What would a legitimate choice process look like?
The Shetland Report set out nine models and placed responsibility with the people of Shetland. If the models are real, then the public also needs clarity on what a fair, informed, and legitimate decision process could look like today.
This page does not demand a particular outcome. It describes process options and safeguards — so that whatever people choose, the choice is respected.
Start with agreement on the questions
Before anyone campaigns for a model, the public should be able to agree the questions the model must answer.
This reduces heat, because people stop arguing past each other. It also ensures the status quo is treated as one option among others — and is held to the same standard.
1) Transparency first
- Publish the models, in plain language, in one place.
- Publish the evidence base and assumptions openly.
- Publish the financial and legal implications for each model.
- Make it easy for the public to audit claims.
2) Independent information standards
- Agree a basic standard for truthfulness and sourcing.
- Require clear separation between fact, opinion, and prediction.
- Require corrections when significant errors are identified.
- Design the process so money cannot buy the outcome (including limits on external funding).
- Provide a free, structured, impartial platform where every model can be presented on equal terms.
3) Representation and eligibility
- Define who has a vote (e.g. residents; diaspora, if included).
- Define residency thresholds clearly.
- Agree how to handle students, temporary workers, and second homes.
- Protect the process from manipulation.
4) Thresholds and legitimacy
- Decide whether a simple majority is enough.
- Consider supermajority thresholds for irreversible changes.
- Consider turnout thresholds (and the risks of boycotts).
- Define what counts as a “clear result”.
5) Sequencing (don’t vote on fog)
- Sequence the process: questions → options → impacts → consent.
- Do not vote until key facts are available (finance, law, seabed).
- Do not mix multiple questions into one confusing referendum.
- Use staged decisions where needed.
6) Negotiation mandates
- Define what is being authorised: a negotiation, or a final change.
- Specify the “red lines” and the negotiable points.
- Require regular public reporting on progress.
- Require a second public consent step if terms change materially.
7) Safeguards for land and sea
- Identify what should be protected from irreversible commitments.
- Define consent requirements for seabed and marine space decisions.
- Set standards for community benefit that are enforceable, not symbolic.
- Require full disclosure of long-term leases and rights.
8) The role of local institutions
- Clarify SIC’s role: facilitator, not gatekeeper.
- Clarify the role of MSP/MPs and national parties.
- Ensure public meetings are open and minuted.
- Ensure the process is not captured by any one institution.
9) A public record of commitments
- Record what each side promises — and what it does not.
- Publish the assumptions behind benefit projections.
- Publish who bears risk if projections fail.
- Require clear accountability after the vote.
10) A credible dispute process
- Agree how disputes will be handled during the process.
- Provide routes for complaints and corrections.
- Define how misinformation is challenged without censorship.
- Ensure fair treatment of minority positions.
11) Transition planning
- Produce transition plans for services, finance, and law.
- Identify “no-regrets” steps and reversible steps.
- State the timeline clearly (and its uncertainties).
- Define what happens if negotiations fail.
12) Respect for the result
- Agree in advance to respect the outcome.
- Define the review period (e.g. no repeat vote for a set time).
- Protect against immediate reversal by external pressure.
- Ensure the result is not treated as “advisory” after the fact.
A simple principle
In a mature democracy, constitutional choices are not made under pressure or confusion. They are made with clear questions, clear information, and clear consent.
If Shetland ever revisits the 1978 models formally, the process should be built to earn trust — especially from people who currently feel decisions are remote, irreversible, and assumed rather than accountable.