09/01/2012 Newsnight Scotland

there is a lot that has gone from or vile and elsewhere and they feel

On Newsnight Scotland, we go back to today's developments in the

long-running drama of the Scottish independence referendum. The story

so far... David Cameron tells his Cabinet he

wants to help democracy by legislating on the running of the

referendum. Alex Salmond's team say they do not

really welcome his intervention. Good evening. If you have just

switched on, you will have missed our London colleagues dissecting

the debate over timing and other details of the Scottish referendum.

It is an event in itself, a Scottish story leading the UK

edition of Newsnight. Anyway, regular viewers of

Newsnight Scotland will know a bit more about the arguments marshalled

on the referendum and, in particular, its timing and what

will be printed on the ballot paper. We will discuss more of that

shortly, but first, David Allison brings a bit of history right up to

date. June the 2014 will be the seven hundredth anniversary of the

Battle of Bannockburn, where King Edward was famously sent home to

think again by the Scots. David Cameron wants to accelerate things.

Perhaps he is thinking more of the Battle of Flodden, which will be

500 years ago in September of this year. On that occasion, the Scots

did not do so well. I am getting the questions, is the union going

to stay together, his column going to split apart, should I invest in

the country. These are the sort of questions I am getting from

companies. We would do not want to dictate this, but we want to

resolve it. I do not think Westminster should be getting

themselves involved in this. The Scottish National Party was elected

a few months ago with an overwhelming mandate to half an

independence referendum in this term. For a party with independence

at their core, it may seem rather strange that the timing of the

referendum is what is causing them grief. I believe the legislation

going through Parliament has to be the priority. This is needed to get

economic recovery going and that will push the score when bill into

the second half of the Parliament. George Osborne warned that the lack

of clarity mate damage the Scottish economy, claims rejected by the

First Minister. A I think the uncertainty that hangs over the

Scottish economy because of what the First Minister is seen as

regards this referendum, is damaging investment and there are

major businesses asking me as Chancellor, tell me what is going

on in Scotland? We are worried about investing. I have told want

to go ahead and invest, but I have to say that these questions are

being asked anything get as the direct impact on Scottish jobs and

prosperity. That is stuff and nonsense from George Osborne. He

cannot name one of the companies that he referred to. I can tell you

it lots of major companies who have invested in Scotland and the last

few months. There seems to be some confusion over the legality of who

would be in charge of any referendum. We believe there is a

clear legal position. I will be setting out what the legal view is

in the House of Commons and indicating how we ensure that we

can get the referendum on fair and decisive terms, beginning with the

proper debate about Scotland's future. It is not a legal issue, it

is the political question. Will Alex Salmond come clean about what

he really wants? If he wants complete independence he should

have the guts to go out and make that case to the Scottish people

and not constantly confuse things by singer should maybe be a

multiple choice question. So, the stakes have been written by the UK

government demanding when the referendum will be taken. But for

their part, the Scottish nationalists and to be taking this

in their stride. And I could take a fully relaxed view and say that the

more they Tory-led government tries to interfere in Scottish democracy

the more the case for independence will increase. But there is a case

for democratic principle and the people and Scholl and should have a

referendum within the timescale that they voted for. At want a

referendum that is clear, fair, legally challengeable and offers

the people of Scotland to guide their own future. I believe that

referendum should be brought forward as soon as possible.

Tonight, the SNP say they are sticking to the idea of the

referendum in the second half of the Parliament, but the pressure is

mounting on what questions they intend to ask.

You saw Secretary of State Michael Moore in the film there. He was not

able to join us on the programme tonight, but says he will do

tomorrow, after he has addressed the House of Commons on the subject.

It is expected that he will tell MPs he will transfer the

unambiguous legal powers to Edinburgh to hold the referendum,

without a specific time limit, but specifically only for a simple Yes

or No vote on independence. He will also rule out votes for under-18s

and require supervision by the UK Electoral Commission.

However, we can hear more of the SNP's view of today's developments.

Deputy party leader Nicola Sturgeon came into this studio a short while

ago. I asked her if she'd had a party had any idea of accepting the

UK government proposals? We started the day with them are suggesting a

timescale on by the end of the day, there was news of the retraction

from Matt and a split within the coalition. But if they are going to

offer you legal cover about your ability to hold a referendum, what

is there not to like? I do not think we need legal cover, but if

they think we do then fine. But there is no strings attached - the

Scottish people voted for us to be able to control that. They should

not be interfering in something which has should be decided by the

Scottish people. They are not setting any time limit, so what

strings are you talking about? are still waiting to hear it. I do

not think there should be any strings attached, because I do not

think the Westminster government should be interfering in something

of which we should set the both the timescale and they should stand by

what the outcome is. It is the preferred option of these Scottish

National Party to have a single question on the ballot paper. But

we're not the only ones with an opinion. There are people in

Scotland to want to give the party more devolution powers but not full

independence. It is a democracy, so we have to listen to every side of

the argument. All the other parties, the pro-union parties, say they

will not support a referendum short of independence. They want a

straight question. Does that kill this off? Let us have this debate.

It is for the people of Scotland to decide. It is for the people of

Scotland and the Parliament to decide if it is the single question

ought to have three questions. Our preferred option is one question,

but I do not think we should rule out more than that if that is what

people want. Who would be proposing that option? Let us see how that

transpires. The position of the UK government seems to change every

other day. I think it is preposterous and the Scottish

Labour Party is backing the Conservative option, rather than

backing our case for more power. The people who are wanting the

referendum taken now and wanting a single question are the same people

who have been blocking this at every move in the last few years.

We have the referendum to deliver this in the second half of the

Parliament and that is what we will do. Could it be the Scottish

government that you could be putting forward the proposals for

both independence and other options? He is, egg could be us. It

does not necessarily have to be a It doesn't necessarily need that.

But the position of the other parties changing on a daily basis.

One of your MPs said tonight if it didn't have backing from the other

parties there wouldn't be the need of a second question. It's for the

other parties to determine their view. It changes regularly at the

moment. The principle here is that it's for the Scottish people to

decide. I don't understand why people seem to want to foreclose

the options of the Scottish people. The politicians who are arguing one

way just now have spent the last four years blocking a referendum

all together. The fundamental issue of principle here is that it's for

the Scottish people to decide their own future. If the UK Government

offers you the legal cover, perhaps saying that you can't offer the

vote to under 18s, perhaps saying, that you can't hold the vote

without consulting the Electoral Commission, would these be

conditions you could accept? Let's see what the UK Government says.

It's not for the UK Government to set the terms of the referendum.

It's for the Scottish Government to implement the mandate we got at the

election. Ultimately it's for the Scottish people to decide the

outcome of that referendum. If you say no and they push that through,

what then snfrplgts the UK's Government has changed the position

in the course of today. It might not be the same tomorrow as it is

this evening. The key point is that it's not for the UK Government to

set the terms of this referendum. The SNP won the election,

overwhelmingly. We have an overwhelming mandate to deliver

that referendum and that should be allowed to happen. Nicola Sturgeon,

thanks very much. I'm joined now by Ruth Davidson MSP

leader of the Scottish Conservatives and by Anas Sarwar,

Deputy Leader of the Scottish Labour Party. Who should hold the

vote on Scotland's constitutional future - Scottish or UK Government?

There has to be a referendum run in Scotland. Which Government? The SNP

are all over the place on this. This morning Nicola Sturgeon saying,

it has to be a yes, No vote. Then saying the opposite. One thing

that's happened today is there's clarity, all four main parties in

Scotland are clear, they support a main yes/no question. That could be

put forward. The other option is we're open to debate in this. We're

in favour of a clear, quick, decisive referendum. Held by a

Scottish Government or UK Government? It's clear, the SNP

have a mandate to hold this referendum. Why not let them get on

with it? Let's get the people what they deserve, which is a mature,

adult debate, not about dates, not about questions... If it's their

mandate, let them get on with it. Give a simple question, yes or no.

Let's have the adult discussion whether we are a fairer and more

prosperous country as part of the UK Government or not? What would

happen if the Scottish Government was allowed to get on with

delivering its referendum in its time scale with the questions that

it wants to ask? I think this is about delivering a referendum where

the people of Scotland get to decide. That's what at the nub of

this, it's not about letting the courts decide. If the legal advice

the UK Government is that a referendum where the UK Government

doesn't empower the Scottish Government to be able to hold a

referendum, then this could be held in the courts for years to come.

There could be no legal challenge given the transfer of power that

the UK Government is proposing? Sorry can you clarify? If the UK

Government transfers legal power to the Scottish Government in

Parliament over the constitution, a referendum held by the Scottish

Government wouldn't be open to legal challenge? I believe a

summary of the legal advice will be published. I believe we're having

clarification in the House of Commons tomorrow from Michael Moore.

I believe you referenced it. We have to see what that is. The worst

case scenario after all the work that's gone on to talk out

positions, to get off the subject of process, which is what we're

talking about now and talk about the substance of a referendum on

independence and what it means. The worst thing possible is that there

is a result which is held up for several years in the courts,

because the process itself was a flawed process. Nicola said she's

extremely relaxed about what happens today. She didn't look

relaxed at all. If you look at it, we're only speculating what the

offer is going to be. If the offer is given the Scottish Government

the legal right to hold the referendum, if it is a straight yes

or no question, which Nicola says she supports, if it is to bring in

the Electoral Commission, who everyone respects as an independent

ash traitor to ensure a fair and free election across Scotland, what

are they scared of? They're scared of the decision of the Scottish

people. What's wrong with under 18s voting for instance? We've got,

look there's a debate to be had of votes at 16. I'm happy to have a

debate about what the voting age should be for general elections,

council elections... referendum? We should have the same

franchise for all elections. Thlz a separate debate. Let's in the

confuse the issue. This is about whether Scotland is a more

prosperous place as part of the UK or with separation. Why not a

second question on a more powerful Scottish Parliament, which opinion

polls suggest more people are likely to support. At the moment we

haven't seen a mandate for that to be added to the ballot paper.

Nicola Sturgeon saying her preference for a yes, no question.

It's the Liberal Democrats position, the Labour Party's position and the

Scottish Conservatives position as well. I think you're setting hares

running here which don't need to be running. There's no party backing

this. Before you jump in, if I could say also, if you're talking

about something like deefo Max, a term bandied around a lot, by

commentators and media pundits like yourself, nobody's defined for me

and not for the people of Scotland what that means. The other issue is

the SNP always say we promised it would be in the second half of the

Parliament. Nowhere in the manifesto does it say it will be in

the second half of the Parliament. They said it a few days before the

Holyrood elections. After people had voted by postal ballot. Nowhere

in the manifesto is there the question of devo Max. They're

playing games. Many people in your party support the idea of a much

more powerful Scottish Parliament within the UK. What do you have to

fear from putting that on the ballot paper? Absolutely,

devolution is a completely separate debate from separation. It's about

the powers of the Scottish Parliament, isn't it. That's the

same thing. We are supporting the Scotland bill. Devolution is a

separate concept. The separation is a completely separate argument all

together. The SNP fear the voice of the Scottish people. I don't. I'm

happy for the people of Scotland to make their decision about whether

they think Scotland should be part of the UK or not. You two

presumably will be campaigning together to keep Scotland inside

the UK when the referendum is eventually held? I think you're,

let's say there is no love lost because the Scottish Conservatives

and the Scottish Labour Party, however on issues such as this,

which I think goes beyond party politics, people from across civic

Scotland, political Scotland, business Scotland come together to

promote the idea of Scotland within a stronger United Kingdom. I think

it will encourage people from all parties and from none. Thank you

both very much. Tomorrow's front pages. The Scotsman goes on the

constitution. SNP threatens to block new referendum offer. A