The Nats and their rigged referendum question

Following up Scottish Unionist's raising of the rigged nature of the Nat's proposed referendum question, in the light of John Mason's admission that their 2007 election ballot paper entry was "a bit naughty".

Let's remind ourselves of the proposed question, which can be found here:

"I AGREE that the Scottish Government should negotiate a settlement with the Government of the United Kingdom so that Scotland becomes an independent state."

Now, the Nat claim put about (the myth to be busted, if you will) is that this is the "only possible" form of question which gets to the root of the matter, and also gets around the fact that the existing Scotland Act reserves all constitutional issues to Westminster.

This ought to raise the hackles of anyone with Standard Grade Maths, of course, because just as there is an infinite range of lines which can be drawn connecting two points, there is a near-infinite range of collections of words which can meet a simple legal requirement.

Why do we care?

Well, we now know that, as long suspected, the Nats' particular collection of words is designed to obscure and minimise the impact of the notion of "independence" and so increase the chances of a "yes" vote.

How do we know?

Well, from this ICM poll, which suggested that 42% of people would vote for the SNP’s proposition, whereas only 28% would vote for independence if the question clearly set it against the other main constitutional options.

So is this actually the "only possible" question?

According to the Nats' own consultation paper,

"3. The competence of the Scottish Parliament to legislate for a referendum would depend on the precise proposition in the referendum Bill, or any adjustments made to the competence of the Parliament before the Bill is introduced. At present the constitution is reserved, but it is arguable that the scope of this reservation does not include the competence of the Scottish Government to embark on negotiations for independence with the United Kingdom Government. "

[Bold in original source.]

(We can note in passing that this is all a bit weaselly. We're not given a court ruling or an opinion from a leading QC, we just get "arguably". Aye, right.)

But let's take it at face value. Apparently, "negotiations" is the magic word which solves all those ultra vires problems! Hurrah!

So that means the following would also be legally OK:

"I AGREE that the Scottish Government should negotiate with the Government of the United Kingdom the total secession of Scotland from the United Kingdom."

or:

"I AGREE that the Scottish Government should negotiate with the Government of the United Kingdom the complete separation of Scotland from the United Kingdom."

or indeed:

"I AGREE that the Scottish Government should negotiate with the Government of the United Kingdom the irrevocable divorce of Scotland from the United Kingdom."

OK?

Personally I think a referendum in the current circumstances would be an enormous waste of time, space, effort and money.

But if events force it to happen, then the Unionist parties should be determined to vote through a question which fully reflects the enormity and finality of what is being proposed.

Some variation or combination of the above ought to do. I won't ask for royalties.