With regard to the proposed 'second' question on the detail of revenue varying powers, we think it is daft that we should abandon an integrated comprehensive autonomy package for 'home rule a la carte'. The proposed second question sends a clear message to the electorate that this particular power is controversial and requires distinct deliberation. It will encourage critics to demand additional questions on other potentially contentious elements of the scheme, e.g., the electoral system, or the objective of increasing women's representation. When it comes to home rule, history teaches that the devil is in the detail. It should be our objective to unite the Scottish people around a single proposition.
Additional questions invite division, cross voting and a confused result.
Any parliament worth its name must have the responsibility for raising some percentage of it's income. We know the real reason for the proposed second question. Our 'powers that be' are running scared of the 'Tartan tax' jibe, and they want to kick the issue into touch. It wont work. SLA believes that we must use the mechanism provided by 'The Road to the Manifesto' exercise to argue that there should be only one question, on the principle of the scheme.