House of Commons Scottish Affairs Committee The Referendum on Separation for Scotland Written Evidence Only those submissions, written specifically for the Committee and accepted by the Committee as evidence for the inquiry The referendum on Separation for Scotland are included. List of written evidence 1 The Electoral Commission 1a Supplementary The Electoral Commission 1b Further Supplementary The Electoral Commission 2 Public Questions 3 Peter Thomson 4 Adam Tomkins 5 The United Reformed Church 6 CBI Scotland 7 Professor Michael Keating 8 Rt Hon Michael Moore MP 9 Further Rt Hon Michael Moore Mp, Secretary of State for Scotland 10 John Philip McAleer 11 Peter Kellner, President, YouGov 12 Professor Alan page 13 Aidan O’Neil QC 14 John Kay 15 Ian McLean 16 Vernon Bogdanor 17 John Curtice 18 No Campaign Ltd 19 Supplementary Iain McLean 20 SSE 21 True Wales 22 Dr Matt Qvortrup 23 Supplementary Rt Hon Michael Moore MP 24 Nigel Smith 25 Additional Rt Hon Michael Moore MP 26 Robert Durward 27 Supplementary Electoral Reform Society 28 Ipsos MORI 29 Ruth Stevenson 30 Supplementary Electoral Commission 31 Professor Denis Mollison 3 Written evidence submitted by John McCormick, Electoral Commissioner for Scotland, The Electoral Commission Ahead of our appearance at the Committee on 2 November 2011, I wanted to set out some of our thinking on referendums in general and, in particular, the forthcoming referendum on Scottish independence. As a voter-focused organisation we do, of course, have a great interest in how any referendum, including a referendum in Scotland, will be conducted. Where a referendum is held under the Political Parties Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (PPERA) the Commission has a number of responsibilities including, commenting on the intelligibility of the question; regulating campaigning; designating lead campaigners and reporting on the referendum. The Chair of the Commission (or someone they appoint) acts as the Chief Counting Officer, responsible for the conduct of the referendum and ensuring the accuracy of the overall result. A referendum called by the Scottish Parliament would not be run under PPERA and therefore there would not be an automatic role for the Commission. It would be for the Scottish Parliament to decide who they wanted to co-ordinate the administration of the referendum, regulate the campaigners or carry out an assessment of the referendum question. Given the Commission's considerable experience in running referendums (including the referendum on law-making powers for the National Assembly for Wales which took place in March 2011 and the referendum on the voting system for UK Parliament elections which took place in May this year), we do have a view on some key points that ought to be addressed in planning for any referendum. We would offer the same advice on these points to any Parliament or legislature considering the rules for a proposed referendum. There are five main areas that we consider should be addressed in planning to deliver a voter-focused referendum, and in all of these areas we would be willing to offer advice based on our experience. They are: • a well-planned poll which is consistently and professionally delivered; • a comprehensive public awareness campaign so that voters know how to participate and understand what they are voting for; • a clear process for the designation of the Yes and No campaigns, and clear rules for those campaigners; • transparency in relation to campaign expenditure and funding; • a careful and independent assessment of the intelligibility of the referendum question. In our view, the nature and scope of any referendum is a constitutional issue for governments and parliaments to decide. Whether or not there is a referendum, who runs it and who votes are all fundamental constitutional questions. Our priority is simply to ensure that the referendum is well-run. We believe it is important that the plans for any referendum are considered carefully and fully, so we do not intend to comment on speculation about the conduct of any proposed referendum until there are specific proposals to respond to. Regardless of whether we have a role in a Scottish independence referendum, when proposals are brought forward we will be ready to use our recent experience of running referendums to offer advice to ensure it is well- run for voters and produces results that are accepted. November 2011 4 Supplementary written evidence submitted by John McCormick, Electoral Commissioner for Scotland, The Electoral Commission Thank you for the opportunity to appear in front of your Committee last week, During the course of our oral evidence we undertook to come back to the Committee on a couple of issues where we could not provide detailed answers at that time I hope that this letter will address those outstanding questions. Restrictions on Referendum Material Produced by Publicly Funded Bodies The Committee asked us for our views: on what period of time before polling day local and central Government should be restricted from putting out promotional material about the referendum. Section 125 of PPERA currently restricts publicly-funded bodies from publishing material about the referendum for 28 days prior to polling day. This restriction applies to information about the referendum and the question, as well as material related to the campaign arguments or designed to encourage participation. In our report on the 5 May referendum we recommended that the prohibition on publication of promotional material about the referendum by publicly-funded bodies or individuals should commence at the same time as the beginning of the referendum period (i.e. the date from which campaigners can be registered as permitted participants and the regulation of referendum campaign spending begins), We believe that this would reduce the risk that the use of public money is perceived as giving an unfair advantage to one side of the argument or the other. However, we also noted in our report that the current prohibition meant that for 28 days before polling day we had to ask Counting Officers in local authorities to carry out local activities to provide neutral information about the referendum on behalf of the Electoral Commission to ensure that they did not fall foul of the prohibition. In light of this we have also recommended in our report that for future referendums the law should be changed so that similar activities carried out by Counting Officers are exempt from the prohibition on the publication of referendum material by publicly- funded bodies or individuals. Research on Voting Behaviour on 5 May You asked in our session whether there was any evidence that the combination of polls had an effect on voting behaviour, with the views of voters on parties influencing how they voted in the referendum. As we noted at the meeting, the Commission would not undertake this type of research ourselves and our research team have told us that they are not aware of any research by other bodies or individuals on this topic which has been published to date. Should we become aware of any in future we will draw it to the Committee’s attention. I trust that the information in this letter has answered the outstanding queries but do get in touch if we can be of further help. November 2011 5 Further supplementary written evidence submitted by The Electoral Commission Electoral Commission Note of clarification: Q. 52: The Committee Chair asked the Commission for our views on the minimum timetable required for a well-run referendum. We indicated that it should be a minimum of 28 weeks but would like to clarify the timescales for each of the key phases within a PPERA referendum: We believe that there should be a period of at least 12 weeks between the campaign rules being finalised and the start of the regulated referendum period. This period would allow the Commission to complete, publish and distribute guidance and give campaigners an opportunity to become familiar with the guidance before the rules come into effect. We are also of the view that at future PPERA referendums the statutory minimum referendum period should be at least 16 weeks, consisting of the current 28 day designation application period, the current 14 day designation decision period, and a minimum of 70 days between the final date for the designation decision and polling day. This would give designated lead campaign groups more time to plan and use the benefits that PPERA makes available to them in order to put campaign arguments to voters. Together these key phases add up to a minimum of 28 weeks. November 2011 6 Written evidence submitted by Hugh Maguire Dear Committee Members, I welcome your inquiry into the potential referendum on Separation for Scotland. I would like to raise a query with you regarding voting eligibility. I am a Scot, born in Stonehaven but I live and work in Hove, England, while my family remains in Scotland. As a result I will be affected by any significant further devolution and particularly independence in ways I am concerned will not be at the heart of the debate. The issues of prime concern are related to my nationality, currency, tax, care for the elderly, inheritance, etc and in the extreme case potentially even my right of abode in either Scotland or England. I feel I have a democratic right to vote on the issue of Scottish Independence, and I would be very grateful if you could consider this aspect in your inquiry. I would also welcome consideration on the effects on potential Expats when reviewing the terms under which Scotland may leave the Union. October 2011 7 Written evidence submitted by Peter Thomson The Future of the Union It is clear to this author that Westminster has lost the plot as far as its North Briton region is concerned and the Scottish Affairs Committee have failed to understand the degree to which their ruminations on Scotland are irrelevant.