21/08/2012 Newsnight Scotland

Tonight on Newsnight Scotland - the UK government stops Scottish Office

said tell us he can be imagined a situation where a yes vote result

in a referendum. The Advocate- General is the UK government law

officer in respect of Scottish affairs. The trouble set-up of

devolution. Lord Wallace used to be Jim Wallace MP and then MSP and was

Deputy First Minister. As a Lib Dem piece that most of his life arguing

Lord Wallace is the UK government minister he will process a section

30 order to allow the Scottish government to a low a Scottish

referendum. Some argue that his job they also be to take legal action

to stop a referendum if the Scottish government tries to hold

one without UK government agreement. The UK government and Labour think

that a one question referendum is fine but that any other formulation

would be inappropriate both legally and politically. The Scottish

people are voting for a separation referendum but they do not have an

all-purpose mandate on anything to do with the constitution, because

the people of Scotland voted in the referendum in 97 for Westminster to

have responsibility for devolution and related matters and also in the

general election, they voted for Westminster to handle devolution

not anything else. In recent days, media reports have suggested that

the two governments are getting closer to agreeing terms. Perhaps

young voters will get to participate in a one question

referendum. But even if that does happen, the next two years will be

dominated by Karzai legal arguments of the sort of the Advocate General

was considering today with a team of experts. Things like the

independence implications of UK and to national treaters, currency,

financial regulation, EU membership and so on.

Earlier I met the Advocate General Jim Wallace and began by asking if

there were any circumstances in which he would accept a two-

question referendum. We are clear that what the Scottish government

has is to have a referendum on independence. I think there are a

number of reasons, practical reasons. We have heard in the past

that if independence gets 51 % but devolution plus maximum gets 95 %,

51 % drums and 95 %. It is confusing. It is a brand without

our name on the product. Above all the mandate that Scottish

government has from the election win in 2011 is for a referendum on

independence and that is what we believe should be delivered for

stopped your answer to my question, are there any circumstances on

which you a transfer section powers of the Scottish government on a

two-question vote is no. It if the Scottish government were to go

ahead with a two-question referendum because it claims its

consultation shows there is a demand for that, without power was,

what in your view would be the status of that referendum? It is a

question of whether you would get to that referendum because I would

have to consider whether to make a reference to Supreme Court or not

all whether the title to raise an action in Scotland is now much

wider in public law issues than it has been before and then maybe

people who challenge it. Who knows if they get into the courts what

the outcome would be. The question is whether you would get it but the

whole point of this is we do not want to get into that position

where the courts are determining this. We believe that there is the

scope of their to have a clear referendum on the issue of

independence. The other. About the so-called second question, if you

are a member of a club and you want to leave, the other members should

not stop you leaving. If you want to remain a member of the club but

want to change the rules, the other members have some interest as well

and that is why there are real difficulties. There is a legitimate

interest in other parts of the UK. Let's discuss that more in a moment

but I want to get clear up. Obviously if the SNP government

went ahead and organised a referendum without section powers

it could be open... Let's say they managed to do it, what I am

interested in is whether your government, what attitude you would

have to be the result of such a referendum? If we ever get there.

What is it about? David Cameron said they should be more powers. My

own power says that also. Arguably you don't actually need a

referendum to have more powers. We have are implementing the Scotland

Act 2012, substantial piece of further powers without a referendum.

U D need -- do not need a referendum for more powers. Let's

say the Scottish government went ahead with a referendum which did

not have section 30 approval from your government. Let's say it came

out in favour of independence. Would you consider that referendum

in the same way that your government and previous governments

have said that it is up to the Scottish people and you would end

to into negotiations, or would you enter into a different view? I do

not think we will get to that point. I think it is very hypothetical. I

think there are many who would challenge it. We are very strong in

our view that the Scottish parliament does not have the

competence... What I would say is that holding a referendum, the

Scottish parliament does not have the competence to hold that

referendum. If the people of Scotland want independence, it is

no basis to go forward for a new independent country on a referendum

which is legal -- legally challengeable. That is why we have

said from the consultation paper, we want a referendum that is

illegal, fair and that is decisive and I think the scenario you are

painting that would not form a basis... It is something openly

debated by the Scottish government. All I am asking is whether to be a

yes result in a referendum, would you accept the result? And you

Intuit have to. A Yes result in a legal, fair and decisive referendum,

we have indicated we will accept and they will be negotiations to go

forward on that. If you got a yes without section power was, we do

accept that? They are discussing that themselves. It seems not

unreasonable to ask you but you seem to be suggesting that she

would have to accept the result. am not sure I said that. I said I

am not sure we will get to that position because I do not believe

that referendum would have a legal basis to be held. We are not

suggesting that if the courts were to find against the Scottish

government that they would then hold a referendum in the face of

the decision of the courts. What I am saying is they -- is if they

tried to do that, it is completely new territory. If the courts were

to determined that they would be a legal referendum, that is different.

I would not believe that would happen. You would have a situation

where the courts are struck down because they do not have the

competence to do it. If I am a legal Beagle in the Scottish

government I conclude from that, if we decide we do not want for any

reason the section 30 authority because we disagree with the

details, we just go ahead with it and if we win in accords, we have

won and they have no choice and Jim Wallace has just said if the courts

back us, the British government will have to put up with it. If the

courts decide that, we would certainly respect the view of the

courts. Section 30 or under section 30 but what I am saying, in my view

is that it is highly unlikely to happen. We are confident that the

Scottish parliament does not have the competence to hold a referendum

without section powers. I do not think it will happen. What -- one

of the things that is striking is that when you do opinion polls,

most people want more powers for the Scottish parliament, more than

in the Bill that your government has just passed. It has also been

Lib Dem policy to do this since shortly after the Battle of

Hastings. Yet you as a party seemed to be unconcerned in this

referendum debate about giving people in Scotland the choice of

what has been your policy for 100 years. We do not believe it is

necessary for a referendum. There is a danger of conflating the view

that people want more powers with the idea that we need a second

question. We have got the powers that are being transferred under

the Scotland Act 20 12th which are four -- far more substantial. The

power to have new taxes but we have done that without a referendum. In

the whole 13 years since the Scottish parliament has been

established, there have been a number of ways devolution has

developed. I took forward to the freedom of information Scotland Act.

Eight required a Scot -- section power in order to do it. We took

initiatives on building railways, that required a section 30 order to

transfer powers from the Westminster Parliament to the

Scottish parliament. They did not need a referendums. If you have

more powers, you do not need a referendum. But there may well be a

referendum campaign, and surely it would make sense for you to say, we

are not in favour of independence but if you vote no, we want to do

if you vote snow and we will say to our Conservative colleagues that

this package, that we will implement this if you reject

independence and we will try to convince Labour to put it in their

manifesto. Which is what we did with the Calman Commission. It came

forward with proposals for further devolution, not least in terms of

substantial financial powers. We put it into our manifesto and

crucially, we have delivered. We have delivered without the

necessity for a referendum and I do not believe if we are looking at

the most decisive question Scotland can face - do we remain part of the

UK or not? My question was not are you in favour of a two-question

referendum, my question was why do you not come up with a package

which you promise Scotland? As you well know we have set up a

commission under Ming Campbell's chairmanship which will put up a

package and we will campaign for that. The point I am making is you

do not need a referendum for that but the fact that a No vote for

independence is not the end of the story. We have said we want more

powers, Labour has said that, David Cameron has said that and crucially

Some of these issues, I don't know whether you got around to

mentioning, but were that Scotland would remain a member of the

European Union. That's one of the issues we're trying to work out.

There was an issue - it was an issue of discussion. There were

different views being expressed. We will obviously reflect that. It's

one of the issues we will be addressing, but what I am saying is

that the consensus was this is - I think it's accepted it is

unprecedented. It not only depends on if in an independent situation,

a Scottish and UK government - there would be 26 members of the

European Union who would have a view in that, and no-one has asked

them what their view is, and simply to assert I think is misleading.

Orkney - would you conceive of any circumstances under which Scotland

would vote yes to independence and Orkney and Shetland could remain

part of the United Kingdom? I know it has been discussed, and it's

another factor in these... you're not ruling it out? If the

Scottish Government put it to them - if they believe in self-

determination, how far are they prepared to take self-

determination? How far are you... am not putting the case for

Scottish independence. All I can say is over many years, I have

found my constituents have been very much persuaded - my former

constituents rather, have been very much persuaded of the case for the

United Kingdom. I haven't detected any see-change in that. Again, I

can't say what would happen in the event of a yes vote... I think you

can on this one. I know you've got local loyalties. I think you can

clearly see that Scotland votes for independence. It's not up to

particular areas of Scotland to decide they won't bather going

along with that. I think you should ask those who succeeded me as

parliamentary representatives. I don't think they think it's an

open-and-shut question. Clearly you don't either. We'll leave it there.

Jim Wallace, thank you very much indeed.

I am joined by our political correspondent Raymond Buchanan who

is in Edinburgh. Raymond Buchanan, we had this convocation of experts

today, and - what's the point? think the point of that is for the

UK Government do put a bit of pressure on the Scottish Government

because what you've seen from Alex Salmond and his Ministers in recent

months is, for instance, on banking regulation we saw John sweenny

giving a speech where he said it would be SNP policy that they'd

share banking regulation with the rest of the UK if Scotland decided

to vote for independence, so his point - and he made it in that

interview is assertions have been made by the Scottish Government and

they have to be tested. He wants to gather together a series of experts

to test those assertions and to put pressure on the Scottish Government

and its case because that's what we have seen over the last few months.

There has been a ding-dong, if you like, between the two sides, one

trying to up the pressure on the other - the UK Government versus

the Scottish Government, trying to get one over on each other. More

developments tomorrow that we await breathlessly about what the

question might be in any referendum. What's that all about? Well, this

is the question that the Labour Party Conservatives and Liberal

Democrats might want to be asked in the independence referendum. We

know that the Scottish Government have set out their view in their

consultation document which essentially asks the Scottish

people in that referendum, do you agree that Scotland should become

an independent country? That is the only - the question that the

Scottish Government have put forward so far in this discussion.

That has been rejected publicly by their opponents, who then thought,

well, we'll come up with our own question, but get panel of experts

to do that led by Lord Sutherland, also a referendums expert and Ron

Guld, who led the disastrous 2007 Scottish election. They'll come up

with their question tomorrow which I understand will be one question -

they don't believe in the devo-Max option, and it will be something

along the lines of should Scotland become an independent state? I

don't know the facts, but we should find those out tomorrow morning.

There is a fly in the ointment here which is only last week, John

McCormack, who runs the general election in Scotland was on this

programme explaining he's obliged to test with focus groups questions

which are suggested by either the British or Scottish Government. I

am not sure this question from this group comes into either category.

don't think it does, and that'll be one of the points which will be put

to them tomorrow which is essentially this is a redundant

process because the Electoral Commission will not be looking at

whatever question they come up with tomorrow. They will, though, assess,

as you say, whatever question the Scottish Government come up with,

so they may well have their own question, but the issue will be

whether anybody is listening to that. What do you think the point

of this is, then? I have not heard any proposal by the British

Government, which would be the obvious vehicle to - for this to

get the Electoral Commission to test another question. There

doesn't seem to be any suggestion they should do that. No, because

you would then be going down the road of why have they come up with

the question unless they were planning to hold their own

referendum? That's not something that the UK Government are

considering at the moment - certainly not publicly considering

that at the moment, so it's very unlikely that the UK Government -

policy decision will come up with their own question. That's why the

political parties have this panel together. The Electoral Commission

would be looking into this, and perhaps it will be interesting in

the debate. The reason they're coming up with this is they don't

believe that the Scottish Government's question should be the

one that is put to the people, and this is part of this process - a

debate which we have had going on for months now because academics

who look into this sort of thing say, look, it's really important

what question you ask because the way you frame that question might

actually be very important when it comes to deciding what the result

will be. Look, if you're a constitutional lawyer, these must

be the most unprecedentedly exciting of times. For the rest of

us, how long are we going to have to put up with this? The Government,

Scottish and UK, have been having discussions, meetings between the

Parliament Minister of Holyrood and the Scotland Office Minister.

They're due to meet again in the next few weeks. There have been

rumblings from the UK Government that they need to come up with a

deal if they're going to make a deal by autumn. Their red line, of

course, is there should only be one question in the independence

referendum. That is the timetable the UK Government seem to be

working towards at the moment. They say they probably need to do that

for some of the procedural things, for the Section 30 order to go

through. The Scottish Government say they have no fixed timetable

other than to say, look, they believe this is an issue for the

Scottish Parliament. Beyond that process stuff, we have civil

servants here in Edinburgh coming one a prospectus they'll publish