In less than 72 hours, more than 16,500 people have responded to the announcements of new powers for Scotland and even a 'new kind of union' after a no vote, by crying 'foul'. 10th September 2014 To the Cabinet Secretariat of the Scottish government and the Electoral Commission for Scotland, Please accept the petition below which presently has more than 2,200 signatures. It respectfully asks that you report and/or apply to enjoin, to the fullest extent of your mandate, the official campaigners who have violated or threaten to violate their undertaking and legal agreements in this referendum, as detailed in the petition: Keep the Scottish Independence Referendum Fair and Legal https://www.change.org/p/keep-the-referendum-fair-and-legal Please also note that a second petition, with over 14,000 signatures has requested that the same issue be investigated for legal infractions: Investigate Better Together New Advice "Better Together after finding a poll in favour of the Yes campaign are now in talks with each other to put together some kind of deal. While there is very little chance that the Scottish Electorate will believe them anyway based on the fact that they ensured that DEVO MAX was not on the ballot, it raises serious questions about the electoral rules. Part 4 sections 1-4 of the Scottish Referendum Act 2013 stipulates that campaigners are not allowed to release new documentation to the public within 28 days of the referendum date except in response to a direct enquiry. As no such information has been sought this meeting with better together and subsequent advice that will apparently be published is in contravention of said act. As there is less than 10 days left of the referendum campaign, we believe that it is the commissions responsibility to investigate the matter under law and if necessary advise better together to cease and desist or risk allowing the rules of the referendum to be breached." http://www.change.org/p/the-electoral-commission-investigate-better-together-new-advice? Numerous individual letters of complaints have also been sent to the Electoral Commission for Scotland. In less than 72 hours, more 16,500 people have responded to the announcements of new powers for Scotland and even a 'new kind of union' after a no vote, by crying 'foul'. This petitioner now asks that you take note of the following complaints and reasons which, it is believed, constitute prima facie grounds and important legal and democratic arguments for obtaining an injunction against any campaign or campaigners, announcing an unofficial, de facto, option of new powers, and/or the reorganization of the United Kingdom after a 'No' vote, to be considered as one of the ballot options of the Scottish independence referendum on September 18th 1. Terms of the Agreement and the Act Under the Edinburgh Agreement all public bode and parties, including the UK Govmt agreed to be bound by the provision of the Scottish Independence Referendum Act 2013. These state that no new material may be announced, (made available) within 28 days of the final vote on September 18th. 2. Which individuals are exempt from these provisions? The terms of the Edinburgh Agreement and the SIRA constrain public bodies but not individuals. Any offer of 'new powers for Scotland', however, made by any individual who does not represent a public body, (government, political party or cross-party alliance), is irrelevant and absurd since no individual has the authority to deliver on such an offer. Thus those articulating a 'new offer' must be held to be speaking on behalf of a public body with the power - or the expectation of power - to deliver. And thus the recent rhetoric of both George Osborne MP and former Prime Minister Gordon Brown, must be held to represent the views and agreement of their parties and, in Mr Osborne's case, of the Uk government itself. 3. What 'material' was already available in terms of offering greater devolutionary powers after a 'no' vote, prior to the 'purdah period' beginning 21st August, 2014? During the extended consultation process for drafting the referendum legislation, the option of greater devolutionary powers for the Scottish Parliament was suggested for the ballot. It was rejected by the same government that is about to announce it in a desperate move to persuade voters to say 'no' to Scottish independence. In the first week of August of 2014 a cross-party pledge – first endorsed by Scottish leaders of the pro-UK parties in June - offered extra tax and legal powers for Scotland after a 'no' vote. Talks about what these might be were to begin after the vote in September. What would these talks consist of, what new powers would be on the table? As late as August 18th, 2014, David Cameron still resisted the idea of any new powers for Scotland, despite the cross party pledge: "Westminster’s lack of commitment to any new powers for Scotland has been highlighted again today – after it emerged that the power to set Corporation Tax could be devolved to Northern Ireland in the event of a No vote but not to Scotland." http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2014/aug/more-powers-scotland-not-westminster-radar On August 25th Alistair Darling debated Alex Salmond live on television. Darling was asked what new job creating powers (fiscal powers) Scotland would be given. His reply: a new jobs programme and a guarantee to get unemployed people back into work. These were not and are not new powers. Mr Darling did not offer anything more specific because nothing more specific existed to be offered. There was no agreement on what, if, or when new powers would be granted to Scotland after a no vote. In fact, the party leaders themselves could not agree what these might be, or if they should be offered. All they could agree on was the promise of talks - that is to say, negotiations after the vote. At this stage in the referendum campaign, therefore, representatives of the parties involved are within their rights only to say what powers future talks would cover, when they would take place and what the different positions of the various parties are liable to be. They cannot and must not make specific promises of powers, rather than talks. 4. Are the new offers simply 'clarification of the old? A detailed plan for devolved powers, (as promised by George Osborne or drafted by Gordon Brown independently of the cross party campaign), is not the same as the promise of negotiations about extra powers after the vote. These had never been agreed on or even categorically identified prior to the first poll that put the 'Yes' vote ahead of 'No'. "Brown’s plan to hold the Union together, including 12 new devolved powers, was unveiled as a new poll put Yes and No neck and neck." http://www.scotlandnow.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/referendum-gordon-brown-offers-scots-4187196 5. Unilateral commitment to changing the UK without public agreement When a whole new constitution for the United Kingdom is offered as a reward for a 'no' vote, as proposed by Gordon Brown, then it is even clearer that none of this has anything to do with clarifying a 'timetable' for previously announced extra powers for Scotland. In fact, this represents an attack on the democratic processes of the rest of the United Kingdom as well as those of Scotland: "Whether or not Scotland remains a part of the Union is a matter for the Scottish people alone. It’s right they are having their referendum, and that they should have sole say over their destiny. But that is no longer what is on the table. What is now being proposed – we are being told – is nothing less than an entirely new constitution for the United Kingdom as a whole. And no one other than the people of Scotland appears to be getting a say on whether they agree with it or not. Actually, let me rephrase that. No one but the politicians appears to be getting a say. … ...I’d assumed that if the Scots voted “No” then each of the major parties would then come up with their own ideas for a new framework for Scottish devolution, and put those ideas to the British people at the next election. Instead, each of the parties has been bounced into supporting the Brown Plan, which is now going to be presented to the Scottish people as a binding commitment. No one, not even the voters of Scotland, are going to be offered the chance to actually vote for it, (Dan Hodges, The Telegraph 8.9.2014). http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100285785/scottish-independence-what-does-the-political-establishment-think-its-playing-at/ Therefore we have already seen: an attempt to introduce an unofficial option to the ballot by introducing a new - and unilaterally formulated - offer of legislative power; an attempt to influence voters, at the last minute, against the proposal for independence, clearly evident from the fact that a guaranteed further devolution of power, a provision and ballot option previously rejected, was only announced following the first polls suggesting that a majority to the electorate now favoured Scottish independence; an attempt to alter the scope and significance of the independence referendum itself outwith the parameters defined and agreed by the parties to the Edinburgh Agreement as well as by the terms of the SIRA. (This also contravenes the democratic and collaborative process underpinning the entire referendum process.); disenfranchisement of those who have voted already, by making offers to one section of the Scottish electorate that were not available to previous voters, (akin to changing the rules of the game after the play is finished and the score is being counted up); illegal, bewilderingly confused and inflated bribes that might well muddy the waters for those still making up their minds; an offering of such sweeping change as to undermine the democratic processes by which the rest of the UK are entitled to discuss the make up of the union and any new constitution that would affect it as a whole. Why an Injunction? 1. This would restore the franchise to those who voted by post under the original conditions and offers 'on the table' prior to August 20th. 2. We desperately need real clarification as well as an unmistakeable signal that fairness and legality continue to underpin this most important and historic of democratic processes. In order to make these last minute promises of a brand new kind of union, the pro-union campaigners have broken their existing promises and undertakings given at the Edinburgh Agreement and enacted in the provisions of the Scottish Independence Referendum 2013. Official recognition of this fact, via injunction, would put these new bribes into the context of the bad faith in which they have been made and thus help to mitigate any destructive impact, confusion, bewilderment etc. (People who break their given word in order to make a new promise are self-evidently untrustworthy.) 3. These confused and bewildering announcements are of exactly the kind proscribed by clause 7 of the SIRA, (and the Ediburgh Agreement by which the UK government agreed to be bound by the SIRA), prohibiting the Scottish Government or public bodies, (and by the Edinburgh Agreement the UK govt and publi bodies), from 'publishing material or making announcements which deal with issues raised by the referendum question, which put arguments for or against any outcome or which are designed to encourage voting' 4. It will, ironically, also defend the rights of everyone in the United Kingdom - as it exists right now - to a say in what that the UK, their UK too, would look like after a 'No' vote. Thank you for your timely and considered response. Sincerely, Sara M. Brown