Scottish ministers have been branded “hypocritical” after they rejected a bid to ensure any future referendums on the constitution would need to have a second confirmatory vote.
Labour’s Jackie Baillie had called for this to be a key part of legislation going through Holyrood, which sets out how such ballots would take place.
With Constitutional Relations Secretary Mike Russell and First Minister Nicola Sturgeon both backing a so-called People’s Vote on Brexit, Ms Baillie said the same principle should also be applied if there was to be a second vote on Scottish independence.
READ MORE: Nicola Sturgeon accuses think-tank of 'flawed analysis' after it warns of SNP austerity
She put forward an amendment to the Scottish Government’s Referendums Bill to achieve this – which was rejected by nine votes to two by MSPs on the Finance and Constitution Committee.
They voted down Ms Baillie’s amendment after the Constitutional Relations Secretary argued the legislation was designed to cover all possible future referendums and did “not seek to prescribe different referendum processes for particular subject matters”.
Mr Russell said “automatic second referendums are not required”, although he did accept there could be case for them in situations such as the 2016 European referendum “where the information provided to voters was flawed” or “where circumstances have changed, where things are no longer what they were”.
Ms Baillie said she was “disappointed” the Scottish Government had not backed her amendment “given the very fulsome comments from the First Minister and the Cabinet secretary about a People’s Vote”.
She argued: “I do think it is slightly hypocritical to make the argument a second confirmatory referendum is required in the case of the EU, while at the same time insisting a major constitutional change in Scotland’s status in the UK, in a much longer established union, wouldn’t require that.”
The Labour MSP added: “Major constitutional issues, in my view, require consent based on what it would mean rather than a vague notion of simply taking back control.
READ MORE: SNP ferry 'fiasco' as ministers sued by their own company
“I would much rather run the risk of voter fatigue on substantial issues of constitutional change than make a change which would harm the country without consent.”
With the committee considering the detail of the Referendums (Scotland) Bill, Scottish Greens co-leader Patrick Harvie made a call for the law to be changed so it would be an offence to make false statements during a referendum – as it already is during election campaigns.
“If we are going to have more referendums in Scotland in the future we should hold them to a higher standard,” he said.
Mr Russell said while the Green MSP has raised an “important issue” he could not support such changes to the legislation.
He warned the committee: “Regulating the truthfulness of campaign statements cannot be done effectively at this stage and cannot be done by these amendments.
“The likely outcome of this approach would be severe curtailment of freedom of speech.”
Mr Harvie withdrew his amendment but said he would “consider if there is another way to bring this debate to the chamber”.
Conservative MSP Adam Tomkins also put forward an amendment that would, if passed, have required ministers, the Scottish Parliament, MSPs and public bodies to “respect decisions made by referendums”.
He said: “I suppose it is an attempt to prevent referendums becoming what the Canadians once called ‘neverendums’, that referendum outcomes are somehow not determinative of the question which have been put to the people.”
But he did not press this to a vote after Mr Russell told the committee that as referendum results were “not always clear cut” there “needs to be space” for politicians to consider how to move forward.
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 hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel