:00:18. > :00:25.Tonight on Newsnight Scotland - the UK government stops Scottish Office
:00:25. > :00:31.said tell us he can be imagined a situation where a yes vote result
:00:31. > :00:36.in a referendum. The Advocate- General is the UK government law
:00:36. > :00:41.officer in respect of Scottish affairs. The trouble set-up of
:00:41. > :00:44.devolution. Lord Wallace used to be Jim Wallace MP and then MSP and was
:00:44. > :00:54.Deputy First Minister. As a Lib Dem piece that most of his life arguing
:00:54. > :01:01.
:01:01. > :01:05.Lord Wallace is the UK government minister he will process a section
:01:05. > :01:08.30 order to allow the Scottish government to a low a Scottish
:01:08. > :01:12.referendum. Some argue that his job they also be to take legal action
:01:12. > :01:17.to stop a referendum if the Scottish government tries to hold
:01:17. > :01:22.one without UK government agreement. The UK government and Labour think
:01:22. > :01:26.that a one question referendum is fine but that any other formulation
:01:26. > :01:31.would be inappropriate both legally and politically. The Scottish
:01:31. > :01:35.people are voting for a separation referendum but they do not have an
:01:35. > :01:40.all-purpose mandate on anything to do with the constitution, because
:01:40. > :01:45.the people of Scotland voted in the referendum in 97 for Westminster to
:01:45. > :01:51.have responsibility for devolution and related matters and also in the
:01:51. > :01:56.general election, they voted for Westminster to handle devolution
:01:56. > :01:59.not anything else. In recent days, media reports have suggested that
:01:59. > :02:03.the two governments are getting closer to agreeing terms. Perhaps
:02:03. > :02:09.young voters will get to participate in a one question
:02:09. > :02:12.referendum. But even if that does happen, the next two years will be
:02:12. > :02:17.dominated by Karzai legal arguments of the sort of the Advocate General
:02:17. > :02:21.was considering today with a team of experts. Things like the
:02:21. > :02:31.independence implications of UK and to national treaters, currency,
:02:31. > :02:36.financial regulation, EU membership and so on.
:02:36. > :02:40.Earlier I met the Advocate General Jim Wallace and began by asking if
:02:40. > :02:47.there were any circumstances in which he would accept a two-
:02:47. > :02:54.question referendum. We are clear that what the Scottish government
:02:54. > :03:01.has is to have a referendum on independence. I think there are a
:03:01. > :03:10.number of reasons, practical reasons. We have heard in the past
:03:10. > :03:16.that if independence gets 51 % but devolution plus maximum gets 95 %,
:03:16. > :03:22.51 % drums and 95 %. It is confusing. It is a brand without
:03:23. > :03:27.our name on the product. Above all the mandate that Scottish
:03:27. > :03:31.government has from the election win in 2011 is for a referendum on
:03:32. > :03:35.independence and that is what we believe should be delivered for
:03:35. > :03:43.stopped your answer to my question, are there any circumstances on
:03:43. > :03:50.which you a transfer section powers of the Scottish government on a
:03:50. > :03:55.two-question vote is no. It if the Scottish government were to go
:03:55. > :03:59.ahead with a two-question referendum because it claims its
:03:59. > :04:04.consultation shows there is a demand for that, without power was,
:04:04. > :04:08.what in your view would be the status of that referendum? It is a
:04:08. > :04:16.question of whether you would get to that referendum because I would
:04:16. > :04:21.have to consider whether to make a reference to Supreme Court or not
:04:21. > :04:26.all whether the title to raise an action in Scotland is now much
:04:26. > :04:30.wider in public law issues than it has been before and then maybe
:04:30. > :04:36.people who challenge it. Who knows if they get into the courts what
:04:36. > :04:40.the outcome would be. The question is whether you would get it but the
:04:40. > :04:43.whole point of this is we do not want to get into that position
:04:43. > :04:49.where the courts are determining this. We believe that there is the
:04:49. > :04:59.scope of their to have a clear referendum on the issue of
:04:59. > :04:59.
:04:59. > :05:03.independence. The other. About the so-called second question, if you
:05:03. > :05:10.are a member of a club and you want to leave, the other members should
:05:10. > :05:15.not stop you leaving. If you want to remain a member of the club but
:05:15. > :05:25.want to change the rules, the other members have some interest as well
:05:25. > :05:29.
:05:29. > :05:35.and that is why there are real difficulties. There is a legitimate
:05:35. > :05:40.interest in other parts of the UK. Let's discuss that more in a moment
:05:40. > :05:45.but I want to get clear up. Obviously if the SNP government
:05:45. > :05:54.went ahead and organised a referendum without section powers
:05:54. > :05:58.it could be open... Let's say they managed to do it, what I am
:05:58. > :06:05.interested in is whether your government, what attitude you would
:06:05. > :06:11.have to be the result of such a referendum? If we ever get there.
:06:11. > :06:16.What is it about? David Cameron said they should be more powers. My
:06:16. > :06:21.own power says that also. Arguably you don't actually need a
:06:21. > :06:26.referendum to have more powers. We have are implementing the Scotland
:06:26. > :06:30.Act 2012, substantial piece of further powers without a referendum.
:06:30. > :06:35.U D need -- do not need a referendum for more powers. Let's
:06:35. > :06:40.say the Scottish government went ahead with a referendum which did
:06:40. > :06:45.not have section 30 approval from your government. Let's say it came
:06:45. > :06:50.out in favour of independence. Would you consider that referendum
:06:50. > :06:59.in the same way that your government and previous governments
:06:59. > :07:05.have said that it is up to the Scottish people and you would end
:07:05. > :07:12.to into negotiations, or would you enter into a different view? I do
:07:12. > :07:16.not think we will get to that point. I think it is very hypothetical. I
:07:16. > :07:22.think there are many who would challenge it. We are very strong in
:07:22. > :07:29.our view that the Scottish parliament does not have the
:07:29. > :07:31.competence... What I would say is that holding a referendum, the
:07:31. > :07:37.Scottish parliament does not have the competence to hold that
:07:37. > :07:42.referendum. If the people of Scotland want independence, it is
:07:43. > :07:48.no basis to go forward for a new independent country on a referendum
:07:48. > :07:51.which is legal -- legally challengeable. That is why we have
:07:51. > :08:01.said from the consultation paper, we want a referendum that is
:08:01. > :08:04.
:08:04. > :08:11.illegal, fair and that is decisive and I think the scenario you are
:08:11. > :08:17.painting that would not form a basis... It is something openly
:08:17. > :08:21.debated by the Scottish government. All I am asking is whether to be a
:08:21. > :08:31.yes result in a referendum, would you accept the result? And you
:08:31. > :08:31.
:08:31. > :08:36.Intuit have to. A Yes result in a legal, fair and decisive referendum,
:08:36. > :08:42.we have indicated we will accept and they will be negotiations to go
:08:42. > :08:51.forward on that. If you got a yes without section power was, we do
:08:51. > :08:54.accept that? They are discussing that themselves. It seems not
:08:54. > :09:00.unreasonable to ask you but you seem to be suggesting that she
:09:00. > :09:04.would have to accept the result. am not sure I said that. I said I
:09:04. > :09:09.am not sure we will get to that position because I do not believe
:09:09. > :09:12.that referendum would have a legal basis to be held. We are not
:09:12. > :09:17.suggesting that if the courts were to find against the Scottish
:09:17. > :09:24.government that they would then hold a referendum in the face of
:09:24. > :09:34.the decision of the courts. What I am saying is they -- is if they
:09:34. > :09:38.tried to do that, it is completely new territory. If the courts were
:09:38. > :09:43.to determined that they would be a legal referendum, that is different.
:09:43. > :09:46.I would not believe that would happen. You would have a situation
:09:46. > :09:55.where the courts are struck down because they do not have the
:09:55. > :10:01.competence to do it. If I am a legal Beagle in the Scottish
:10:01. > :10:04.government I conclude from that, if we decide we do not want for any
:10:04. > :10:09.reason the section 30 authority because we disagree with the
:10:09. > :10:14.details, we just go ahead with it and if we win in accords, we have
:10:14. > :10:19.won and they have no choice and Jim Wallace has just said if the courts
:10:19. > :10:24.back us, the British government will have to put up with it. If the
:10:24. > :10:31.courts decide that, we would certainly respect the view of the
:10:31. > :10:36.courts. Section 30 or under section 30 but what I am saying, in my view
:10:36. > :10:40.is that it is highly unlikely to happen. We are confident that the
:10:40. > :10:47.Scottish parliament does not have the competence to hold a referendum
:10:47. > :10:51.without section powers. I do not think it will happen. What -- one
:10:51. > :10:56.of the things that is striking is that when you do opinion polls,
:10:56. > :11:01.most people want more powers for the Scottish parliament, more than
:11:01. > :11:07.in the Bill that your government has just passed. It has also been
:11:07. > :11:13.Lib Dem policy to do this since shortly after the Battle of
:11:13. > :11:16.Hastings. Yet you as a party seemed to be unconcerned in this
:11:16. > :11:22.referendum debate about giving people in Scotland the choice of
:11:22. > :11:27.what has been your policy for 100 years. We do not believe it is
:11:27. > :11:31.necessary for a referendum. There is a danger of conflating the view
:11:31. > :11:34.that people want more powers with the idea that we need a second
:11:34. > :11:40.question. We have got the powers that are being transferred under
:11:40. > :11:48.the Scotland Act 20 12th which are four -- far more substantial. The
:11:48. > :11:51.power to have new taxes but we have done that without a referendum. In
:11:51. > :11:54.the whole 13 years since the Scottish parliament has been
:11:54. > :12:02.established, there have been a number of ways devolution has
:12:02. > :12:11.developed. I took forward to the freedom of information Scotland Act.
:12:11. > :12:15.Eight required a Scot -- section power in order to do it. We took
:12:15. > :12:18.initiatives on building railways, that required a section 30 order to
:12:18. > :12:25.transfer powers from the Westminster Parliament to the
:12:25. > :12:31.Scottish parliament. They did not need a referendums. If you have
:12:31. > :12:35.more powers, you do not need a referendum. But there may well be a
:12:36. > :12:43.referendum campaign, and surely it would make sense for you to say, we
:12:43. > :12:48.are not in favour of independence but if you vote no, we want to do
:12:48. > :12:54.if you vote snow and we will say to our Conservative colleagues that
:12:55. > :12:58.this package, that we will implement this if you reject
:12:58. > :13:04.independence and we will try to convince Labour to put it in their
:13:04. > :13:09.manifesto. Which is what we did with the Calman Commission. It came
:13:09. > :13:15.forward with proposals for further devolution, not least in terms of
:13:15. > :13:20.substantial financial powers. We put it into our manifesto and
:13:20. > :13:24.crucially, we have delivered. We have delivered without the
:13:24. > :13:30.necessity for a referendum and I do not believe if we are looking at
:13:30. > :13:38.the most decisive question Scotland can face - do we remain part of the
:13:38. > :13:43.UK or not? My question was not are you in favour of a two-question
:13:43. > :13:51.referendum, my question was why do you not come up with a package
:13:51. > :13:55.which you promise Scotland? As you well know we have set up a
:13:55. > :14:05.commission under Ming Campbell's chairmanship which will put up a
:14:05. > :14:08.
:14:08. > :14:13.package and we will campaign for that. The point I am making is you
:14:13. > :14:17.do not need a referendum for that but the fact that a No vote for
:14:17. > :14:24.independence is not the end of the story. We have said we want more
:14:24. > :14:34.powers, Labour has said that, David Cameron has said that and crucially
:14:34. > :14:35.
:14:35. > :14:40.Some of these issues, I don't know whether you got around to
:14:40. > :14:45.mentioning, but were that Scotland would remain a member of the
:14:45. > :14:49.European Union. That's one of the issues we're trying to work out.
:14:50. > :14:53.There was an issue - it was an issue of discussion. There were
:14:53. > :14:58.different views being expressed. We will obviously reflect that. It's
:14:58. > :15:03.one of the issues we will be addressing, but what I am saying is
:15:03. > :15:09.that the consensus was this is - I think it's accepted it is
:15:09. > :15:14.unprecedented. It not only depends on if in an independent situation,
:15:14. > :15:18.a Scottish and UK government - there would be 26 members of the
:15:18. > :15:23.European Union who would have a view in that, and no-one has asked
:15:23. > :15:29.them what their view is, and simply to assert I think is misleading.
:15:29. > :15:33.Orkney - would you conceive of any circumstances under which Scotland
:15:33. > :15:37.would vote yes to independence and Orkney and Shetland could remain
:15:37. > :15:41.part of the United Kingdom? I know it has been discussed, and it's
:15:41. > :15:45.another factor in these... you're not ruling it out? If the
:15:45. > :15:50.Scottish Government put it to them - if they believe in self-
:15:50. > :15:55.determination, how far are they prepared to take self-
:15:55. > :15:58.determination? How far are you... am not putting the case for
:15:58. > :16:04.Scottish independence. All I can say is over many years, I have
:16:04. > :16:07.found my constituents have been very much persuaded - my former
:16:07. > :16:14.constituents rather, have been very much persuaded of the case for the
:16:14. > :16:19.United Kingdom. I haven't detected any see-change in that. Again, I
:16:19. > :16:23.can't say what would happen in the event of a yes vote... I think you
:16:23. > :16:27.can on this one. I know you've got local loyalties. I think you can
:16:27. > :16:31.clearly see that Scotland votes for independence. It's not up to
:16:31. > :16:37.particular areas of Scotland to decide they won't bather going
:16:37. > :16:40.along with that. I think you should ask those who succeeded me as
:16:40. > :16:44.parliamentary representatives. I don't think they think it's an
:16:44. > :16:45.open-and-shut question. Clearly you don't either. We'll leave it there.
:16:45. > :16:48.Jim Wallace, thank you very much indeed.
:16:48. > :16:53.I am joined by our political correspondent Raymond Buchanan who
:16:53. > :17:03.is in Edinburgh. Raymond Buchanan, we had this convocation of experts
:17:03. > :17:03.
:17:03. > :17:07.today, and - what's the point? think the point of that is for the
:17:07. > :17:11.UK Government do put a bit of pressure on the Scottish Government
:17:11. > :17:15.because what you've seen from Alex Salmond and his Ministers in recent
:17:15. > :17:19.months is, for instance, on banking regulation we saw John sweenny
:17:19. > :17:23.giving a speech where he said it would be SNP policy that they'd
:17:23. > :17:27.share banking regulation with the rest of the UK if Scotland decided
:17:27. > :17:30.to vote for independence, so his point - and he made it in that
:17:30. > :17:34.interview is assertions have been made by the Scottish Government and
:17:34. > :17:37.they have to be tested. He wants to gather together a series of experts
:17:37. > :17:41.to test those assertions and to put pressure on the Scottish Government
:17:41. > :17:44.and its case because that's what we have seen over the last few months.
:17:44. > :17:48.There has been a ding-dong, if you like, between the two sides, one
:17:48. > :17:53.trying to up the pressure on the other - the UK Government versus
:17:53. > :17:57.the Scottish Government, trying to get one over on each other. More
:17:57. > :18:00.developments tomorrow that we await breathlessly about what the
:18:00. > :18:06.question might be in any referendum. What's that all about? Well, this
:18:06. > :18:08.is the question that the Labour Party Conservatives and Liberal
:18:08. > :18:12.Democrats might want to be asked in the independence referendum. We
:18:12. > :18:14.know that the Scottish Government have set out their view in their
:18:14. > :18:19.consultation document which essentially asks the Scottish
:18:19. > :18:22.people in that referendum, do you agree that Scotland should become
:18:22. > :18:25.an independent country? That is the only - the question that the
:18:25. > :18:30.Scottish Government have put forward so far in this discussion.
:18:30. > :18:34.That has been rejected publicly by their opponents, who then thought,
:18:34. > :18:43.well, we'll come up with our own question, but get panel of experts
:18:43. > :18:51.to do that led by Lord Sutherland, also a referendums expert and Ron
:18:51. > :18:54.Guld, who led the disastrous 2007 Scottish election. They'll come up
:18:54. > :19:00.with their question tomorrow which I understand will be one question -
:19:00. > :19:04.they don't believe in the devo-Max option, and it will be something
:19:04. > :19:07.along the lines of should Scotland become an independent state? I
:19:07. > :19:12.don't know the facts, but we should find those out tomorrow morning.
:19:12. > :19:18.There is a fly in the ointment here which is only last week, John
:19:19. > :19:22.McCormack, who runs the general election in Scotland was on this
:19:22. > :19:26.programme explaining he's obliged to test with focus groups questions
:19:26. > :19:32.which are suggested by either the British or Scottish Government. I
:19:32. > :19:35.am not sure this question from this group comes into either category.
:19:35. > :19:39.don't think it does, and that'll be one of the points which will be put
:19:39. > :19:42.to them tomorrow which is essentially this is a redundant
:19:42. > :19:45.process because the Electoral Commission will not be looking at
:19:45. > :19:48.whatever question they come up with tomorrow. They will, though, assess,
:19:48. > :19:52.as you say, whatever question the Scottish Government come up with,
:19:52. > :19:54.so they may well have their own question, but the issue will be
:19:54. > :19:59.whether anybody is listening to that. What do you think the point
:19:59. > :20:02.of this is, then? I have not heard any proposal by the British
:20:02. > :20:05.Government, which would be the obvious vehicle to - for this to
:20:05. > :20:08.get the Electoral Commission to test another question. There
:20:08. > :20:13.doesn't seem to be any suggestion they should do that. No, because
:20:13. > :20:16.you would then be going down the road of why have they come up with
:20:16. > :20:18.the question unless they were planning to hold their own
:20:18. > :20:20.referendum? That's not something that the UK Government are
:20:20. > :20:25.considering at the moment - certainly not publicly considering
:20:25. > :20:29.that at the moment, so it's very unlikely that the UK Government -
:20:29. > :20:32.policy decision will come up with their own question. That's why the
:20:32. > :20:35.political parties have this panel together. The Electoral Commission
:20:35. > :20:38.would be looking into this, and perhaps it will be interesting in
:20:38. > :20:41.the debate. The reason they're coming up with this is they don't
:20:41. > :20:45.believe that the Scottish Government's question should be the
:20:45. > :20:49.one that is put to the people, and this is part of this process - a
:20:49. > :20:53.debate which we have had going on for months now because academics
:20:53. > :20:56.who look into this sort of thing say, look, it's really important
:20:56. > :20:59.what question you ask because the way you frame that question might
:20:59. > :21:06.actually be very important when it comes to deciding what the result
:21:06. > :21:11.will be. Look, if you're a constitutional lawyer, these must
:21:11. > :21:16.be the most unprecedentedly exciting of times. For the rest of
:21:16. > :21:21.us, how long are we going to have to put up with this? The Government,
:21:21. > :21:24.Scottish and UK, have been having discussions, meetings between the
:21:24. > :21:29.Parliament Minister of Holyrood and the Scotland Office Minister.
:21:29. > :21:32.They're due to meet again in the next few weeks. There have been
:21:32. > :21:37.rumblings from the UK Government that they need to come up with a
:21:37. > :21:40.deal if they're going to make a deal by autumn. Their red line, of
:21:40. > :21:43.course, is there should only be one question in the independence
:21:43. > :21:47.referendum. That is the timetable the UK Government seem to be
:21:47. > :21:51.working towards at the moment. They say they probably need to do that
:21:51. > :21:54.for some of the procedural things, for the Section 30 order to go
:21:54. > :21:58.through. The Scottish Government say they have no fixed timetable
:21:58. > :22:01.other than to say, look, they believe this is an issue for the
:22:01. > :22:05.Scottish Parliament. Beyond that process stuff, we have civil
:22:05. > :22:07.servants here in Edinburgh coming one a prospectus they'll publish