Self-determination, except for viewers in Scotland

I can see where Michael Moore is coming from with his suggestion that a Scottish independence referendum would need to be ratified by a second one, organised by Westminster.

The Scottish secretary has clearly looked at the situation in a calm, considered manner. He has come to the quite reasonable conclusion that, as the Liberal Democrats got an average of 6.5 per cent of the vote in the Scottish election, democracy has failed them and they should abandon the whole irritating concept. Why bother with abiding by the people’s decision when there’s the more attractive option of “extra time until Rangers score”? I await the Viceroy’s next pronouncement, that the peasants north of the Border are not yet educated enough to vote. Moore’s argument is that all the knobs and whistles of independence can’t be laid out in one referendum. His wizard wheeze is that we need a second to sort out all the fiddly bits. Well, Mickey boy, I’ve got news for you: a dozen referenda couldn’t cover all the details, because that’s not what referenda do. The referendum will establish the view of the Scottish people on the principle of independence. Golly gosh and gee whizz, if only there was some kind of democratically elected institution in Scotland to sort out the policy detail once the Scottish people have made their judgment. Oh, hudonaminnit… I quite understand why Moore has overlooked the existence of Holyrood, as his party has only a trace presence there. He must be discomfited that the Scottish people gave 72 of our parliament’s 129 seats to pro-independence MSPs. I’m surprised Moore has not annulled that inconvenient election and declared “best out of three”. There’s been a lot of tosh from “constitutional experts” about this. As the UK constitution does not exist, I’m not quite sure what these people are experts in. But, never one to miss a trick, I’ve decided to set myself up as a constitutional authority. I base my judgments on having studied metaphysics (the philosophical study of stuff that doesn’t exist) at uni. Also, family tradition has it that my great great aunt had the second sight. Using those talents, I have undertaken a study of the issue every bit as rational and authoratitive as Moore’s decision-making process. And the tea leaves tell me that once the Scottish people have spoken, that’s it. (Also, the Scottish Lib Dems are going on a long journey with an intriguing stranger.) If the Scottish people say Yes in a referendum, there’s no need to ask them to repeat themselves. If they say No, I doubt Moore and chums will be pushing for a second referendum just to make sure. All this is nonsense. To my mind, it’s an attempt to bounce the Scottish government into putting more options into the independence referendum in an attempt to preclude the perceived need for a second one. This should be resisted at all costs. The referendum should be a straight choice: Yes or No. As I’ve pointed out before, the Lib Dems et al had the chance to have a multi-option referendum in the last parliament. They decided against it then and should not get it now. Meanwhile, Scottish Liberalism dies a little more as the Westminster denizens pursue their crusade to become political pariahs. How far the party of proportional representation has fallen. It’s quite a journey from demanding a fairer voting system to denying the right of self-determination. The Liberal Democrats recently reiterated this particular right for the Falkland Islands. Apart from viewers in Scotland, eh folks?

Donate to us: support independent, intelligent, in-depth Scottish journalism from just 3p a day

Related posts:

1. One referendum or two?
2. Sketch: Except for viewers in Scotland…
3. Con-Dem coalition may scuttle Holyrood deals