I tend to agree with those who say Alex Salmond’s proposed referendum question is loaded.

Professor John Curtice is surely right when he says that in everyday conversation people are more inclined to say they agree than don’t agree.

We need a formulation that is neutral. One that doesn’t nudge the voter in a particular direction.

There have been two attempts to prise Quebec out of the Canadian federation. The first referendum in 1980 saw 40.4% in favour of secession, 59.5% against.

In the re-run in 1995, those wanting an independent Quebec were only narrowly defeated by 50.5% to 49.4%.

Ominously, the question in the 1995 referendum begins with the words:

Do you agree…

What follows is more opaque

…that Quebec should become sovereign after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Quebec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?

It is an open question how many Quebeckers fully understood the question. Some reports suggest over a quarter of those voting yes didn’t realise they were voting for an independent Quebec.

In any event, once the dust settled, legislation was brought in to make things crystal clear. Canada’s Clarity Act 2000 is designed to ensure any referendum question cannot be read two ways.

Salmond’s referendum question appears clear and straightforward but it is nonetheless a leading question, which my dictionary tells me is

a question phrased in a manner that tends to suggest the desired answer

It must be changed to a formulation that doesn’t tilt the voter towards independence.

Lois Brown MP

Last night, I take myself off to the Aurora Cultural Centre where the local Conservative MP, Lois Brown, is holding a “Pre Budget Consultation”. She wants to know what people want to see included in the forthcoming Federal budget.

Nothing prepares me for the views expressed by the parade of right wing Canadians who declaim from a lectern six feet away from the MP. She sits behind a desk, listening attentively, taking notes.

Step forward, Bruce Annan who describes himself as an accomplished speaker. He is, apparently, an international media consultant based in the town.

He tells the 25 of us in the audience the Harper government was right to pull out of the Kyoto accord and abolish the so-called “long gun register” which requires people with rifles, shotguns and the like to get clearance first from the police before they start shooting things.

He lists with approval Harper’s wilder initiatives before urging the majority Conservative Government to turn its attention to “union bullies’.

The silver tongued media man says the Government should get out of the business of international aid. That’s something for private individuals.

And he believes in flat taxes.

He declares: “By definition, Government spending is poorly spent.”

“I agree with you” chirrups Lois.

“We have to cut.”

She confesses she has no time for Keynes. Her lodestars are Milton Freidman and Friedrich Hayek She says Margaret Thatcher is her inspiration.

Lois applauds Toronto Mayor, Fat Rob Ford, for trying to get rid of the City’s subsidised housing.

And, yes, she wants to simplify the tax structure. She is thinking about a flat tax – though it is not Government policy.

Nevertheless, she invites the views of the Chamber of Commerce who, minutes before, pleaded for lower taxes.

That’s the way these Pre Budget consultations work.

Attachments:

Your Scotland. Your Referendum.pdf

[Your Scotland. Your Referendum. January 2012]

786 Kb