19/01/2012 Newsnight Scotland

but they're not an alternative to It's been described as the biggest

decision Scots will make in 300 years. Little wonder the

independence referendum is dominating political debate and

could do so for years to come. Today's latest salvo was over

defence, but who is winning the fight for public opinion? And how

important are these early battles with a long campaign ahead?

Tonight, who is winning the early skirmishes over the referendum?

Westminster lays claim to the legal authority, while Holyrood boasts it

has the popular mandate. Meetings are pencilled in between First

Minister, Secretary of State and Prime Minister. They are inching

towards agreement on the details. In the studio we have a trio of

informed observers with conflicting views. First, Derek Bateman debates

the outstanding questions with himself.

It's a sing hrar event, we now know there will be a referendum. Won't

there? Unless Westminster rules it illegal and it ends newspaper the

That's a good point. David Cameron says Scotland can't hold a

referendum legally because it's prohibited in the Scotland Act.

Without London's say so the advocate General says it would

actually be undemocratic, for a Government to consult its own

citizens? Technically it may be against the Act but what about the

claim of right signed by Jim Wallace declaring the people, not

parliament, are Sovereign. Mr Salmond says if it's a simple

matter of legality then give give Scotland the powers, but without

London dictating the terms. So far, impasse. Well, at least we know the

date, autumn, 2014. Well, we know within three months and that's if

Mr Salmond sticks to the timetable. He doesn't have to.

Mr Salmond is committed to a consultation, but beyond that if

the pandas start dancing a highland jig and there is a political crisis

in London, if the stars align to form a cosmic soltar in the night

sky Mr Salmond can abandon the timing and go for it, he is not a

time-keeper, he is a politician. Well, we do know what the question

will be. We know what the first question will be. But we don't know

the second question. Or even if there's going to be a second

question. This is at the heart of the standoff. London is determined

not to put the question with the biggest potential yes answer, more

powers for Holyrood, not just because they don't want more powers

but because they're gambling the no vote will win and wound Mr Sal

Salmond. Mr Salmond is also unsure he can win so wants a fallback as a

consolation victory. The unity with the leadership of the Tories,

Labour and the Lib Dems on refusing a second question may turn out to

be their weak point F it lookss like an unholy alliance flying in

the face of the will of the people how long can it be maintained?

Labour's already saying they will offer another referendum rather

than a second question. At least we know who will be

allowed to vote. Yes, we do. Unless they open it up to teenagers of 16

and 17 and to every ex-pat on the face of the earth. And that's

hundreds of thousands. Maybe as many as a million. What about the

London Scots and others around the globe. Even Rabby planned to head

for the Americas. Even if In the parliament today the

Minister called for powers over elections to be transferred from

London as recommended by the Gould Report. That would allow 16 and 17-

year-olds the vote but he said Ministers in London were silent on

the issue. It is absurd that this parliament is not responsible for

the election of its own members and that we are unable to give 16 and

17-year-olds their democratic right to vote, even when that is the will

of this parliament. I am confused now. Is there anything we do know

the answer to, like who is going to win? Well, that's easy. The

Scottish people win because whatever they decide is right, and

it's final. Unless, of course, there is a legal

challenge. I am now joined from Edinburgh by

the Spectator's Alex Massie, an avid blogger. Also in the capital

is a fellow cyber commentator, Kate Higgins, who writes under the name

BirdsEyeView. And here in the studio is the Lawyer Ian Smart, who

describes himself online as a lefty lawyer and Labour Party hack. Thank

you all very much indeed for joining us this evening. Let me

bring you up to date with the latest controversy over

independence which is Lord Steel saying the idea of George Osborne

taking on the no referendum campaign is just plain bonkers,

saying Alex Salmond would be rubbing his hands at that. Where do

you think this - what do you think of that idea, do you think Lord

Steel has a point? Well, Lord Steel has a point point certainly in as

much as George Osborne is not necessarily the man who if you were

to construct a pro-union campaign from scratch, he is not necessarily

the fellow that you would choose to lead it. Nevertheless, it is the

case that it is mildly proposterous to suppose that the Prime Minister

of the UK and indeed the Chancellor of the UK, should somehow stay

south of the border, should somehow never venture north in the three

years, whatever it is between now and the actual referendum date. As

a tactical matter yes, Mr Osbourne is unlike throeu rally many voters

to the unionist cause. But there is a great difference between what

might be wrong in terms of tactics and what is wrong in terms of

principle. This notion that the rest of the UK has no legitimacy in

terms of making a case for the union or about talking about

Scotland's place within the union and all the rest of it and so on,

is somewhat fanciful. Regardless of what happens, regardless of what

decision people of Scotland eventually take, the impact is not

confined to Scotland and therefore in that respect it is perfectly

legitimate for voices from other parts of the United Kingdom, not

just London but also Belfast and Cardiff, and indeed other points of

the compass, should have a right to have their say. Whether people are

listening is a different matter. Tack takes and principles, Alex

Salmond makes a point every time one of these coalition Ministers

speaks up on the subject of Scotland he thinks he gets another

1,000 votes. Let's be clear, the most owe biding narrative in

Scottish politics in the last 20 years has been the people's

mistrust and dislike of the Scottish Conservatives, so if they

do think they're coming across the border and reading missions with

wise words to offer in the campaign, then absolutely Alex Salmond will

be rubbing his hands with glee and he will be maximising the political

capital out of the interventions at every opportunity. I think Lord

Steel has a point. It would have been helpful if he made it in more

temperet language. We need reasoned debate that enables people to make

a informed decision but he has a point. It should not be - the anti-

independence campaign cannot be laid, should not be laid -- led by

nnon-Scots because that will simply polarise opinion further and will

actually have a number of people voting for independence for the

wrong reasons. Now the SNP might welcome all votes in all

circumstances, but we want Scotland to make a positive choice. These

are exciting times. At long last Scotland has the opportunity to

have a say and determine its own future and we should be rejoicing

in that and celebrating that. The sooner we get out of this process,

which is like the early stages of a chess game, where the players are

setting out their strategy and moving towards exchanging lower

ranking pieces, the better because it needs to move out of this being

a private game for political parties and into a debate on

Scotland's future in which the people are invited to. On the

subject of tactics, one of the things, this is related to

something Kate was saying, one thing clear from the SNP's

strategically over the last few weeks is if you are not supportive

of their view, then they're going to try and ally the Labour Party in

Scotland, particularly with the Conservatives and with that toxic

I don't accept the premise. In the general election almost as many

people voted Conservative as SNP. There was a much lower turnout at

the Scottish election. I think it's appropriate that all people who

think independence would be a disaster for Scotland should work

together. It doesn't mean tactically you should decide who to

prioritise - Clive Woodward, you couldn't think of a worse person to

lead the No campaign than George Osborne, but that's a tactical

decision. What's your decision of what the Labour Party have done

over the last fortnight or so? It doesn't seem they have come up with

a very clear strategy other than to say no to what the SNP are

proposing. I am not here to speak on behalf of the Labour Party.

They're in disarray at the moment. I am sure we'll get our act

together. We have two-and-a-half years. Alex Massie, are we moving

away from this procedural debate we have had over the last fortnight

and on to the big questions Kate Higgins is raising? Yes, well,

that's the theory at any rate. This is a thousand-day campaign. We're

only in day ten. In that respect, a measure of procedural skirmishing

is only to be expected. As for the bigger questions, it seems to me,

actually, that the Conservative Party should ally its with the SNP

- not with the Labour Party - but with the SNP, and actually make an

argument for a second question, a question about increasing powers

for the Scottish Parliament, including, most especially and

crucially, the part tax. The failure to do that is one of the

things that the Scottish Conservative Party is one of the

biggest blunders the Tories have made in the history of devolution.

You know, for years the Tories have been saying no, no, no to Scotland.

It is time for anyone with an interest in a right-of-centre

revival in Scotland Dom out with a plan for say -- to come out with

plan for saying yes to Scotland. Can they change their minds now,

though, having already made their views pretty clear over the last

ten days or so? Probably not, but then the views they have made

pretty clear are in my view wholly mistaken. You know, the Tories'

opposition to devo-max, devo-plus, however you want to describe it is

akin to - let me put it this way - if you asked Conservatives, people

of the right-of-centre disposition, whether you think Parliament that

has a spending power but no revenue power could possibly be a

responsible Parliament, whether it could possibly govern in the best

interests of its people, they would say no - except in Scotland, where

apparently that is something that must be assisted upon. The Tories

would never have set sail on SS Devolution. Now that the ship is

afloat, however, they seem perplexingly ill-disposed to making

any repairs that could make it sell better, more efficiently, more

quickly and, frankly, with greater safety for all those onboard. This

is a baffling position as far as I am concerned, and I think it's

wholly regrettable that the Tories yet again appear determined to

exclude themselves from the larger part of the future constitutional

debate and insist upon dying in the last ditch of unionism, which will

doubtless be cluttered with the noble dead, but the noble dead are

still dead. Kate Higgins, if Alex Massie is to have a two-question

referendum, who is going to be advocating the second question?

Well, it would seem those who are opposed to independence are the

ones who are coalescing around a straight no. I think that's a fatal

mistake. I think when you look at the opinion polls and if you cast

your mind back to what happened in May, people voted not only for

competence, but they also rejected fear and embraced hope. They voted

for a manifesto that said yes or no to independence, not for a

manifesto that said yes or no to independence and, A, another.

there is a lot of political chatter around at the moment whereby the

anti-Independence Partys are determined not to allow devo-max or

plus, however you want to phrase it, on to the ballot paper. I think

that's a mistake. I think people want change. They want the right to

debate their future. There is a huge majority of - public opinion

in Scotland in favour of some change and some improvement in our

devolved settlement. I think they should be working hard to ensure

that the Scotland bill is souped up with as much in terms of devolution

as possible so that what is put before the Scottish people as a

choice between an improved devolution settlement or

independence - Labour are at real risk of being cast adrift here in

constitutional no-man's land by the strategy they're adopting to late.

They do not enjoy the trust of the Scottish people anymore. That has

been proven not only once but twice in Scottish elections. They cannot

promise the Scottish people jam tomorrow and hope that - hope that

people will vote no, and they should not mistake current apathy

for antipathy towards change. Smart, do you agree? Not at all. It

seems to me to be a fundamental misunderstanding about what

devolution is. It's an agreed settlement between Westminster and

Scotland. I agree with Alex and to some degree Kate we should improve

on the current system we have, but there is no need to put that to

referendum. If it's agreed, it is. The SNP promises a referendum on

independence. They're running as fast as they can away from that

promise... Are they? They have even given us a season at the moment.

That's three years away. They want to insert a question that'll get

them into the knowledge that there will be a legal quagmire, and

they'll be able to blame somebody else. A -- if they want to have a

referendum, they have the legal power to do it. If they get into a

legal mess, it's of their doing. We'll hear from Lord Wallace when

he gives a speech at a university on why he doesn't think there are

powers for this referendum. How do you think the Scotland office have

handled this debate so far? There is a big difference between how the

Scotland office have handled it and Number Ten have handled it. The

Scotland office have handled it well. Number Ten have performed

appallingly. What does that tell us about the cool significance

Probably that Michael Moore probably has a better idea about

Scotland than George Osborne. that Michael Moore is not being

listened to in Downing Street according to your thesis? I think

what we saw was Michael Moore's statement to the House of Commons

was admirably restrained, sensible, concentrating on the fact that we

want to ensure that when a referendum takes place it has the

legal standing to actually take place free from my challenge in the

courts. That's a perfectly respectable, sensible, moderate

view. What was unfortunate was the pre-statement, briefing and

spinning from Downing Street which suggested all sorts of time limits

and other constraints, conditions and a whole load of, I don't know,

political gamesmanship, manoeuvring, shenan gans, all of which was

deeply unfortunate and too clever by half and a sort of - well, own

goal scored by people who plainly don't actually have an awful lot to

say about Scotland and certainly have rather less knowledge of

Scotland. Michael Moore, however, has been

reasonably sensible, and I think that's too his credit, and I think

that, you know, the coalition has learnt from the mistakes that have

been made and presumably - or at least hopefully - won't blunder

quite so catastrophically in the future. This is very much a storm

in a teacup to some extent in that day, one, two - of what is going to

be a long, drawn-out campaign. that point, Kate, how much do you

think this resonates with ordinary people, this debate, so far? Is

this something only people in Westminster care about? Briefly.

Ordinary people, it doesn't resonate with them at all. This

stage of the game in the process is for the players and the aficionados

like ourselves. The sooner we move out of the process and into the

debate about what kind of Scotland we want to be, the better. Thank

you very much indeed for joining us this evening. A quick look at