Banner

  On the anniversary of the 1979 devolution referendum, the SNP has accused the anti-independence parties of adopting the same discredited scare tactics for the 2014 referendum as they did then.
 
More than three decades ago on March 1st the people of Scotland took part in the ballot now remembered for its infamous forty per cent rule that meant Westminster ignored the majority Yes vote.

However the vote is also remembered for the campaign which took place before the days of the internet, at a time when the electorate relied on more traditional means of news provision.
 
In Feb 1979 the Daily Express ran an editorial which asked:

"How much of Scotland's economy will be left intact if a Scottish Assembly gets the go-ahead on March 1? Will our coal mines go gaily on? Will Ravenscraig or Linwood thrive? Will Bathgate flourish and Dounreay prosper?”

Prior to the 79 ballot, Scots were promised a ‘better form of devolution’ in return for a No vote.  Despite losing by 48% to 52%, the forty per cent rule saw the No campaign prevail and Scots then endured 18 years of Tory rule.

In a statement issued today the SNP has highlighted what it describes as the “fiction” peddled in 1979.  Despite the ballot result which saw devolution shelved, many of the plants and mines said to be under threat from a Yes vote, eventually closed anyway.

The SNP has said similar scare stories currently being peddled in the run up to next year’s independence referendum, have already been discredited.  The triple A downgrading of the UK’s credit rating was particularly embarrassing for the Better Together campaign which had been distributing leaflets boasting about the billions the rating was saving Scots.

The Better Together campaign’s 10 points against independence included the misleading "Scots save billions on the cost of mortgages due to the UK's AAA credit rating."

Other claims the nationalists point to include:

• The UK Government's own academic expert, Professor James Crawford, agreeing that the Scottish Government's timescale for achieving independence is 'realistic'.

• The Treasury’s support of a currency union with an independent Scotland using Sterling, contradicting the Better Together ‘keep the Pound’ campaign.

• Ludicrous scare stories such as that the giant pandas would be removed from Edinburgh Zoo with independence.

• Scare stories that an independent Scotland would not be able to continue to build ships were blown out of the water by Vice-Admiral Andrew Mathews who confirmed the Clyde would continue to win and complete contracts.

• Anti-independence parties have long claimed an independent Scotland would be worse off but this backfired after the Treasury estimated independence would cost just £1 each for the period 1999-2011.  The most recent official GERS figures show that in 2010/11 Scotland was financially stronger than the UK as a whole to the tune of £2.7billion, or over £500 per person.

• No camp politicians have frequently claimed an independent Scotland would need to renegotiate 14,000 treaties that the UK is signatory to but Westminster has admitted that it has no idea how many treaties the UK is a party to – but many of the 14,000 treaties previously highlighted have terminated or were concluded on behalf of former colonies.

SNP MSP Bruce Crawford said:

“On the anniversary of the 1979 devolution referendum, we are seeing similar scare stories being peddled by the anti-independence parties today.

“Despite everything in 1979, Scotland voted Yes - we saw through the scaremongering - but Westminster's iniquitous '40% rule' turned a narrow Yes into a No.  Thank goodness the independence referendum is being organised and run in Scotland – not by Westminster.

"After the 1979 referendum, Scotland suffered 18 years of Tory rule we didn't vote for, and then 13 years of a Labour UK government during which inequality increased.  It was 20 years after 1979 until Scotland achieved a Parliament.

“Scotland was conned in 1979 but we will not be conned again.  The referendum next year gives the people of Scotland the opportunity to be in control of our own destiny – instead of being subject to the vagaries of Westminster.

“Let's not have a repeat of history – we know now the only way to build on the achievements of the Scottish Parliament and have the strong economy and fair society we all want – ensuring that Scotland always gets the governments we vote for – is to vote Yes in the referendum next autumn.  The No parties want to roll back the achievements of devolution, such as free personal care for older people and free tuition for young Scots.

“Scotland has the resources, ingenuity and people to prosper as an independent nation. We must grasp this opportunity to improve the lives of people in Scotland.”

 

[Newsnet Appeal Update - Our appeal for funds to help pay for a full time editor has reached over £9000 - we are now three quarters way to our £12,000 goal.

We will provide further updates periodically and are hopeful of reaching our goal by mid-March - we would like to thank everyone who has donated and sent messages of support.]

Comments  

 
# hiorta 2013-03-01 19:19
Apart from yet more 'grim Westminster Fairy Tales' they offer nothing - absolutely zilch - whereas they should, in the interests of 'ahem' gentlemanly fair play, insist that this time the Scots have the 40% start.
The Union is a materially and morally spent force in every respect, without a case or an argument.
 
 
# Edna Caine 2013-03-01 20:54
Quoting hiorta:
Apart from yet more 'grim Westminster Fairy Tales' they offer nothing - absolutely zilch - whereas they should, in the interests of 'ahem' gentlemanly fair play, insist that this time the Scots have the 40% start.


George Cunningham, MP for Islington, proposed the "40% rule" as an amendment in 1979. Wouldn't it be interesting if a similar amendment embodying your suggestion was proposed during discussion of the 2013 Referendum Bill at Holyrood?
 
 
# bringiton 2013-03-01 20:32
Alexander and his fellow New Labourites are promising more devolution ...maybe,if we vote No.
However,even if Scots fall for this line,they will be depending on English voters to even get them to the starting line.
I remember the anger I felt in 1979 when Labour pulled the rug out from below us and realised that they could never be trusted to put Scottish interests before Westminsters.
The leopard has not changed it's spots.
 
 
# CharlieObrien 2013-03-01 20:44
Labour have stabbed working men and women in the back ever since they first took the wages from Westminster they saw that they could become upper middle-class,on the backs of the workers.They are self-centred and only happy to take their wages plus extras for every committee they sit in on,plus the expenses another good wage there,aye don't expect any truth from the Labour party its just a division of the Westminster party.
 
 
# RTP 2013-03-01 20:56
I see Darling was at the scare story again this time in Aberdeen he was telling guests about the risk to the North Sea industry from Scottish independence and that the renewable sector in the North relied on the UK Government subsidies more or less saying we are to stupid to run our on affairs.
I to was angry that it was a Lab person who made the '40% rule'.so denying the yes vote.
 
 
# clootie 2013-03-01 20:57
Remember - it was a Labour MP who introduced the 40% undemocratic rule - those not voting at all - all voted against.
40% of all registered voters was a threshhold - think of it in terms of a 50% turnout - it would require a 4:1 vote in favour for a win.

"One London Labour MP (George Cunninghame) successfully moved an amendment insisting that not only did the referendum have to pass with a simple majority at least 40% of the electorate had to vote in favour"
 
 
# Teri 2013-03-01 21:19
O/T Happy St David's day to all our Welsh friends.
 
 
# Dcanmore 2013-03-01 22:11
Just to note that George Cunninghame's political career nosedived after 1979, must have made an enemy or two! No consolation though for stabbing Scotland in the back with the 40% amendment. When you put Labour under the microscope their treatment of Scotland has been dreadful. Only difference with the Tories is they hid their scheming better through barefaced lies and corruption. For the Tories that's a badge of honour for all to see.

One thing about the Eastleigh by-election that is very worrying for Labour ... the protest vote didn't go to them even when they're the Party in Opposition. Milligram is too lightweight to make an impact. Cameron would be wise to do a deal with UKIP to be certain to remain in office after 2015.
 
 
# X_Sticks 2013-03-01 22:47
Indeed Dcanmore.

I could see a Tory-UKIP coalition government after 2015 - there's a thought! Or is it a nightmare...

I sincerely hope we will be running our own affairs in Scotland by then..that's my dream.

Independence in 2014!
 
 
# call me dave 2013-03-01 23:56
Well how many right wing parties can get on the head of a pin?
Three and the fourth, the labour party, couldn't get a toe hold.

One future scenario is that the UKIP may cut into the Tory vote in so many key marginals that the Labour party may be given a life line.

I hope it will not matter and Scotland will be ploughing a left of centre furrow by that time. If not, I dread a Labour revival and how that might affect Scots voters It can go either way!
 
 
# chicmac 2013-03-02 01:46
I re-post the graph (produced by the Scottish Affairs Committee, long before they had the benefit of Ian Davidson as chair) for the run up to the '97 referendum.

The last point is the actual results for the two questions, the other points were poll results widely reported by the Scottish press. Note that the last two before the actual result were in the last 10 days of the campaign and lead to claims that the 'tax raising powers' option would definitely fail and the 'no tax raising powers' option was 50:50

i51.photobucket.com/.../...
 
 
# RobQos 2013-03-02 09:16
Very interesting graph Chic. I would imagine you would see much the same thing for polls before most Scottish elections. Doesn't say much for the integrity of the polling companies - trying to influence Scottish voters. We all know newspapers are the same. They pretend they are balanced for periods of time but they ramp up their anti-independence agenda when elections are coming up, or opportunities to damage the SNP or opportunities to influence public opinion against Salmond. They distort and they pass off unionist opinion as news and fact.

I assume it is ok with you to share your graph with people?
 
 
# RaboRuglen 2013-03-02 10:13
Hi there,

The thing I remember being most marked about that time was not just the fiddled result, but the campaign beforehand. Once the SNP took up the campaign for the Assembly, the Labour Party just sat back and did nothing. It was as though it came as a huge relief to them that the SNP had joined the debate and they just sat back and relaxed. It then became the SNP's Assembly and could be allowed to fail.

This should have come as no surprise as to anybody. The Scottish Executive of the Labour Party voted against the principle of a Scottish Assembly right up until they were told by London to be "pro".

I will never again be caught out campaigning for "Devolution". If the Unionists ever decide again that they want more of it, let them provide it without my help.

I'll vote for it at the ballot box in the absence of Independence, but I won't ever campaign for it again. I hope we are well past that stage.

Regards,
 
 
# Breeks 2013-03-02 11:11
That chimes with me RaboRuglen.

It's the same Labour & Lib Dem hypocrisy which promises more devolution after sinking the Devo-max option in the referendum.

They promote devolution when it suits them, but they are fundamentally insincere about delivering it.

Personally, I'm glad. I always feared the Devo-max alternative threatened to cut a big salient into Nationalist/YES vote territory.

The Unionists were as unwise to remove the Devo-max option as Alex Salmond was astute in having them remove it for him.

Whatever hay Unionists want to make now from Devo-max type derivatives isn't going to be a deal breaker for anyone.
 
 
# Leader of the Pack 2013-03-02 10:48
It would be a massive boost to the yes campaign if they could find a way to get across the fact that a No vote means at best a status quo of powers in Hollyrood and at worst a total reduction of all present powers. Make the electorate understand exactly what it is they are voting for and against. The electorate already know that the tories and Labour have lied to them all too often in the past. They will know if they are told for a fact that no new powers will be offered and that will swing the devo max devo plus vote. The trick will be in finding a mainstream means of delivering the message.
 
 
# The Tree of Liberty 2013-03-02 13:41
This was the biggest con ever inflicted on the Scottish people, but the thing that got me was, we allowed it to happen. Any where else and there would have been riots.
 
 
# RaboRuglen 2013-03-02 16:02
Hi Tree,

Yes, I agree with you. I expected a major reaction to the denial of the Assembly. Instead there was nothing. Absolutely nothing. Just silence.

Mind you by that time Thatcher was in power and we had other things to think about, and think about them was all the feeble fifty were prepared to do in the light of the massacre of the SNP seats in the next GE.

But is has to be said also, that the Assembly proposals were so wishy washy that it was all I could do to make myself vote for them. I voted "for" only on the basis that I could not vote "against". That may have helped dampen the reaction nationally.

Regards,
 
 
# Glenbuchat 2013-03-02 15:49
There are an awful lot of half remembered truths and deliberate omissions in the article and the comments. It was the Labour Party which delivered both the ’79 and ’97 devolution referendums. The original referendum was scuppered by an alliance of a few Labour backbenchers and the Tories in a parliament where Callaghan did not enjoy a working majority.
It was the SNP who came late to their support of devolution and, after the referendum, walked through the Lobby with Thatcher to bring on an election which she won. Again in the run up to 1997 the SNP refused to take any part in developing the devolution proposals enacted by Labour but agreed by a far wider grouping of civic Scotland. The eventual SNP support for a Yes vote was a purely tactical decision.
Labour, the Liberal Democrats and now even the Tories are committed to the devolution settlement and to suggest that devolution was either delivered by, or only maintained by, the SNP is entirely false.
 
 
# The Tree of Liberty 2013-03-02 16:25
RR. that the Assembly proposals were so wishy washy that it was all I could do to make myself vote for them. Fair Point!
 
 
# call me dave 2013-03-02 18:41
Here is some stuff:
Note the event on 22nd Febnruary 1979:

Scotland voted by a majority of 77,437 for a Scottish Assembly, which is not implemented due to a condition that at least 40% of the electorate must support the proposal.

February
1 February - Grave-diggers call off a strike in Liverpool which has already delayed dozens of burials.


12 February - Over 1,000 schools close due to the heating oil shortage caused by the lorry drivers' strike.

14 February - "Saint Valentine's Day Concordat" between Trades Union Congress and Government, The Economy, the Government, and Trade Union Responsibilitie s, marks an end to the "Winter of Discontent".

15 February - Opinion polls show the Conservatives up to 20 points ahead of Labour, whose popularity has slumped due to the Winter of Discontent.


22 February - Saint Lucia becomes independent of the United Kingdom.
 
 
# UpSpake 2013-03-02 18:58
There was no Internet or social media in 1979. There was no Freedom of Information either. The Council of Europe were not as engaged as today. The institutions of the State in the UK are now under international scrutiny. None of this was the case in 1979.
No wonder they are running scared. The '79 tactics ain't working and with excellent sites such as Newsnet, they never will.
 
 
# ramstam 2013-03-02 21:55
Aye UpSpake the scare tactics o 1979 urnae workin no juist because o social media but because the Scottish people are now led by politicians who are street-wise in London /Uk tactics. The same result as 1979 would give the Scots their freedom with no 40% rule which denied Scots an Assembly and an element of minimalist Home rule in the 1980's.
Let us put the enemies of Scottish Democracy on the spot. Why London rule?
Why within their claimed "Equal Union"is their no question over what powers England exerts over it's people yet we in Scotland must justify any additional powers. Colonial or what?
 

You must be logged-in in order to post a comment.

Banner
Banner

Donate to Newsnet Scotland

Latest Comments