Cunningham stalks again?
Last May I went to hear Prof. Anthony King speaking to an audience at Glasgow University about the referendum. Prof. King thought that independence would be virtually unachievable, because of the difficulty of the post-referendum negotiations. The audience, too - mostly from the University's department of politics - was generally hostile to independence, and one of those present said that he was "hoping for a new Cunningham Amendment that will blow this thing out of the water." Perhaps we're looking at such an event now.
The Cunningham Amendment will be a vivid memory to any readers old enough to have been politically aware in 1979. A bill setting up a Scottish parliament had received Royal Assent in July 1978; one of its provisions was that it would only come into effect if it was subsequently approved in a referendum, by a simple majority. So far so good, and campaigning began. Then in November 1978 a jobsworth called George Cunningham moved an amendment to the existing legislation, requiring a threshold not just of a majority of those voting, but 40% of registered electors. This meant that those who didn't vote counted as having voted against. Since some registered electors didn't vote because they were dead, and others had moved away, the amendment made it virtually impossible for the referendum to succeed. Not only that, it came into law just five weeks before polling day (1st March 1979), and the name of Cunningham has ever since been a byword for chicanery.
The offer by George Osborne of new powers for the Scottish Government in the event of a No vote could be today's Cunningham Amendment. It changes what is on offer in the referendum, and it is being announced after polling has started (because some postal votes have been cast).
The electorate for the referendum (including those under 18) numbers 4.2m, and 700,000 or so postal votes, or about 16percent of the total vote, have been issued. Some of those postal votes have been sent in. Let us postulate that one-eighth of postal votes were cast before George Osborne made his announcement: this would amount to 2percent of the total votes. So it will be open to the No side, if they lose, to argue that 2percent of votes were cast without proper knowledge of the question (never mind the reason), and that this makes the referendum invalid (quite apart from being enough to potentially reverse the result). You may think that the No side wouldn't take this step, but the Union is at stake. Those who enjoyed a Scottish classical education will already be saying to themselves, "Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes" - Be afraid of Greeks, especially when they bring gifts.
There is also the question of purdah - the period before an election (conventionally six weeks) during which the government of the day does not announce new initiatives, for fear of seeming to manipulate the vote. Technically, the announcement of new powers has been made not by the government but by the political parties, but since all three parties that could conceivably form a government stand together on this, the distinction is paper-thin. And David Cameron today urged us "as Prime Minister" to take account of the new powers (BBC Radio 4 World at One, today). Seems like the distinction is paper-thinner.
On a final and more whimsical note, George Reid, a redoubtable Scottish Parliamentarian and campaigner for independence, wrote a scathing attack here (p. 6) on the Cunningham Amendment. The house he refers to, where he had two votes (because the house had a front door and a back door) but lost both of them, is the house I now live in, having bought it from the Reids some decades ago; and my study, where I'm writing this blog, is the room that was also George's study. Thank you, George - the vibes round here do seem to be really good!
The Cunningham Amendment will be a vivid memory to any readers old enough to have been politically aware in 1979. A bill setting up a Scottish parliament had received Royal Assent in July 1978; one of its provisions was that it would only come into effect if it was subsequently approved in a referendum, by a simple majority. So far so good, and campaigning began. Then in November 1978 a jobsworth called George Cunningham moved an amendment to the existing legislation, requiring a threshold not just of a majority of those voting, but 40% of registered electors. This meant that those who didn't vote counted as having voted against. Since some registered electors didn't vote because they were dead, and others had moved away, the amendment made it virtually impossible for the referendum to succeed. Not only that, it came into law just five weeks before polling day (1st March 1979), and the name of Cunningham has ever since been a byword for chicanery.
The offer by George Osborne of new powers for the Scottish Government in the event of a No vote could be today's Cunningham Amendment. It changes what is on offer in the referendum, and it is being announced after polling has started (because some postal votes have been cast).
The electorate for the referendum (including those under 18) numbers 4.2m, and 700,000 or so postal votes, or about 16percent of the total vote, have been issued. Some of those postal votes have been sent in. Let us postulate that one-eighth of postal votes were cast before George Osborne made his announcement: this would amount to 2percent of the total votes. So it will be open to the No side, if they lose, to argue that 2percent of votes were cast without proper knowledge of the question (never mind the reason), and that this makes the referendum invalid (quite apart from being enough to potentially reverse the result). You may think that the No side wouldn't take this step, but the Union is at stake. Those who enjoyed a Scottish classical education will already be saying to themselves, "Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes" - Be afraid of Greeks, especially when they bring gifts.
There is also the question of purdah - the period before an election (conventionally six weeks) during which the government of the day does not announce new initiatives, for fear of seeming to manipulate the vote. Technically, the announcement of new powers has been made not by the government but by the political parties, but since all three parties that could conceivably form a government stand together on this, the distinction is paper-thin. And David Cameron today urged us "as Prime Minister" to take account of the new powers (BBC Radio 4 World at One, today). Seems like the distinction is paper-thinner.
On a final and more whimsical note, George Reid, a redoubtable Scottish Parliamentarian and campaigner for independence, wrote a scathing attack here (p. 6) on the Cunningham Amendment. The house he refers to, where he had two votes (because the house had a front door and a back door) but lost both of them, is the house I now live in, having bought it from the Reids some decades ago; and my study, where I'm writing this blog, is the room that was also George's study. Thank you, George - the vibes round here do seem to be really good!
Comments
Post a Comment