John Major’s proposal for a two-stage Scottish independence referendum is a non-starter

A referendum may be like buying a pig in a poke. You don’t have a detailed picture of what you are voting for. Brexit had no precise meaning in 2016. It might have meant remaining in the EEA – what some called the Norway Solution; it might have meant what we may now be heading for, a clean No-Deal break. The electorate voted narrowly – 52% to 48% – in favour of the pig in a poke.

A referendum need not be like that. The Scottish referendum of 1999 wasn’t. The Labour government had prepared a detailed scheme, showing clearly which powers and responsibilities would be transferred to a Scottish Parliament and which would be retained by Westminster. So, whether you were for or against devolution  you knew what was on offer. You even knew, for example, how the proposed Parliament would elected; there would be a hybrid system with 73 constituency members elected Westminster–style (First Past the Post) and 56 on regional party lists (a version of Proportional Representation).

The 2014 Scottish Independence Referendum was more like Brexit, a pig in a poke. Independence – Yes or No. Though the Scottish government had published a Paper, “Scotland’s Future”, it was a sketchy thing, important questions being left airily unresolved, even if mentioned at all. We couldn’t see into the poke and could only guess what the pig was like.

Now with opinion polls regularly favouring a second Independence Referendum and the SNP apparently likely to win an overall majority in May’s Scottish Parliamentary election, the prospect of a re-run of 2014 looms. And, you guessed it, a second 2014 would be another pig in a poke.

Sir John Major, a former Prime Minister who commands more respect than the present occupant of Number 10, Downing Street, has recognised this. He says that saying a hard “No” to calls for a new referendum carries its own danger, and is more likely to stir up Nationalist feeling than to appease it.

Many Unionists justify their opposition to another Independence Referendum by recalling the SNP warning that 2014 was a “once in a generation” opportunity to vote for Independence. A generation, as the Scottish Secretary Alistair Jack said last week, is a bit longer than six or eight years. This is true , but it is also, I think, the case that the words “once in a generation” spoken by, among others , Alex Salmond, were less than a promise to the electorate as a whole. They were an attempt to drum up support, a warning to anyone hovering on the brink of voting for Independence that they might not get another chance in a very long time. “Once in a generation” was a fly to attract waverers.

Be that as it may, there seem to be fewer waverers today. Holding the line or banging the door shut may appeal to committed Unionists, but , as Sir John has realised, others find such obduracy offensive, and ask the question: “what right has a Conservative Prime Minister, one whose party struggles to retain the support of 20 per cent of the Scottish electorate, to forbid us to vote about our future?” It’s a good question, even if the Scotland Act, which established the Parliament in Edinburgh and defined its powers and responsibilities, reserved Constitutional Affairs to Westminster. Only a vote in the British Parliament approving a referendum can make that referendum lawful.

The First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, recognises this, does not dispute it, and, to the irritation of some in her party, continues to seek the necessary approval. She is, I would guess, mindful of the consequences of the illegal independence referendum staged in Catalonia, a plebiscite which was not only constitutionally unlawful but also devalued because it was boycotted by the section of the Catalan electorate that was against independence.

Sir John Major recognises that just saying “no” has its own danger for the Union. So he proposes that there should be two referendums or, more exactly perhaps, a referendum in two stages.

The first would be a “consultative referendum”, asking us if we want the Scottish government to engage in negotiations on the terms of Independence. The British government’s approval of such a referendum would commit it to such negotiations if there were a majority in favour and I think it would be rather hard for Parliament to refuse approval.

The second stage of the referendum would then be held when negotiations were concluded. The Scottish electorate would be asked to vote for or against Independence on the agreed terms.

In this second stage, the pig would be well and truly out of the poke. We would be able to measure it and weigh it, and judge accordingly. This makes excellent sense, in the abstract anyway.

Unionists may however hesitate to accept the proposal. They may do so for four reasons:

First, it would be very difficult to campaign for a “No” vote in the consultative referendum. What could you say that didn’t imply that the electorate couldn’t be trusted to come to a wise decision?

Second, it is likely that the consultative referendum would result in a bigger “Yes” majority than today’s polls in favour of independence register. This is because it could be presented as cost-free. Say “Yes” now, and you can always say “No” next time round if you don’t like the terms agreed.

Third, and most seriously from the Unionist point of view, the months or years of negotiations would see the Scottish government negotiating with the UK government as an equal. Entering into such negotiations would itself be a quasi-recognition of Independence.

Fourth, whatever the terms agreed, the waverers who nevertheless voted in favour of the consultative referendum would not only have taken a first, if hesitant, step towards approving at least the idea of Independence, they might now feel it would be chicken-hearted to turn around and say, “well, now that we see what it really looks like, we don’t care for it at all”. The insults that some Nationalists now direct at Unionists would be as nothing compared to the invective  they would unleash against the turncoats  who voted first “Yes”, then “No”.

In an ideal world where men and women’s passions are governed by reason, Sir John’s proposal would be admirable. But the world is far from ideal. It is a place where reason comes a poor second to sentiment, a place where people would rather buy a pig in a poke than weigh and measure the pig before committing to purchase.

So, to switch from one animal to another, I don’t see this horse running.