OTS Readers, we're working hard to make this website a permanent fixture in the independence debate.  We're currently running a fundraiser to help cover costs. You can read our full breakdown on our GoFundMe page. If you can't donate, please share this link or contribute to the discussions. Thanks!
Help Keep OTS Going

Once bitten...

Was the 2014 referendum rigged?

Thursday, September 19, 2024
5 mins

Once bitten...

by Rab Clark

Credit to @indyscotnews for transcribing this section of interview with Sara Salyers:

ScotNews

@indyscotnews

Indyref 2014 was rigged, most of it happened in plain sight. Sara Salyers of @ScotSalvo explains how.

"In a consultative referendum, an opinion poll, there's no contract, there's no actual requirement, which David Cameron did point out, to abide by the results of that referendum."

So they did not then set it up in the way that a proper constitutional referendum would have been set up according to international standards to begin with.

"The people who would be voting in that referendum would be people who had a stake in the future of the nation whose future they were voting on.

"We had every boy and his dog able to vote. So people who hadn't been in Scotland for, you know, more than maybe a few months, basically, all these people had a vote on the future of Scotland as an independent nation, which is, if you just think about it, think how absurd that is, people with no stake.

"Now, had that been serious, you know, a real referendum, that we were going to be allowed to have a chance of winning, they would have applied international standards, they would have used something like the new Caledonia franchise, which is a really solid.

"And it doesn't exclude people who've moved into Scotland. It isn't just ethnic Scots, it's, you know, it's people who have a genuine stake, interest in the future of that nation. That franchise, it shouldn't be a council... local council franchise, it should be one that reflects the stakeholders, who are the real stakeholders, and that's what that needs to be. That it wasn't, should have told us everything.

"Then we had the Edinburgh Agreement, and the Edinburgh Agreement said that there was a Purdah period, during which no new policies were to be announced. There was no... you know, all the campaigning would go on and then it stops. You can rehearse the arguments and everything that's been put forward, but nothing new should be introduced.

"Well, we got 'The Vow', 'Devo Max', less than two days before the vote. 'If you vote No, you will get this'.

Of course, that did not deliver, but it completely breached the Edinburgh Agreement.

"Well, what  they said afterwards was, 'Well, there's no evidence that it altered people's minds. Of course it did. Of course it told people, 'Well, if you don't want to go all the way to independence, we could have,' I think Gordon Brown said, 'it would be almost a federal relationship,' you know, blah, blah, blah.

"And that that meant people could say, 'Well, if we're afraid of what will happen, afraid of being pulled out of the European Union, we'd like a lot more power, but we were not sure about a total break...'. Well, of course, then they voted No.

"Then you also had the media. And in a properly run referendum, according to international rules, you make sure it's 50-50, that people get both sides of the argument, absolutely equally.

"There was a full study done, and it took one guy, Glasgow University lecturer in particular, to go through everything and come back and say, 'Look, it was over 70%, 'No' media coverage', and that also breaches international standards.

"So we didn't have any possibility of a fair referendum. And that wasn't coincidental. And had there been any kind of vote tampering, say, with the postal vote, because it was only consultative and there was no actual, therefore fraud, it makes it nearly impossible to get a judicial review.

"And there is no way, no matter what they have said, no matter what they have told us, 'Get a majority of members elected to Westminster' and that 'You don't need a referendum', or if 'Scotland wants to leave, then it has the right to do so'. No matter what the British State has said, that was never true."

@SSalyers2 on the @untribalpol @TheScotCongress

The New Caledonia Franchise

So, what is the 'New Caledonia Franchise' Sara mentioned?

We trust that this, from Wikipedia, is accurate:

The referendum was held using a special electoral roll. Potential voters needed to be registered on the general electoral roll, and also had to meet one of the secondary criteria:[15]

  1. Was on the electoral roll for the 1998 referendum on the Nouméa Accord;
  2. Qualified to be on the electoral roll for the 1998 referendum, but were not enrolled;
  3. Failed to meet the requirements to be on the 1998 electoral roll solely due to absence related to family, medical or professional reasons;
  4. Having civil customary status, or born in New Caledonia and have their material interests in the territory;
  5. At least one parent born in New Caledonia and have their material interests in the territory;
  6. At least 20 years of continuous residence in New Caledonia by 31 December 2014;
  7. Born before 1 January 1989 and have had their residence in New Caledonia between 1988 and 1998;
  8. Born after 31 December 1988 and reached voting age before the referendum, with at least one parent who was on the electoral roll (or qualified to do so) for the 1998 referendum.

2021 New Caledonian independence referendum - Wikipedia

We're not familiar enough with the circumstances of the 2021 vote to know how the franchise was viewed by the people entitled to vote (or those excluded for that matter) and it seems that the turnout for the referendum was affected by pro-independence parties organising a boycott which effectively rendered the results meaningless as a barometer of general and genuine feeling.

The reason we highlight the specific criteria adopted for the New Caledonia referendum is because it shows that alternatives are possible.

If franchise was discussed in any detail at last week's '10 Years On' gathering at Glasgow's IMax, we have yet to hear about it. It certainly wasn't discussed 'on-stage' by any of the speakers, so far as we're aware.

Was it discussed by attendees?

We don't know.

What we do know is this - going into another Scottish independence referendum (which seems vanishingly unlikely anyway) with the 2014 franchise unaltered is madness.

The NC franchise looks reasonable to us. But what we think doesn't matter. What does matter is that the issue be tackled head-on, as Sara Salyers, Alf Baird and others are doing. It's time for mainstream politicos of all parties to have their feet held to the fire on this - batting the issue away as if the existing franchise is carved in stone simply won't wash any longer.

Off-Topic Newsletter
No spam. Just the latest releases and tips, interesting articles, and exclusive interviews in your inbox every week.
Read about our privacy policy.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Download Aesop's Fables!
Download Now!
Get The Off-Topic Scotland Newsletter

Get Off-Topic Scotland in Your Inbox

No spam or ads, just the latest posts and updates from Scotland's newest pro-independence blog.

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.