#Indyref: In Defence of "Process"...

Where is Gypsy Amalia when you need her? Among the independence referendum's many imponderables, perhaps the most difficult aspect to foresee with much certainty at this stage is frustratingly elementary. Will Scotland be asked a simple, binary question on independence alone, or will a second question advocating some sort of enhanced devolution also be included? Across the land, clairvoyants, diviners and seers are bent double over their scrying puddles, struggling to pick out the truth amid the shifting eddies and undertows of our political discourse.

On this weekend's Sunday Politics Scotland, the blogosphere's Ian Smart and Kate Higgins both lamented the contemporary focus of political debate on questions of process, arresting the happy shift to discussion of substance. I'm afraid I can't agree. It is not as if we're endlessly deliberating on the number of paper-clips John Swinney proposes to requisition for the campaign, nor exchanging managerial disquisitions on the most efficient number of ballot papers to send to the returning officers of Cumbernauld.

While the issues outstanding are more and less likely to quicken the heart-rate and inflame the blood - questions, timing, franchise, oversight - I don't see how we can shift properly onto the substantial debate, without knowing what sort of discussion we can expect to have, what options are being put to the people.  The observation is banal, but a single issue campaign will be a profoundly different creature than one that ranges over more than one issue, and as yet, we don't know whether we'll be dealing with an either/or choice or an either/either/or. It is all very well to find the official political debate around these issues of referendum process by turns arid and affected - I sympathise with that assessment - but it strikes me as decidedly previous, and to underestimate the ways in which these initial questions of process will guide, frame and shape the substantial debate, to hope to make progress with a serious-minded analysis of what independence or "devolution max" might mean in practice for people's lives, when we haven't decided what the referendum will actually ask.

We know that there will be an independence question will be on the ballot paper - seeming likely to be the SNP's "Do you want Scotland to be an independent country?" - but context is everything. To ask that question alone is not to the same as asking it beside a second, proposing something shy of independence. On that score, even folk who are pro-independence are divided. As I understand her, Kate is keen on something in the "devo-max" line being included, while Gerry Hassan has unequivocally endorsed an alternative approach, arguing "We need to have a One Question Referendum. It is that simple!"

In a subsequent post, I intend to return to the bewildering range of tactical whys and wherefores at work in the political debate around the potential inclusion of a second question. In the interests of brevity, however, it is worth asking: just how long do we really have to decide whether a question on "more devolution" can be included in a referendum which, on Michael Moore's terms, is "fair, decisive and legal"? 

Take the Scottish Government timetable. Its Your Scotland - Your Referendum consultation is scheduled to end on the 11th of May 2012. They hope to finalise their draft Bill during the autumn and winter of this year, introducing it into Holyrood "early" in 2013. Simultaneously, down in London, Michael Moore's Scotland Office is running its Scotland's constitutional future consultation, on how a power to hold a legally-secure independence referendum ought to be clearly devolved to Holyrood, and what the precise scope of that power should be. Moore's consultation closes on Friday 9th of March. Both pose questions (at least obliquely) which solicit views on the inclusion of a second question, advocating some form of "increased devolution". As the Scottish Government has itself recognised, its preferred independence question relies on a section 30 order under the Scotland Act being made. To be competent, that section 30 order will have to be made before the Bill is introduced. I.e. some time before the end of this year.

In practical terms, the UK Government are proposing making an Order under section 30 of the Scotland Act.  The new referendum question adopted by the Scottish Government strongly implies - even relies on the fact - that a deal will be cut with Westminster, to eliminate legal dubieties, and allow a simple, direct question to be put. Unlike ordinary legislation, which can be amended and debated, these statutory instruments have to be accepted or rejected as drafted.  Practically speaking, Orders in Council are laid before both Houses of Parliament, and before Holyrood, for consent. We should also keep in mind that Westminster is in summer recess from the 27th of July to the 6th of September; Holyrood between 30th of June and 2nd of September, and shan't be consenting to anything.

While Autumn 2014 seems a long time away, the decision on whether or not a devo-max question will be posed in this referendum is realistically imminent. Ah, but say support for independence runs high. Might DavCam not lose his nerve, panic, and his opposition to the question's inclusion crumble? We have to distinguish between that's possible and what's realistic. Come Autumn 2013, I struggle to envision it. Another Order in Council, more legislation from Holyrood, culminating in an unexpected and disorderly late amendment to the ballot paper, to include a second question? While possible, such a scenario seems decidedly improbable to me. If "more devolution" is to be part of our referendum, we have to decide about its inclusion now.

After Moore's Edinburgh meeting with Salmond yesterday, the UK Government reiterated its enthusiasm for a simple yes or no independence question, without any devolved alternative attached. For those keen to change the coalition's mind, who want "more devolution" on the ballot paper, and want that ballot to be free from legal challenges - time really is short. A detail that at least two admirable Scottish bloggers of my acquaintance will welcome with cheery phizogs and hearts freed from the turbulent inertia of the present, essential, substantial, process-focussed choices that are still before us.