ALEX Salmond has defended the right to claim a simple majority in a referendum as a mandate for independence, even if more voters opted for "devolution max" in a multi-choice poll.
The First Minister argued all of this was spelled out in the referendum Bill white paper in February 2010 and followed the precedent of the 1997 referendum, which had one vote for a Scottish Parliament and a second to give it tax-varying powers.
However, Professor John Curtice of Strathclyde University dismissed the comparison with 1997, saying next time there could be two very different “Yes” outcomes: One for extending devolution and the other for independence, which would require new rules for determining the outcome.
He insisted that in 1997 the two questions were more clearly linked, with one vote establishing a parliament and a second giving that parliament a specific power. “Devo max and independence can be seen as two separate questions and we cannot assume that everyone voting for independence would prefer that to devo max,” he said.
“If people see these are two separate questions and are then told that the one that is implemented is the one that got less support, they will say no way.”
The SNP said if there was a first question on extending devolution and a second for independence it would give options to vote No-No for the status quo, Yes-No for devo max, or Yes-Yes for independence – with No-Yes as impractical an option as it was in 1997.
But Yes-Yes would almost inevitably receive fewer votes than Yes-No as opposition to independence kicked in.
Mr Curtice said the answer was an alternative vote poll, but when the SNP mooted that in 2010 the other parties shot down the idea.
Scottish LibDem leader Willie Rennie insisted: “It is time the SNP abandoned the smoke and mirrors and explained how they can possibly justify how a tiny majority for independence could trump a landslide for devo max.”
A spokesman for the First Minister said: “The SNP Government has always made it clear that we are entirely willing to include a ‘devo max’ option in the referendum.”
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