MAJOR civic organisations have not participated in Nicola Sturgeon’s consultation on the Draft Referendum Bill prompting concerns there may be a disappointing response from the sector.
Independence supporting think tank, the Common Weal, as well as the Electoral Reform Society and the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, which all back opening up the democratic process and promoting social engagement, did not get involved.
The Scottish Trades Union Congress, and the trade union Unison, also did not respond.
Ben Wray, head of policy at the Common Weal, said his organisation did not take part as there was a sense it was “about politics” and not substance.
“To be honest I haven’t had any sense of what the consultation was going to achieve and what difference it would make to the direction of travel,” he said. “I don’t know really what they are consulting for and what they are looking to get out of it, so it wasn’t on our agenda. Let’s get the bill passed. [The consultation] seemed all about politics.”
Willie Sullivan, Scottish director of the Electoral Reform Society, gave a similar explanation.
“The consultation seemed too detached from the actual referendum day,” he said.
“When a referendum is called we think there should be another consultation on any referendum bill that is brought forward.
“The current exercise has been low profile. It’s been overshadowed by lots of other things and hasn’t really got a lot of focus.”
John Downie, director of public affairs at the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, added: “For us the consultation was more of a technical process so we didn’t respond to it. We had really nothing to say as this was a technical bill about the process.”
A spokesman for the STUC said: “We did not respond. It was a very technical consultation and we had addressed any issues in the last consultation ahead of the last independence referendum.”
The consultation on the draft Referendum Bill was launched in October and closed yesterday.
Ministers said it was being published should they conclude seeking the views of people on independence was the best or only way to protect Scotland’s interests following the EU referendum.
The Scottish Government said: “In the 2014 referendum the question was: ‘Should Scotland be an independent country?’ The paper proposes the same referendum question be used again or it could change following the consultation.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel