It is time to get on with the real debate about Scottish independence.
This cannot happen until there is agreement about the timing and terms of the referendum. Bickering has dragged on since the meeting between Alex Salmond and Michael Moore to discuss these issues was postponed last month on account of the Scottish Secretary succumbing to chicken pox. That could not be helped but the delay makes it all the more important that today's discussions are not simply talks about talks. Mr Moore has been appointed lead minister on this matter, so this meeting should not be regarded as in any way preliminary.
In fairness, there appears to be a willingness on both sides to get beyond process. There is now agreement on the timing of the poll, or at least on the First Minister's right to call it at a time of his choosing. And there is little disagreement between the parties about the residency qualification. (Only those living in Scotland, who will have to live with the consequences of the poll, should be entitled to vote.)
The use of the Electoral Commission and the question of whether 16 and 17-year-olds should be included should not be major sticking points. Including them looks too much like a political move by the SNP to get the result it wants. The Herald's view is that this is too serious an issue on which to make such a major change to the franchise.
If politically neutral experts regard the current proposed wording of the independence question as biased, the Scottish Government should reconsider it or risk having the credibility of the poll undermined.
The largest remaining area of disagreement concerns the possibility of a second question on the ballot regarding devo max. A single question ballot has the advantage of clarity and different political parties are likely to favour different versions of devo max. On the other hand, given strong public support for more powers for the Scottish Parliament, would it be undemocratic not to include a second question?
Either way, it is time to get beyond procedural detail to the substantive issues. The news, revealed in The Herald today, that the Commons Defence Select Committee is to launch a major review into the consequences for both sides of the Border for the armed forces and the defence procurement industry, if Scotland became independent, is therefore welcome, provided it is not merely a stick with which to beat the SNP.
In its determination to paint an image of Scotland post-independence in a rosy glow, the SNP has left a number of areas rather vague. Voters have a right to know what Scottish defence forces would look like under these circumstances. Where on the broad spectrum between a largely ceremonial outfit and a modern fighting force would a Scottish army stand?
The SNP fought hard to retain military bases in Scotland. Would it expect an English Ministry of Defence to retain its bases on Scottish soil, let alone use Scottish shipyards to build its warships? And what would be the consequences on both sides of the Border of a nuclear-free Scotland, given the shortage of British deep water harbours with rapid access to the Atlantic?
There are even questions about whether the SNP faithful are at one on a number of major issues. Research has shown that a majority of activists would oppose an independent Scotland leaving NATO, something that has long been party policy.
These issues should be aired. However, it must be done fairly. Can a committee composed entirely of politicians from Unionist parties be expected to do this? If the process is to avoid accusations of bias, Angus Robertson, who is both the SNP's leader at Westminster and its defence spokesman, should be invited to join them.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article