Public Petitions meeting on November 15th

Referendum on Self-determination (PE1014)

The Convener: Our next petition is PE1014, by Neil Caple, on behalf of Independence First. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to consider and debate what moves it could make to ensure the early presentation to the people of Scotland of a referendum on self-determination. Before being formally lodged, the petition was hosted on the e-petition system, where it gathered 1,333 signatures and 132 discussion comments.

Do members have any suggestions on how we should deal with this petition?

Ms White: First, I ask whether there is anyone here to present the petition. I note that Neil Caple wanted to make a statement to the committee. Did he subsequently say that he did not want to come along?

The Convener: No. I did not ask him. The petition is straightforward and there was no requirement for him to come along and give additional information. The petition speaks for itself.

Ms White: I am not challenging that. I am just asking the question because Mr Caple ticked the box on the form to show that he wanted to come and make a statement to the committee. I thought that perhaps he was ill. I did not know whether he was here.

The Convener: Almost all petitioners tick the box, but I have to decide whether they are required to come and give additional information. Because Mr Caple's petition is fairly straightforward, there is no requirement for him to come and give additional information.

Ms White: I was just asking for clarification. The situation has arisen on numerous occasions and I always ask why there is no one here. I accept your explanation. I might not agree with it, but it has clarified the matter for me.

As the petition states, independence would be down to the Westminster Government, [the petition did not state any such thing and this is not the case it is up to the Scottish people to decide when and if we want independence JOE] but the Scottish Parliament has the power to consider the matter and, in particular, to set up a referendum.

Professor Munro, professor of constitutional law at the University of Edinburgh, said:
"You have to make the distinction between the reserved powers and what parliament can debate and discuss ... there is nothing to stop the parliament arranging to hold a referendum, because that would not involve a change in the law."

That view was confirmed by the Labour-dominated House of Commons Scottish Affairs Committee, which reported: "constitutional matters are reserved but it is hard to see how the Scottish Parliament could be prevented from holding a referendum on independence".

I recommend that we ask the Scottish Executive for its view on the petition.

The Convener: I will make my position clear, Sandra, as you made yours clear. Starting next April, we will have a debate called an election. Political parties will stand for election and some of them will stand on their proposal to hold a referendum on independence. If the outcome is that those parties win, they will be able to take up the issue and debate it where it requires to be debated. However, the present Scottish Executive does not support independence. I do not see why the Parliament should use time to debate something that will be debated next April. The petition is about publicising an event that the petitioner wants to take place after the election. I think that we should let the election take place and debate the matter after that.

Campbell Martin: This might come as a surprise to you, convener, but I do not agree with you. I agree to a certain extent—I hope that the matter will be settled next May, but I hope that we will have a pro-independence majority in the Parliament at that time. With the greatest respect, you are being a wee bit disingenuous in that people do not vote only on the constitutional issue. We know that they vote on a range of issues rather than on a single issue. The petitioners are asking for all the other issues to be stripped out, leaving a simple question.

The referendum would not be only on independence; it would also be on Scotland's continuation in the British union. In the 300 years of the British union, the people of Scotland—supposedly the sovereign power in Scotland—have never been asked the question, "Do you want Scotland to remain within the British union, or would you like independence?"

It would be a two-way thing. You would think that if both sides were confident of winning, both would be happy to hold such a referendum, but at the moment only the pro-independence side wants to have a referendum. The pro-British union side does not seem to want one. People will draw their own conclusions about why those on the pro-British union side do not want a referendum.

The petition asks the Scottish Executive to consider and debate what it could do
"to ensure the early presentation of a referendum".

We could at least, as we did with an earlier petition, seek the Scottish Executive's view on whether it can do anything with regard to such a referendum. Let us bear in mind the fact that Strathclyde Regional Council held a consultative referendum to determine what the people of Strathclyde wanted to do with Scotland's water.

If we are not scared of democracy and people power, I do not see why we should not ask people the question, and I do not see why the Scottish Parliament, the democratically elected Parliament of Scotland, should not play a part in doing that. Let us therefore do as the petitioners request and ask the Executive whether it considers that it can do anything to facilitate such a referendum, and what its position would be.

Jackie Baillie: I have always believed that clarity and transparency are essential in politics, so to hear some of the disingenuous comments that have been made is quite amusing. I do not intend to debate the terms of the petition. I simply say that, at the most recent, and very democratic, opportunity that people had to voice an opinion on the matter—the general election—the share of the vote for parties supporting independence dropped substantially. That might be an uncomfortable fact, but it is a fact nonetheless. I think that we should await May with interest.

In the meantime, I recommend that, as legislation in this area is reserved, and as people had an opportunity at the general election to do something about it and chose not to, we should agree to note and close the petition.

Helen Eadie: I second that. Clearly, the petitioners could lobby Westminster parliamentarians. I am never surprised—because it is the usual suspects who bring such petitions to the Parliament—that, although such people know that they could lobby Westminster members, they simply refuse to do so. Instead, they choose to use the option of petitioning the Scottish Parliament. This Parliament has powers to hold referendums on devolved matters but, as Jackie Baillie has pointed out, self-determination could be regarded as requiring a change in the constitution, so it is a matter for the United Kingdom Parliament. I whole-heartedly support what Jackie Baillie and the convener have said.

Mr Gordon: I have always supported Scotland's right to self-determination. It might well be that some kind of referendum will be held one day. The petition is quite interestingly worded, as it refers to "the early presentation of a referendum".

If that scenario were to unfold, a referendum ought to be held sooner rather than later. It is interesting to note that the Scottish National Party has been careful to say in Parliament that it might take quite a while to have a referendum on self-determination. The reason why I would support an early referendum, if such a scenario were to unfold, is that the uncertainty that would result if it took a number of years to get to that stage could damage our nation's economy. I worry about the example of Quebec. I have seen the economic damage that was done to Quebec by having what was, in effect, a never-ending referendum.

I am certainly not afraid of democracy and I do not oppose self-determination, but I am above all a practical person and I came to this Parliament to do things, not to indulge in grandstanding. The wishes of the petitioner could easily be met. We could have a debate about a referendum if the SNP used some of its parliamentary time for that. I support the recommendation.

The Convener: We know Sandra White's position. Is she going to tell us something startling—that she does not support independence?

Ms White: I was going to speak to the petition. I thought that we were here to do that, rather than to grandstand. The issue will be decided at the election. I am not talking about the SNP, Labour or any other party—I am speaking to the petition. I do not even know Mr Caple. The comments of Helen Eadie and others were pretty disingenuous. The Scottish Parliament has a Public Petitions Committee and people are within their rights to bring any petition before it.

The Convener: That is why we are discussing the petition.

Ms White: That is why I am speaking to it. I am not grandstanding on any political issue. As Campbell Martin said, the petitioner is calling on the Parliament to
"debate what moves it could make to ensure the early presentation of a referendum on self determination to the people of Scotland."

The outcome of that early referendum could be that the people of Scotland want or do not want independence. The petitioner is asking only for the issue to be determined by the people of Scotland—there is nothing in the petition about what the outcome should be. As I have already mentioned, the professor of constitutional law at the University of Edinburgh and the Scottish Affairs Select Committee have said that there is no legal reason that would prevent the Scottish Parliament from setting the format for a referendum. That is the issue that the petition addresses.

I recommend that we write to the Scottish Executive and seek its views on the mechanism that it would use. That is a sensible suggestion that does what the petition asks for. I have no doubt that it will not be accepted, but I will make it anyway.

The Convener: The organisation that submitted the petition is called Independence First, which hardly indicates that it takes a neutral position on the outcome of the referendum that it seeks. If it seeks a referendum, there is an opportunity for that referendum to take place following next year's election. Different political parties will have different platforms. Some will argue that a vote for them amounts to a vote for independence in a referendum and that the question of independence should be decided by the outcome of the election. The platform of some parties will be that there should be a referendum at some point in the distant future, whereas others will take the position that they are totally opposed to a referendum. At the moment, it is the will of the Parliament not to have a referendum—that has been clearly stated.

Mr Gordon: The petition is asking us to debate how we might have a referendum. I am making the practical point that Sandra White could give effect to the petitioner's wishes by having her party group request such a debate in its allocation of parliamentary time. The SNP can do that tomorrow, if it wants. The petitioner is asking us not to hold a referendum but to have a debate.

The Convener: I was going to conclude on that point. At the moment, the Executive has clearly ruled out holding a referendum. Regardless of whether it is legally permissible for the Scottish Parliament to hold a referendum, the Executive has said clearly that it will not happen while it is in government.

Ms White: Does that mean that we cannot get an answer on the petition?

The Convener: No. Political parties in the Parliament that wish to hold a referendum could have the matter debated, but it has been made absolutely clear that the Scottish Executive will not have it debated. There is no point in our writing to the Executive in order that the Executive may tell us exactly what we already know.

Campbell Martin: I refer to the wording of the petition. It calls on the Scottish Parliament
"to consider and debate what moves it could make to ensure the early presentation of a referendum".

It says "could", not "would". The petition is asking us to ask the Scottish Executive what the legal position on holding a referendum is. It is not asking what the Executive's position is.

Jackie Baillie: Irrespective of the merits of any petition, the Public Petitions Committee is not a posting box that passes petitions on to others without first considering them substantially. I have made a recommendation. We should now decide what we want to do, irrespective of the Scottish Executive's view.

The Convener: Jackie Baillie has recommended that we note and close the petition. I do not think that we will get any further by continuing to debate it. If we vote on Jackie's proposal, Sandra White can choose to support or not to support it. We do not need amendments to a straightforward proposal.

Ms White: I do not have an amendment. What about the recommendation that I made? You could vote against that—I presume you will, anyway.

The Convener: What is your recommendation?

Ms White: My recommendation is to write to the Scottish Executive and ask what its legal position is on a referendum.

The Convener: Okay. I think that we should deal with Jackie Baillie's proposal. If her proposal to note and close the petition has the support of the majority of the committee, that will be the committee's decision on the petition. If Jackie Baillie's proposal is not agreed to, I will then take Sandra White's proposal and we can decide whether to take the matter to the Executive.
The question is, that the Public Petitions Committee notes and closes consideration of petition. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener: There will be a division.

FOR

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)Gordon, Mr Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)

AGAINST

Kane, Rosie (Glasgow) (SSP) Martin, Campbell (West of Scotland) (Ind)White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)

The Convener: The result of the division is: For 6, Against 3, Abstentions 0.

It is agreed that we will note and close consideration of petition PE1014.