Patrick's been urging me to watch Tavish Scott's appearance on Newsnight last night. Having done a substantial u-turn on a referendum in his first 24 hours in office, Tavish then refused to answer Gordon Brewer's question. After berating the media, which is always a good idea. (iPlayer link, until it goes down)He started his leadership very clearly (by Liberal standards): "I am not intuitively against making sure that people have a choice and opportunity to vote on these things."
Then he rotated completely, saying he was opposed to a vote that could introduce independence "by the back door".
Pressed to reconcile these two contradictory statements, he refused. His policy on the constitutional future of our country? Fuel prices are too high. It's as absurd as saying your policy on fuel prices is independence. And no-one would do that.
Eventually Gordon got an answer: "I don't see how a multi-option referendum could work."
Here's a thought, Tavish. It could work like the leadership race you just won. It would be a preferendum, and if, say, three options are offered - independence, Calman or status quo - then the public rank their preferences.
If one option gets 50% of first preferences outright, as you did, that's the result. If not, the least preferred option is eliminated, and the second preferences of those who picked it are counted. It's not "independence by the back door", it's the electoral system your party brought in for local elections. It allows a nuanced point of view - presumably you'd back Calman 1, status quo 2. I'd go for independence 1, Calman 2 (assuming Calman ever reports, and the result isn't absurd).
Even those opposed to independence should back a vote. If they're right about public opinion, we can all put this issue to bed for a generation and get on with tackling poverty and climate change. If they're wrong, then there's a popular will for change, and they shouldn't obstruct it. What's so complicated about that?
Leave a comment