A second memo to Chris Hanlon: "recalling" two parliaments that haven't existed since the early 18th Century is not a "relatively simple matter"

Chris Hanlon left a comment on my previous post about his support for a multi-option referendum featuring a Devo Max option.  I initially thought it was a spoof comment because it contained the line "DevoMinMax is the minimum devolution I can consent to", but I see from Mr Hanlon's opinion piece in The National that he does actually use the word "DevoMinMax", so it may well have genuinely been him.

In case you're wondering what the definition of "DevoMinMax" is, it would apparently consist of only three changes to the current set-up.  The Scottish Parliament would be made permanent, with Westminster stripped of the power to unilaterally abolish it.  The Sewel Convention would be enforced by statute, ensuring that Westminster can no longer legislate on devolved matters without Holyrood's express consent.  And the Scottish Parliament would unambiguously gain the power to hold an independence referendum at any time without requiring permission.

It's doubtful whether this is actually describing a system of devolution at all, because a parliament that can no longer be abolished or overruled has effectively become sovereign.  However, that's a point of pedantry, and in principle it would be perfectly possible to legally entrench Holyrood's existence in the way Mr Hanlon suggests - although that would involve restructuring the entire principle of unlimited Westminster parliamentary sovereignty.  But what does raise an eyebrow or two is Mr Hanlon's suggestion of how that restructuring would occur.

"That would probably involve amending the Acts of Union but that would be a relatively simple matter of recalling the Scottish and English parliaments solely to approve the pre-agreed changes."

Er, what English parliament? There isn't one.  There hasn't been one since April 1707.  So what Mr Hanlon appears to be suggesting is the recall of the English and Scottish Parliaments that existed prior to the Acts of Union more than three centuries ago.  Such an undertaking could be described in many ways, but I'm not convinced that a "relatively simple matter" is one of them.  There is no legal provision for recalling parliaments that no longer exist. Even if there were such a provision, all of the members of both parliaments are, not to put too fine a point on it, long since dead, and there is no viable way of replacing them with a new membership in line with the pre-democratic laws of the early 18th century.

Let's be frank: Mr Hanlon is not presenting us with a remotely serious proposition.

*  *  *

2021 was another epic year for Scot Goes Pop: we commissioned three full-scale opinion polls, and produced fourteen podcasts with well-known guests such as Alex Salmond, Chris McEleny and Yvonne Ridley.  If you'd like more of the same in 2022, donations are still very much welcome for the ongoing fundraiser.  Direct donations can be made via Paypal.  My Paypal email address is:  jkellysta@yahoo.co.uk

Or, if you prefer, you can donate via the GoFundMe fundraiser page, which can be found HERE.

Memo to Chris Hanlon: Devo Max is either impossible, or it's a trap

I may be quite unusual among independence supporters in that I would be inclined to take Devo Max if it was genuinely on offer.  I've always been more interested in the concrete reality of self-government than in metaphysical concepts like sovereignty.  For example, any one of the federal states of Austria (such as Salzburg) is theoretically more "sovereign" than the devolved territory of the Basque Country in Spain, and yet in practice the Basque Country has far more autonomy.  Genuine Devo Max, defined as the devolution of everything apart from foreign affairs and defence, would give us 80% of what we want, and yet would be much easier to attain a mandate for, because technically remaining within the United Kingdom would provide sufficient reassurance for many of the people who voted No in 2014.  It would also be a potential stepping stone to full independence, because after a few years of Devo Max the jump to independence would seem much less daunting.

But here's the snag: I've just listed several excellent reasons why genuine Devo Max will never be on offer from the UK government.  Why on earth would an administration that has been busily dismantling the current limited devolution settlement suddenly reverse course and willingly hand over most of the powers of a sovereign state?  For some inexplicable reason, Chris Hanlon of the SNP's Policy Development Committee thinks they will (including, apparently, the power to "sign international treaties").  He believes London will be more likely to agree to a multi-option referendum than to a 2014-style binary-choice referendum on independence.  

The polar opposite is true.  London will not swap a 50% risk of independence for a 90% risk of something that is very close to independence and that might swiftly lead to independence anyway.  That's exactly why the overriding priority for David Cameron's government in the negotiations leading to the 2014 referendum was to avoid a Devo Max option.  They were - remarkably - willing to concede votes at 16 and Scottish control over the date and the question wording just to ensure Devo Max wasn't on the ballot paper.

The only possible reason for supposing it might be any different this time would be if the Tories saw an opportunity to lay a trap, ie. by offering "Devo Max" in name only, or what might be described as the Jackie Bird version of Devo Max.  As with the woolly offer of more powers from the No campaign in 2014, and the media's disgraceful unwillingness to pin them down on what it meant, it's possible we might not even be told what "Devo Max" would consist of until after we vote for it.  I can't help feeling that Chris Hanlon's words are simply helping to facilitate such a trap.

I'm also concerned that the fantastical notion that the Tories would be more likely to agree to a multi-option referendum is a sign that the SNP are still hopelessly in love with the blind alley of securing a Section 30 order at any cost, and no matter how long they have to wait.  The reality is that the only way that they won't break their solemn promise to hold a referendum in 2023 is if they go ahead without a Section 30.

Could we also be seeing the early part of a "softening up" process that will eventually lead to the SNP abandoning its support for full independence?  That may seem fanciful, but consider this - Quebec currently has an anti-independence government that defines itself without any sense of irony as "Quebec nationalist".  I've been wondering for a year or two whether the SNP may be very gradually drifting towards the same destination.

*  *  *

2021 was another epic year for Scot Goes Pop: we commissioned three full-scale opinion polls, and produced fourteen podcasts with well-known guests such as Alex Salmond, Chris McEleny and Yvonne Ridley.  If you'd like more of the same in 2022, donations are still very much welcome for the ongoing fundraiser.  Direct donations can be made via Paypal.  My Paypal email address is:  jkellysta@yahoo.co.uk

Or, if you prefer, you can donate via the GoFundMe fundraiser page, which can be found HERE.

Average of all independence polls from 2021 shows a Yes vote of 50%

Scot Goes Pop commissioned three full-scale polls on independence during 2021, two from Panelbase and one from Survation - but in total there were no fewer than fifty-three independence polls over the course of the year, across all polling firms and all clients.  I was surprised to find it was as many as that, although of course a lot of them were clustered during the Holyrood election campaign.  They've been a lot thinner on the ground since then.

But what were the average showings for Yes and No over the year? The answer may surprise you, in view of the media's frantic efforts to convince us that No has opened up a clear lead.  In fact, 2021 can be split into several distinct polling phases.  The early part of the year marked the tail-end of the historic sequence of unbroken Yes leads, which had stretched all the way back to June 2020.  From February until the Holyrood election in May, there was a lot of fluctuation between Yes leads and No leads, implying that the true state of affairs was fairly even.  From the election until the late autumn, No was mostly in the lead, but the advantage was fairly modest.  And then right at the end of the year, there was a possible change in the weather with two 50%+ polls for Yes.

When you bear all of that in mind, what you're about to see will be less surprising.  I've calculated the raw average using the figures before Don't Knows are stripped out.

Should Scotland be an independent country? (Average of all 2021 polls)

Yes 45.25%

No 45.90%

If Don't Knows are then removed and the figures rounded to the nearest whole number, you end up with exactly - 

Yes 50%

No 50%

So not quite as good as 2020, but still a superb platform from which to start a referendum - if we could just get around to calling one...

*  *  *

2021 was another epic year for Scot Goes Pop: we commissioned three full-scale opinion polls, and produced fourteen podcasts with well-known guests such as Alex Salmond, Chris McEleny and Yvonne Ridley.  If you'd like more of the same in 2022, donations are still very much welcome for the ongoing fundraiser.  Direct donations can be made via Paypal.  My Paypal email address is:  jkellysta@yahoo.co.uk

Or, if you prefer, you can donate via the GoFundMe fundraiser page, which can be found HERE.