Campaign for a Referendum!...

democracyscotland · Campaign for a Referendum!...

Democracy Scotland;

www.democracyscotland.co.nr

The Campaign for a Referendum on Scotland's Constitutional Future...

Ever since the creation of the Scottish Parliament, there have been calls for more powers for the parliament, and/or a referendum on Scotland's future regarding the Union and the possibility of Independence.

I don't want to get into a 'What's better?' debate over the Union or Independence, as this is covered extensively elsewhere, this is simply a campaign for a referendum on the issue, no matter your political persuasion. It has been shown on numerous occasions that a large majority of the Scottish people want a chance to vote on this issue, but the political parties feel the need to decide this very important issue for us!

THE PLAN - To get a group of like-minded individuals (Pro-Referendum) to act as a loosely-connected group through the use of this blog to bring attention to the campaign.

I know most of the people in Scotland want a chance to vote on this issue, and this campaign hopes to draw attention to that. I don't plan to 'take charge' of any of this, I'm simply going to put this out there and see what happens, in the hope it builds from the ground upwards. All of the 'details' here are changeable by anyone who has an opinion, be it from the amount of people involved, the type of involvement, to how the campaign itself is organised.

I am a frustrated ex-Labour party member, but am fed up with them (political parties) treating us (the people of Scotland) like fools who cannot make a decision for ourselves.

Despite the recent Wendy Alexander debacle, Labour as a whole still seem to point-blank refuse to support a referendum, as do the Lib Dems (which is amazing, given it seems neither Liberal nor Democratic to do so!) and the Conservatives are more tightly-lipped on the issue. Of the MSPs in Holyrood, only those in the SNP and the Green party support a referendum (and possibly Margo MacDonald), but they together make up an minority, and alone cannot get the legislation through parliament.

I am unsure at this moment in time as to how I would vote in a referendum, but what I do know is this; the people of Scotland want and deserve a chance to do so.

It is very difficult to get polling data on the particular area that I am interested in, which is the % of the population who want a referendum. I would be grateful if others could point me in the direction of data regarding this.

The only poll data I can find on this issue is from Independence First, which gives details of the ICM polls from the late 1990s. In this instance, whether a majority support Independence or the current devolution arrangement is irrelevant, the figure I'm interested in is the 'For a Referendum' column. This shows that 5 polls asked the question of the respondent of whether they think there should be a referendum held on this issue. The results of the 5 separate polls, held between June 1998 and February 1999, were as follows (FOR a referendum); 69%, 79%, 69%, 74% and 74%. The average of these polls show that 73% of respondents believe there SHOULD be a referendum held on Scotland's constitutional future.

This is why attention needs to be drawn to this democratic deficit...

HOW TO ACHIEVE THIS? - To collectively act in ways which require very little time or effort, but which catches media attention in a 'Flash Mob' style. For example, getting a large group of people to put a large 'X' on a blank piece of paper, adding the web address to it (http://www.democracyscotland.co.nr), then posting it to the same person/address (First Minister/Labour Leader?) on the same date. Each campaign should raise the profile of the campaign and thus help it grow exponentially. 2 minutes of your time at home, every couple of months is all I'm asking for in return. 'Stage 1' will be acted upon once 50 'pledges' have signed up to the campaign. If we get more than much more than 50, great, by all means keep adding your respective names to the list once the magical number of 50 has been breached.

WHAT YOU NEED TO DO - Pledge to join the campaign, by CLICKING HERE and adding you name to the list (a pseudonym if you so wish), using the format; '1. name1', '2. name2', '3. name3' and so on, so each new person adding to the list is keeping a running tally of the total involved. Keep checking the site every few days to see whether we have breached the 'Stage 1' number, and we'll take it from there!

Spreading the word is the oxygen of any campaign, and we need YOUR help to do so. So, if you, like most people in Scotland, are 'Pro-Referendum' and have a blog or website, a mention of the campaign and/or a link to the site would be much appreciated. If not, then just tell people you know via email or good old-fashioned word of mouth!

Thanks in advance,

DS

P.S. CLICK HERE to pledge to join the campaign!

Holebender

Have you considered helping out the Scottish Independence Convention?

http://www.scottishindependenceconvention.com/

Red Justice

I have put a link to Democracy Scotland up on my weblog.

I think you could combine your campaign with also street or community based activity.

The other campaigns for an independence referendum have become a bit dull. Perhaps due to nationalist involvement many are waiting on the SNP to deliver a bill after 2010.

However I do also recommend support for the Scottish Independence Convention.

Dave Coull

The expression "The Campaign for a Referendum on Scotland's Constitutional Future" is ambiguous.

I left Independence First over a year ago, but, when we first formed it, the full name of the group was "Independence First: the campaign for a referendum on independence for Scotland".

That made it clear what kind of a referendum was being campaigned for, one in which the electorate of Scotland could vote for or against independence.

It is still the case that that is the kind of referendum which is needed. There is no need for a referendum on "more powers" for the Scottish Parliament. Since a rather vague promise of "more powers" is the position of all of the parties which are opposed to independence, simply voting against independence would, in effect, be a vote for whatever "more powers" proposals eventually come out of the Calman Commission supported by these parties.

But the way that this "Democracy Scotland" statement is worded leaves the door wide open for a pointless and completely meaningless referendum on "more powers". Pointless, because that is what is going to happen anyway, if we don't have actual independence. Completely meaningless, because practically everybody (apart from Aventinian and a few others of that ilk) is in favour of "more powers" for the Scottish Parliament anyway. Alex Salmond is in favour of "more powers" for the Scottish Parliament. He would prefer independence, but, short of that, of course he is in favour of "more powers".

Red Justice wrote "The other campaigns for an independence referendum have become a bit dull"

That is no reason for backing something so vague, those dull colours Gray and Broon may even decide it is acceptable to them as a way of AVOIDING a referendum on independence.

Red Justice says "However I do also recommend support for the Scottish Independence Convention".

As it so happens, five of us were campaigning for support for the Scottish Independence Convention in Dundee today, distributing many hundreds of leaflets at the Dundee University Freshers Fair. Well, not exactly "leaflets", what we were distributing were these very colourfull little cards designed by Chicmac promoting the SIC's online petition. While it can be difficult to get folk to stop and sign a petition, if they stick these cards in their pockets, they are much more likely to sign the on-line petition later. And of course we did know for certain that every person at that Freshers Fair had access to the internet. The cards are also designed to be suitable for putting on notice boards, of which there are plenty at the university.

But yes, I agree that the SIC can seem a bit dull sometimes, and yes, I do think that something else is needed. But not something so vague as to be practically meaningless.

Red Justice

Dave Coull wrote:

"That is no reason for backing something so vague, those dull colours Gray and Broon may even decide it is acceptable to them as a way of AVOIDING a referendum on independence."

Not sure what you mean by the above comment. The Democracy Scotland iniative appears to be supporting the idea of a referendum. I can only imagine the author supports the inclusion of status quo, more powers and also independence on the ballot paper.

And don't take my words and twist what I say!

I meant all the campaigns for an independence referendum are a bit dull at present. What I mean little is happening.

I support SIC initiative but personally not the other ones.

Democracy Scotland should be given a chance.

Your activity with your nationalist friends is clearly not publicised except by yourself on this forum, after the event. You know I live in Dundee but it seems your SIC activity is limited to your friends in the nationalist clique. Or was it your Determination small group.

The desire for independence or more powers will be decided by the Scottish people and not yourself or a handful of nationlists or rabid cybernats.

That hopefully, will be by way of a multi-option referendum that gives a democratic mandate to the Scottish people when they decide, whether you or the Nats accept the result or not.

Dave Coull

Red Justice wrote "The other campaigns for an independence referendum have become a bit dull"

I commented "That is no reason for backing something so vague, those dull colours Gray and Broon may even decide it is acceptable to them as a way of AVOIDING a referendum on independence".

Red Justice says "Not sure what you mean by the above comment."

I mean that there is a big difference between "campaign for a referendum on independence for Scotland" and "Campaign for a Referendum on Scotland's Constitutional Future", which is how this "Democracy Scotland" describes itself. "Referendum on Scotland's Future" is so vague, it leaves the door wide open for a pointless and meaningless referendum on "more powers", which might suit those dull colours Gray and Broon.

"I can only imagine the author supports the inclusion of more powers and independence on the ballot paper."

There is no need to put "more powers" on the referendum paper, for the reasons I have already given. Since that is the default position supported by all of the political parties, that is what would happen anyway if independence is rejected, so including this vague "option" is just a distraction from the real issue, which is independence, yes or no?

"You know I live in Dundee but it seems your SIC activity is limited to your friends in the nationalist clique".

This activity was arranged at very short notice, just yesterday in fact, and there was no need for a large number of people to take part, there were enough of us to do what we set out to do. However, as it happens, one of the folk who was asked if she wanted to take part is a woman who deliberately avoids anything which she thinks you might be at. And no, she is not a nationalist.

I had an interesting conversation with the comrades on the Solidarity stall at the Freshers Fair. They not only took our leaflets but agreed to put a bundle of them on the Solidarity stall.

"The campaign for independence or more powers will be decided by the Scottish people"

Of course.

"and not yourself"

Correction.

The campaign for independence or more powers will be decided by the Scottish people including myself. I will have one vote, exactly the same as everybody else.

"That hopefully will be by way of a multi-option referndum"

Sounds like a complete fudge, courtesy of Gray and Broon Justice.

Red Justice

You are an Internet stalker Coull and arrogant with it.

A multi-option referendum is even supported by the SNP leadersip and the various options will likely be on the ballot paper for an independence referendum.

It seems your SIC activity is limited to your clique and exludes me but I will join the organisation nationally nonetheless.

There will be no fudge. I would rather have more powers such as fiscal powers which will happen for the Scottish parliament as an option as well as independence.

Let the Scottish people decide on the matter.

Red Justice

Dave Coull and his clique have shown their undemocratic practices by choosing who and who is not invited to attend their events.

You are a libality to any democratic movement Mr Coull.

I am disappointed that sectarian elements can exist under any SIC banner.

I still support SIC but not you or your cliques.

Dave Coull

Red Justice wrote "You are an Internet stalker Coull"

I'm not the one the cops charged with stalking a woman he'd fallen out with.

I'm just somebody who uses the internet, that's all. I don't "follow" anybody on the internet, I just take part in those forums which are of interest to me. As it so happens, so far as I'm aware, I was on this particular forum before you were. But even if I wasn't, you being on it has nothing at all to do with me being on this forum.

"It seems your SIC activity is limited to your clique"

I'm not actually very involved with the SIC, but I may choose to support some of their activities, if I happen to feel like doing so, and along with people who work well together.

"Let the Scottish people decide"

The way to do this is through a simple, straightforward referendum, independence, yes or no. Anything else would be a fudge.

Red Justice

Holebender

The SNP does not support a multi-option referendum.

The preferred format is a straighforward yes/no type question. The SNP is, however, prepared to countenance a multi-option referendum if that turns out to be the only way to get it through the Scottish Parliament.

Red Justice

Ok thanks Holebender my misunderstanding over a previous Alex Salmond press anouncement that was televised.

This clarifies the SNP position.

My position being I support a referendum on Scottish independence.

I would prefer Scottish independence to be the choice of the Scottish people.

I would accept more (fiscal) powers as an option on a ballot but reckon constitutional change will have to happen with or without a referendum.

My reason for supporting a multi-option referendum is that I fear we could loose a straight yes or no referendum. And this would be seen as a setback for the independence movement.

I prefer independence over the status quo and this can only help the cause of the Scottish Socialist Movement.

Dave Coull

Red Justice wrote "My reason for supporting a multi-option referendum is that I fear we could loose a straight yes or no referendum."

If we lose, then we lose.

That's democracy.

The people decide.

It's a chance that has to be taken.

However, having said that, I personally have no fear that we would lose.

My prediction is that a simple, straightforward, independence-yes-or-no type referendum would result in a decisive majority for independence. Not an "only just" majority, but a decisive one.

However, there is only one way to find out if my prediction is right or not, and that is to hold the referendum.

And the sooner the better. Every day that passes is another day too many. Look at what has happened just this week, with Gordon Broon waiving the rules against monopoly mergers, and virtually pushing Lloyds TSB into taking over the Bank of Scotland, a move which is sure to result in a lot of job losses and inconvenience for customers.

There are still many Labour MSPs who are asking what the Scottish Government is waiting for, there are still plenty of them, including their Gray leader, who make "bring it on" noises.

Well, bring it on, I say.

Alex Salmond and co could say that, although they had planned for 2010, the disastrous policies of the British government, such as encouraging that take-over, have created a new situation, and they know the Scottish Labour MSPs are keen for them to bring it on, so that is exactly what they intend to do.

I am certain that such decisiveness would be rewarded with a clear majority for independence.

REFERENDUM NOW - INDEPENDENCE - YES OR NO

carol

Red Justice

Dave Coull

Red Justice wrote "I support independence but unlike some deluded Nats I am not expecting a land of milk and honey".

Well neither do I, of course. It will be a very long way short of a land of milk and honey, but it's worth campaigning for nevertheless.

"You can join the Nats"

Unlike you, I have never been a member of any political party, and I never will be.

"and celebrate"

Come off it, Larry. I know for certain that there are members of Solidarity, and of other socialist organisations, who will celebrate independence for Scotland. There will even be members of "unionist" parties who will celebrate when the time comes. Plus, of course, loads of people who are not in any party will celebrate. It is just nonsense to try to pretend that only "Nats" will be celebrating on independence day.

carol

Slogan or not Dave you're unable to gauge what support there is out there for a referendum now.

Other than string the slogan on internet posts, there is no driving force from Determination to gather support for what you or your organisation demands.

Dave Coull

Carol wrote that there is no driving force for "what you or your organisation demands".

Did I mention any organisation?

What I wrote was clearly stated to be from "Dave Coull". It expressed MY opinion, and did not claim to speak on behalf of anybody else. The question to concentrate on is not whether the opinion I expressed has the backing of some group or other, the thing that really matters is, is the opinion I expressed right or not? If you think the opinion I expressed is wrong, then the proper thing to do is to argue openly and honestly against what I actually said, and not against something I didn't say.

"you're unable to gauge what support there is out there"

That's right, I have absolutely no idea what support there might be for moving to an early referendum. I'm not a politician. I'm not a candidate for any kind of office, and I never will be. But regardless of whether it gets taken up or not, it's the right thing to say, it's the only thing for people of principle who support a referendum to say. Doubts and hesitations and "please, please, please, let's wait a few years, we don't want democracy yet, because we're scared of democracy, we're scared we might lose" may not be the kind of thing to inspire confidence amongst the people of Scotland. On the other hand, I am certain that decisiveness and confidence would be rewarded with a clear majority for independence. In any case, my attitude is that, if something is true and right, then proclaiming it to everybody you can reach is the morally right thing to do, regardless of whether or not you think it will get a warm welcome.

Having said that, there are a couple of reasons for guessing that the degree of support for moving to an early referendum might be liable to be increasing. The circumstances have changed. Look at what has happened just this week, with Gordon Broon waiving the rules against monopoly mergers, and virtually pushing Lloyds TSB into taking over the Bank of Scotland, a move which is sure to result in a lot of job losses, and inconvenience for customers. Plus, the global economic crisis is getting worse, and being ruled from London, in this crisis, can make it even worse for Scotland.

In this changed situation, I would guess that some members of the Scottish government are probably thinking about saying well, we had planned for 2010, but the disastrous policies of the British government in mishandling the crisis, so far as Scotland is concerned, have created a new situation, and, the longer we delay, the worse the effects of being governed from London, in the present global economic crisis, are likely to be, and we know Labour MSPs have been keen for us to "bring it on", so, we should put them in the position where they are expected to back doing so.

If anybody is arguing for delay, then do so openly and honestly. Let's hear the arguments for delay. If the argument is, as some have openly stated, "I fear we might lose", then frankly that is a fear of democracy, and hardly a rallying cry which is likely to inspire confidence from the Scottish people.

carol

Dave Coull

Carol suggested I was "saying Determination no longer exists"

Try reading what I actually wrote, rather than making up things that I didn't write.

This is a discussion forum. If, on this discussion forum, I write something signed "Dave Coull", then that is who it is from, and not from any group or organisation. I have put forward some of the arguments against delaying a referendum. I have pointed out how even the events of the past week have changed the situation, weakening the case for delay. I suspect that same thought may have crossed the minds of some members of the Scottish government, even if it hasn't crossed yours. IF you are in favour of delaying a referendum, then argue openly and honestly for delay. State your reasons for being in favour of delay. But if it should turn out that the argument is essentially, as some have openly stated, "I fear we might lose", then, frankly, that is hardly a rallying cry which is likely to inspire confidence from the people of Scotland.

Red Justice

You are not very realistic are you Dave Coull?

Is anyone advocating a delay in any referendum on this forum??

A referendum requires some preparation and takes time and money to organise. Are you or Determination able to organise one? Referendum Now - Yes or No?

I don't think anyone is advocating a delay in a referendum but some of us live in the real world.

It is now likely the only opportunity for a referendum will come from the SNP's bill through Holyrood around or after 2010. I am not a great enthusiast for parliamentarianism but I think any prospect of a referendum will likely have to be passed through the stages or business of the Scottish Parliament.

The SNP has just recently presented it's proposed legislation for the Scottish Parly and they are the ones with access to the corridors of power.

And who are the some who have openly stated "I fear we might loose"?

My comments were applicable about concerns at the present time for a straight yes or no referendum. My logic is support for Scottish independence cannot be taken for granted at the moment. And my support for a multi-option referendum is because I believe that under an STV system of voting firstly the status quo option would likely fall. Leaving a straight fight for more powers or independence. Then if people know that constitutional change is going to happen they will not fear it. They could take cold feet over a straight yes or no referendum that would also have the heavy weight of the Unionist media scaremongering the Scots against voting for independence.

A referendum takes some organisation and time to make happen which makes your slogan doubtful.

Actually the timing for the SNP referendum bill and arguments for independence by 2010 is not bad. The closer we get to a general election the more it will sink into the minds of the Scottish people about the prospect of more years of Tory rule under a Westminster system and remaining part of Britain. I am sure that this does not escape the awareness and knowledge of SNP's leader Big Eck.

carol

Dave Coull

Red Justice asked "Is anyone advocating a delay in any referendum on this forum??"

Good question, to which I, for one, would certainly appreciate a straight answer.

I was certainly under the impression that both yourself and Carol have indicated that you thought an "early" referendum might not be politically advantageous. And, from my point of view, anybody who is in favour of a referendum, but is not in favour of this referendum being organised as quickly as possible, is, by definition, in favour of a "delayed" referendum. But since the statements from both of you are a bit ambiguous, it's hard to pin down whether or not anybody on this forum is actually advocating a delay. I for one would certainly appreciate this being cleared up.

"A referendum requires some preparation and takes time and money to organise"

Regarding money, if I remember correctly, didn't Brian Soutar of Stagecoach at one point fund a private referendum on not supporting gay marriage or something like that? But even when there is a millionaire prepared to fund a private referendum (which would definitely NOT be true in this case), any such referendum is sure to be dismissed as automatically biased. And you need a properly maintained electoral register to be able to check whether or not people are actually citizens who are entitled to vote. So, in practice, only the government can organise a referendum. And of course this takes a bit of time. A BIT of time. It takes a few months. It does not take years.

"I am not a great enthusiast for parliamentarianism but I think any prospect of a referendum will likely have to be passed through the stages of business of the Scottish Parliament."

It takes just a couple of months to get a referendum bill through a parliament where there is the will to do so. Donald Dewar and Tony Blair proved that with the bill for a referendum on setting up a Scottish Parliament. Admittedly, the SNP is in a minority, but they could say that the Labour MSPs had wanted them to bring it on. They have a perfect reason for altering their previous timetable, the new situation created by the global economic crisis and the disastrous handling of that (so far as Scotland is concerned) by the British government.

"A referendum takes some organisation and time to make happen which makes your slogan doubtful"

As I have said many, many, many times before, it's just a slogan. A way of expressing rather complex ideas, in a greatly simplified form, in as few words as possible. Of course we can't literally have a referendum "now". Now is seventeen minutes past seven in the evening on Sunday the 21st of September. By the time I finish typing this, "now" will already be past. The meaning of the slogan is "without needless delay". And yes, I do think some folk are in favour of delay, although it can be rather difficult to get them to come straight out and argue for this without ambiguity.

Red Justice

Dave Coull

Carol wrote "I questioned your slogan"

It's not "my" slogan. It is simply "a" slogan.

The reasoning behind it has been explained many, many, many times before, but, since you ask, here it is again.

It was originally devised as a slogan to put on a poster. Since the poster was intended to feature in photographs, the lettering had to be large enough to be clearly readable in these photographs. That meant using very few words. And using very few words inevitably meant making things very, very simple. You could say it meant over-simplification. But ALL slogans are over-simplifications. That is what a slogan IS.

It takes just a couple of months to get a referendum bill through a parliament where there is the will to do so. Donald Dewar and Tony Blair proved that with the bill for a referendum on setting up a Scottish Parliament. You might say there is no majority for a referendum bill in the Scottish Parliament, but we can't actually know that until somebody actually puts a bill forward. Quite a few Labour MSPs have made "bring it on" noises. Well then, the SNP government could say that the Labour MSPs had wanted them to bring it on. They have a perfect reason for altering their previous timetable, the new situation created by the global economic crisis and the disastrous handling of that (so far as Scotland is concerned) by the British government. Then there would have to be a period of campaigning by both sides before the actual referendum. But we are still talking about a matter of months, not years. Of course we can't literally have a referendum "now". Now is twenty minutes to ten in the evening on Sunday the 21st of September. By the time I finish typing this, "now" will already be past. The meaning of the slogan is, of course, "referendum without needless delay", but that would have been to many words to fit on a poster and still have it clearly readable from several yards away. In more than one sense, "referendum without needless delay" is just not as snappy a slogan.

"I questioned your slogan and it's origins"

I think I did previously explain the origins of that slogan. But here it is again anyway. There was a Determination meeting at which it was agreed that, even though there were very few of us, there were some actions which didn't actually need a lot of people. Since it could be a LONG time between meetings, the actual timing , venue, and details of such actions could be arranged at very short notice, by phone or by e-mail, and didn't necessarily need a meeting beforehand (although the lessons to be learned from an action should be discussed afterwards).

(Note that yesterday's activity at the Dundee University Freshers Fair is a good example of just such an action organised at very short notice.)

The use of posters for a possible future small action was discussed, and what should be on the posters. I think it was Kenny who came up with the idea of spreading the message over three posters held by three different people. I think it may have been Sheena who came up with the "referendum now" bit, although I'm not really sure about that, it may have been Raymond. I know it wasn't me, although of course I did agree.

"is Determination still part of the wider campaign for a referendum?"

Carol, have you stopped putting arsenic poison in your husband's tea?

You probably think that question doesn't deserve an answer.

Same here.

Now can we please try to discuss the real issues? You can begin with discussing whether or not you are in favour of holding a referendum on independence without needless delay (recognising that Donald Dewar and Tony Blair managed to organise a referendum within a few months).

Dave Coull

Red Justice wrote "I am willing to be straight about the matter of a referendum and any delay but in my case their could be some ambiguity".

An honest acknowledgment that there can be some ambiguity. That is far better than NOT acknowledging this. There are some questions on which my own views can be a bit ambiguous. But not on this question. On this one my views are pretty straightforward.

"I am happy to wait until 2010 but I also do not object to a referendum sooner"

Personally, I wouldn't exactly say I'm "happy" to wait until 2010. I think it would be far better to hold a referendum sooner, and I will continue to advocate this. But if we don't get a referendum sooner, well then, better late than never.

"My view is I am happy to either have an earlier referendum or one as set out in the SNP timetable sometime around or after 2010 . I do not hold fixed views about a delay in a referendum."

Fair enough. I think holding a referendum as soon as possible would be both more honest and more likely to inspire confidence. I think such a referendum could be won decisively for independence. But I acknowledge that folk can have honestly-held different views on this.

"I do see advantages in allowing the current economic crisis at home and abroad to continue and the possibility of us getting more close to a general election and Tory victory, and for a Tory government to rule us in Scotland which the Scottish people would likely quickly reject. if given a choice they would then promptly vote for independence."

That is the "it has to get worse before it can get better" scenario. I am not convinced by this. Besides, I think, if we had a referendum now, the effects of not having control of our own destinies in the present economic crisis are already bad enough to persuade many wavering voters to back independence. But I acknowledge that folk can have honestly-held different views on this.

RJ writes "Carol as Secretary of Indy First will have to speak for herself or that organisation".

A straightforward answer on the question of whether delay is favoured or not would be welcome, whether it is purely personal or on behalf of a group.

I have consistently advocated a referendum "now", that is, without needless delay, for around four years. When some of us were discussing forming a campaign for a referendum (what became Independence First) everybody involved was, at that time, in favour of holding a referendum without needless delay. Oh, sure, we knew it would take time to campaign for this, and we knew it would take a few months to actually organise a referendum, but none of those involved were, at that time, actually in favour of DELAYING a referendum. Demanding a referendum "now" was in effect the unanimously agreed, default position.

Last year a group of us quit IF, but, as far as I was concerned, it was still the case that holding a referendum without needless delay was the agreed position.

Like I say, I have consistently stuck to that. It seems fairly obvious to me that some others have not. And yet it can be very difficult to get folk to acknowledge that they have changed their position, and to argue openly in favour of their changed position. I accept that you have now done so, RJ, but some others have not.

Red Justice

I know this is only one latest poll which was a YouGov poll in the Sunday Times but interesting.

http://www.snp.org/node/14230

How would you vote in a referendum on scottish independence?

For: 34%

Against: 50%

Under a Conservative Government Scenario:

For: 50%

Against: 41%

YouGov/Sunday Times

Dave Coull

Since this was a YouGov poll for the Sunday Times, I looked up the YouGov website to find out about their polling methods.

So far as I can make out from the You Gov website, their polling methods are totally unreliable.

It appears from their website that their polling is done on the internet. How do they select their sample? They don't. The sample selects itself. It's people who have subscribed to the YouGov website. So far as I can make out, there isn't even any way of checking that the people polled are in Scotland. They could be in Australia.

While this particular "poll" seems particularly dodgy, I am sceptical of opinion polling on the independence issue in general. Street polls can also be unreliable, because they depend on which people on the street the "researchers" approach, and which people on the street they don't. There is obvious scope for bias there.

In general I think polls tend to underestimate support for independence.

But having said all that, I also think the act of actually CALLING a referendum would increase support for independence. Just the act of doing so would make independence seem more "real". It would also send out a confident message, the complete opposite of the "No, please, please, not yet" message being given out by some at present.

I think the act of calling a referendum would result in an immediate boost in support for independence.

And then we would have the campaign. There would be sure to be at least six weeks between calling the referendum and actually holding it. Since I believe the independence message is a positive one, I think support for independence will increase during the campaign.

For all of these reasons, I feel confident of the result of an independence referendum.

Those who claim that they are "campaigning" for a referendum, but add the (possibly unspoken) proviso "please, not yet, the opinion polls don't look good" are giving out exactly the wrong message. For if the trumpet sound an uncertain note, who shall prepare himself for battle?

carol

Dave Coull

I wrote that saying you want a referendum but adding the (possibly unspoken) proviso "please, not yet, the opinion polls don't look good" is giving out exactly the wrong message. For if the trumpet sound an uncertain note, who shall prepare himself for battle?

Carol says "I'm sure you will Dave", but then goes on to ask a couple of questions which suggest she isn't sure at all.

So I'll tell you what, Carol, I'll offer you a fair deal. You answer the questions which YOU have been ignoring, then I'll answer yours.

To remind you once again, here are the previous questions which you have ignored.

Under the topic heading "Independence or the Union? A discussion forum", a heading chosen by you and a thread initiated by you, you advertised an event in Glasgow on Saturday 13th September. After that event, I asked for some details of how it went. "Not a full report, just a wee bit about some of the speakers, what they said, what questions they were asked, and what things came up in the discussion afterwards?"

Ten days later, we're still waiting.

On this thread about "Campaign for a Referendum!", I wrote, in response to RJ, "I was certainly under the impression that both yourself and Carol have indicated that you thought an 'early' referendum might not be politically advantageous. And, from my point of view, anybody who is in favour of a referendum, but is not in favour of this referendum being organised as quickly as possible, is, by definition, in favour of a DELAYED referendum. But since the statements from both of you are a bit ambiguous, it's hard to pin down whether or not anybody on this forum is actually advocating a delay. I for one would certainly appreciate this being cleared up."

RJ has since then cleared things up so far as he is concerned. But so far as yourself is concerned, we're still waiting.

carol

my personal views on a referendum is nothing to do you with you. The report on the event again is nothing to do with you.
If you were so keen to find out, you would've been there. You weren't and no apologies were tendered by you either.

You literally force feed through this forum a 'referendum now' down our bloody throats, repeating it over and over again. Yet what do you do about bringing about a referendum now sweet f all. You're not even aware what support is out there for a referendum now. Other than sit behind a keyboard force feeding your opinion on others, (belittling those who don't see your point of view), you have done nothing to generate interest, ie debates, meetings or rallies.

most laughable thing is that you've done nothing to generate interest for your 'referendum now' yet you jump on the SIC bandwagon which the petitions is clearly part of a longer process feeding into Alex Salmond's timetable.

You want a referendum now get of your arse and get active, and let others campaign in whatever way they wish.

Dave Coull

Carol wanted me to answer some questions. But she has herself been ignoring earlier questions put to her. So I made a perfectly genuine offer, "answer the questions which YOU have been ignoring, then I'll give full and frank answers to your questions".

In response, The Secretary of Independence First, the Campaign for a Referendum on Independence for Scotland, writes "my personal views on a referendum is nothing to do you with you".

This is really funny....................

I now look forward to the day when Gordon Brown responds to a question during prime minister's question time in parliament by telling an opposition MP "My personal views on what the Labour Government should be doing are nothing to do with you"!!!!!!! Very Happy

"The report on the event again is nothing to do with you"

Nothing to do with anybody else on this forum, either. This is just a place to use for free advertising of IF events, not a place where you can expect to actually read a report on how they went. What a cheeky idea!!!!!!!!!! Laughing

"If you were so keen to find out, you would've been there".

Well I did say "I figured it might have been interesting to hear what Fiona Watson and Patrick Harvie had to say, but Glasgow is a very long way to travel just for that, and anyway, I had promised to take my disabled older sister shopping in Montrose", that was in a post over a week ago.

"what do you do about bringing about a referendum now sweet f all"

Tut tut, Carol, that is not only manifestly untrue, it is also abusive.

"get of your arse"

Sweet f all? Get off your arse? If I had used language like that, my mother would have skelped me. But you have my genuine sympathy, Carol. I'm sorry you didn't have the benefit of a proper upbringing.

carol

Dave Coull now starts ridiculing me, one of your signs of failure. Also go back to earlier in the thread, it's evident who was avoiding questions.

How anyone can take you seriously beats me. You make a spectacle of yourself continuously.

As for the slogan being inspirational, not with your name tagged on to it

Anyway i'm out of here, got my health to think about rather than arguing with someone like you, you're not worth it.

Dave Coull

Carol wrote "go back to earlier in the thread, it's evident who was avoiding questions".

I think you have been avoiding questions, Carol, not just in this thread but in others, for instance, in the "Independence or the Union? A discussion forum" one started by yourself. Yet , while deliberately avoiding questions yourself, you have expected me to answer questions from you. So I offered you a perfectly reasonable deal. You make at least a start on answering the questions which you had previously avoided, and I would answer yours. That was a perfectly genuine offer, and I was quite prepared to be quite painfully open about my own shortcomings in answering your questions. You chose to indignantly reject this perfectly genuine offer.

"Dave Coull now starts ridiculing me"

Carol, the Secretary of Independence First, the Campaign for a Referendum on Independence for Scotland, telling anybody "my views on a referendum are nothing to do with you" IS ridiculous. I couldn't make it any more ridiculous even if I tried.

"As for the slogan being inspirational, not with your name tagged on to it"

It doesn't have my name tagged on to it, and it wasn't me who came up with it in the first place.

It's just a slogan. It's just a way of trying to communicate a quite complex message in as few words as possible. Okay, an over-simplification. All slogans are over-simplifications. That is what a slogan is. But the ideas which this one seeks to express are right. Doubts and hesitations and "please, please, please, let's wait a few years, we don't want democracy yet, because we're scared of democracy, we're scared we might lose" are hardly the kind of thing to inspire confidence amongst the people of Scotland.

Besides, as has been pointed out, the circumstances have changed. Look at what has happened within the past week, with Gordon Broon waiving the rules against monopoly mergers, and virtually pushing Lloyds TSB into taking over the Bank of Scotland, a move which is likely to result in a lot of job losses and inconvenience for customers. And the global economic crisis is getting worse, and being ruled from London in this crisis can make it even worse for Scotland. Alex Salmond and co could perfectly reasonably say, well, we had planned for 2010, but the disastrous policies of the British government in mishandling the crisis, so far as Scotland is concerned, have created a new situation, and, the longer we delay, the worse the effects of being governed from London in the present global economic crisis are likely to be, and we know Labour MSPs have been keen for us to "bring it on", so that is exactly what we intend to do. I am certain that such decisiveness and confidence would be rewarded with a clear majority for independence.

Scotland86

Sorry to be rude but there was too much to read at 4.30am but what i did notice about as far as i read was talk of a multi option referendum.

This i must admit i am totally against, the more options you give the more it can confuse people or leave gaps open for anti referendum supporters to disregard the results etc.

What i would like to see is a simple. "Should Scotland be an independent country" with the answers clearly stating "yes" or "no"

Aventinian

Scotland86

No but it has been proven that the more options you add the more people become unaware of what exactly they are voting for.

Aventinian

Scotland86

how can YES or NO not be what you want? its the 2 extremes its guarenteed to cover what people want. your just throwing silly comments about in an attempt to act like you have a point worth hearing

Aventinian

Dave Coull

Scotland86

Jesus you really think that this nit picking will change anyones views or ideas in anyway?

What else can independence mean than FULL CONTROL.

If the referendum is rejected then we stay as we are. until the next idea is put forward.

Aventinian

agentmancuso

Scotland86

I didnt nit pick i simply said that a referendum bill should not be flooded with several choices.

Aventinian

Dave Coull

Holebender

agentmancuso