15/08/2012 Newsnight Scotland

Tonight on Newsnight Scotland, Ian Davidson's Commons committee is

adamant you just can't have a second question in an independence

referendum but are they right? We will hear from the experts and the

Electoral Commission on their role in this. Good evening. The House of

Commons select committee on Scottish affairs under the

chairmanship of Ian Davidson has issued a report, this time saying

there's no sensible way to have a second question referring to more

devolution in an independence referendum. The committee took

evidence from a variety of belittled -- political scientist

but first, Jamie McIvor reports. Someone who actually wants a second

question? The SNP's position is it wants a straight yes/no question

and so do all three of the main Unionist Party but the SNP also

says that it acknowledges that there is strong support in Scotland

for that second question on devo- The Scottish Council for Voluntary

organisations and the S T U C both think there should be a debate

about options for the constitution but the S T U C say that depends on

things. We are are consulting on the sort of Scotland that they want

to see with our members and that will include whether an enhanced

devolution settlement, one were Scotland has significantly more

powers, is a key part of that discussion.

What we have made that decision and taken that view, it will be time to

turn ourselves to the question of whether that question and how it

should be put. That is not clear to us that the referendum easily

avails itself to a third question that we certainly do not believe

The Scottish affairs committee at Westminster believes that Scottish

governments have got no mandate for a question about devo-max. Busy in

view is that the Scottish people have voted for a separation

referendum. They do not have an all-singing all purpose referendum

mandate under anything to do with the constitution because then

people of Scotland voted in the referendum in 1997 for Westminster

to have responsibility for devolution and they also voted for

Westminster to enhance devolution, not anything else. Some political

scientists believe a second question would present significant

difficulties. For instance, ensuring the result which was fair

and decisive. Though others believe a second question could be achieved

technically if there was the political desire to do so. Some in

the Unionist parties believe that the SNP's edging towards a second

question is an insurance policy. So if independence is defeated, the

SNP might still win substantial new powers for Holyrood. On the other

hand, some nationalists do not like the idea of a second question

thinking that it will make the Independent less likely. But there

are also people who believe in some form of devo-max and think that a

vote in favour of it is the best way of securing action.

The Electoral Commission is a public body charged with advising

government on electoral matters. John McCormick is the commissioner

for Scotland. And this curious if you have any role at all in all

this? But the UK Government and the Scottish Government - and let it be

known that they would like us to know that they want us involved in

the referendum process once it begins. Both have made it very

clear that with regard to the question, it has been made clear.

No formal request because the timetable has not been reviewed yet.

But in all this kerfuffle with slagging each other rough weather

there are variants of the referendum and whether they are

legal, you don't have any role in that? We presume that if a

government asks us to advise them on a referendum, that their legal

advice is sound. Right. It is up to them. You do not have a role on

that? This thing on testing, this is a fairness of the question.

yeah. Explain how that works. If the Scottish Government comes to

you as as we know that Alex Salmond's Bay Ridge question is do

you agree that Scotland should be an independent country? He would

contest that question? We would tested. We did last year for the

referendum on Wales, powers for the assembly and for the parliamentary

voting system would be a be a referendum and we tested the

questions given to us so we take a question from a government, we have

it tested, the process takes about 12 weeks and then we have

recommendations and it is a matter for Parliament to accept the

recommendations or not. You have got an obligation to certain bodies

to do that, have you? Under the Act set up with the Electoral

Commission, we have a duty to run referendums which are set up an

established by the UK Government, by the UK Parliament. That act out

by us what we do in relation to the referendum. we run it and test the

question. Two different ways that there may be a referendum with the

Scottish Government and the Scottish Government were also

thinking that under section 10 of the Act which could mean we advise

them on a referendum. Both governments have said they would

like us to be involved in testing the questions so we anticipate the

question testing process will be the same, whatever the legal

statutory basis. To make the simple and get this clear, what you seem

to be saying is that in the eventuality that they cannot agree

with each other, the two governments, and the Scottish

Government decides to do a referendum on its own without the

section 30 powers, you could still be involved? yes. To you could be

still involved in helping on the referendum? Yes. The Scottish

Government has made that clear in general terms so we have not had

any specific recommendations but in general.

What are the Scottish Government came to you and say we would quite

like a two question referendum, here's what they are. Would you be

obliged to test that? That is what we do. We take the questions from

the Government questions from the Government and we test them.

Whenever they give us legal tests. So we could have a situation where

there is still no agreement in London and that in Edinburgh over

whether a two question referendum is legal. Yes. But you could be

testing the questions? The us. A how would you go about doing that?

-- yes. How would you go about doing that. It may take longer if

it is two questions but the established framework is eight

weeks of testing with focus groups, One 2 One testing with it

individual voters and that can be quite intense because you have got

to make sure you have got a cross section of the public involved in

that testing, qualitative testing so it is quite detailed and

rigorous. He must test across the country, to gender, literacy levels

and so on. Bolt of people -- lot of We were wanting a question that

uses direct language and people can understand it. When people put

their take in a box, or a cross in a box, they have a clear

understanding of the outcome they are voting for so we must test the

question with focus groups, qualitative leap with the voters to

make sure that they understand the question. One week tested the

question for the Welsh referendum last year, we discovered that

report and recommendations and redress to the question which was

accepted by the Government and the Assembly Government's and

So they could reject your recommendations? Given that you

have not been asked yet, you do not need to go all international

diplomat on me, you have no view on whether they favoured question of

Alex Salmond is a fair one or not? We do not have a predetermined view,

you are not surprised I say that! You do not opine on the question,

that devalues the currency. I am curious about your views on a two

question referendum because you were quoted in the opinion poll

produced by the House of Commons Scottish affairs committee, and I

did not understand what they were saying. They quoted you're saying

something along the lines that the problem was that there could be

numerous out comes to a two question thing. What were you on

about? We do not answer hypothetical questions. We were

asked a range of questions in the committee which were hypothetical.

We take the questions and say you cannot presume if there a two

question that there are only two possible outcomes. You must work

out because on the basis on the number of outcomes and designate

the league campaign organisations for the referendums witches and the

as the Commission does, but they are more complicated. We must not

presume until we see a question and tested that there are only two. We

do not prejudge. But ours is an evidence-based process and we go

with impartiality and tested and then we discover how many outcomes

there are, what people begin to the question and what the get the

question to mean and that is why the questioning is rigorous and

takes eight weeks. Could a comeback in theory and say... Go to come

back in theory and say a two question format of a referendum

seems to work, we have tested it and people are clear and you get an

answer which can be relied upon. Or could you come back and say that is

a bad idea, it does not work we should think of something else?

I'd rather as a possible but there is no predetermined out, that is

why testing is so important and that is why this is a decision for

Parliament. In last year's referendum, we came up with three

redrafted questions and a big bases as to what we thought there could

be changed and then suggested an alternative and both of those cases,

The Commons Scottish Affairs Committee took some evidence from

leading political scientists in academia. Here is a flavour of how

difficult it is to pin down the idea.

It would be very arts, in an instrument designed to discover

what Scottish people think, to exclude the option that they most

favour. What we are now coming to is an

understanding that as the terms of this potential referendum are being

redefined a week to week and day today by the Scottish Government,

and I do not blame them for that, there will be an element of pic in

a poke. We know what's known means that we

are not quite sure what Yes means. If you were to have a post

legislative referendum, it is conceivable you could get a Yes

majority the first time around and say no majority the second time

around. We first of all have a be straight,

clear question that everybody seems to want. That is do you want

Scotland to be independent or not, yes or no? Beat -- then you can

then have a question which says if Scotland remains part of the United

Kingdom, see you want to have devolution Macs or have the status

quo? I am joined now by Professor John

Curtice and Professor Jim Gallagher. Jim Gallagher was secretary of the

Calman Commission and wants us to stress that he is not here to pay

speak on behalf of the committee but as an expert.

Do you think you can have a three option referendum?

It does provide severe obstacles. First of all, there has to be an

alternative. It has to be a proposition that would work if it

was voted for and then you have to go over this technical difficulty

of how do you decide how to add up the results in a three question

referendum. You are a bit more pro it?

Yes, there is no doubt that there are technical issues about

conducting a two-question referendum or choosing between

three options. I think one has to balance those risks against what we

might consider the purpose of the referendum. I would argue that an

ideal outcome from this referendum is the week to reach a point where

we resolve Scotland's constitutional status for the

foreseeable future. If we simply have a referendum which is

independence verses the status quo, that referendum will fell to

resolve the issue because it looks as though the potential. A

consensus around which we might be up to build a majority in Scotland

is not either of those options but devolution Max. We could have the

referendum and a decisive result but failed to resolve the issue.

We will come along to the more substantial issues in a moment but

on that technical point, let me be read to use John Curtice's proposal.

You say, to you prefer independence are remaining in the UK it? That is

the first question. This Scotland remains in the UK, to you prefer

the status quo or more devolution? What is wrong with that?

Are the ways of doing it, that is just about the second best option.

I take that as high praise! It is high praise. People have

different orders of preference. To do the arithmetic, that there are

six ways you could put that in order. People might want devolution

first, independence first, and so on. If you only have two questions,

what ever the words are, there are only for possible set of answers.

You cannot match everybody's answer. Anticipating what John Curtice

might say, given that we sort of note that the middle option might

be preferred. I do not think you should deny a

correction Mac design a referendum assuming you know what the answer

will be. The truth is my proposal was

something of a compromise. In an ideal fashion you would ask people

to put the three options in order of preference and counts it in such

a way to identify whether any one of those options is clearly

preferable to the other two. However, I was saying to take in

the political reality. One consensus on which both Unionists

and nationalists appear to agree is that they want a clear and decisive

question on independence. We can have that. Let us make it the first

question on the ballot paper. Given that there are apparently

substantial demands for more devolution, let us have a second

question on the ballot paper. The interesting question about this

debate, had this to nobody had suggested that we should simply

have a second question on the ballot paper about the devilish and

Max verses the status quo. It is informed about understandings on

the nature of public opinion and is what both sides say they want. We

can have that clear and decisive vote on independence and, at the

same time, had that second question. The two things are not necessarily

contradictory. What about the more fundamental

point that Ian Davidson's report posits. You can only have more

devolution of someone defines what more devolution is?

That is clear. You cannot say you would like a boat on two or three

words that someone has put together. There is a clear, concrete

proposition that is in his Commons acts but nobody seems to be

suggesting we vote on at. Be on that there is no proposition are

told. Nobody knows what it is and nobody knows whose job it is to put

it together. What would you say to that?

If we are going to have a sensible referendum on a scheme of Mori for

-- of more devolution, we need a scheme that his words out in terms

of principles. We do not need to have every I tarted of tea crossbow

we need something at least as detailed as was put forward to the

Scottish electorate in 1997 and as detailed as what the SNP put

together in terms of independence. He would do that?

And ideally it would come from one of the two governments or from

Scottish Civic Society. The Institute for Public Policy

Research is doing some work on this. It do you think the Devo Plus

proposals could do that? How to see you get agreement that that is the

form of devolution that everyone wants?

The answer is only through a process of debate and discussion.

Last time round so that debate took place within the form of a

constitutional convention. Some sort of or delight that may have to

be developed. Is there a way to give this efficient underpinning so

we can have a sensible vote on its? Is as sensible?

What John did not answer there is that if you have a proposal on

devolution, it is not a unilateral Scottish one.

That was going to be my second question. It is up to people in

Scotland to decide whether or not they want to be independent but is

it up to people in Scotland to decide whether they want more

devolution? You cannot unilaterally vote on

more devolution because it is an agreed deal between Scotland and

the rest of the UK. So you think it would have to be in

a party manifesto, for example, in a UK general election?

The test is that if the people vote for it, this hypothetical scheme of

more devolution, will they get it? They will only get it if the UK is

willing to legislate for it. If that is the principal problem

with the second question, it should say to people that they promise

that if Scotland votes for this we will hold a referendum on Mort

evolution. -- more devolution. That is not the situation that has been

put forward. Thank you. Let us look at

A picture of the Duke of Edinburgh on the cover of The Scotsman. The

Daily Mail, a �35,000 cap on care bills promised by the Prime

Minister. The career says that staff hit out at police chief. This

is about the Tayside straight police board. I will be back

Good evening. We have had some thoroughly miserable weather

through Wednesday. That now lies to the north of Scotland and it will

be a blustery day on Thursday. Sunshine and showers and quieter

for some areas with spells of dry and bright weather in between.

Temperatures again into the low twenties so we're keeping the

humidity tonight and into tomorrow. In those dry spells temperatures

will hit the mid- twenties but on the whole they are showers will be

coming through quite frequently went longer spells of rain

returning to Northern Ireland's and pushing Wales by the end of the day.

There are further warnings about rain by the end of the day. Some

heavy showers around us just about everywhere with hail and thunder.

With the sunshine in between some pleasant spells as well but more

rain for the Northern Isles. You can see the showery weather for

Thursday overtaken by wetter weather, especially for the West

and not, by Friday. There will be rain for a time Eid in the south-

east on Friday. 25 Celsius the high in London. A lot of wet weather in