said: “Quite why the advocates of more devolution in Scotland should want to eschew the possibility of demonstrating public support for their answer to the country’s constitutional debate is far from clear. Their reluctance certainly gives the impression that they are more interested in elite manoeuvring than in matching the ability of the SNP to develop a popular movement.”

Meanwhile, although the SNP appear to be on course to win a second overall majority in next May’s Scottish Parliament election, it is not clear that they can afford to use such a success to instigate a second referendum of their own.

Professor Curtice said: “The fact the SNP could well win another overall majority presents it potentially with a dilemma. Should it or should it not suggest that if it does win a majority it will seek to hold a second referendum?

“Many of its Yes voting supporters will want it to do so, and their support might be at risk if they felt that the SNP was no longer pursuing the goal of independence as speedily as it might. But the party will also be aware that if it were to lose a second referendum then that certainly would prove to be ‘decisive’ – and holding such a referendum on the back of polls that suggest the outcome would be something close to a 50:50 split would certainly constitute a considerable risk.”