Let Scotland Decide - Independence Referendum Now!

Joe Middleton · Let Scotland Decide - Independence Referendum Now!

Film from Independence First's Working Conference on 01/03 which was held in conjunction with the Scottish Independence Convention to help organise the 'Let Scotland Decide' petition for a democratic referendum on independence.

http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=OHLVYxjIMXY

Fellow youtube users, please help publicise this video by rating it, linking to it, marking it as a favourite and commenting on it.

Please also send this message to your address book/contacts and publicise it on your blog (if you have one).

Cheers! JOE

Holebender

Well that's ten minutes of my life I won't be getting back.

Could you have made it any duller?

Aventinian

Interesting. I didn't watch it, but Mr Middleton there usually flavours his videos with outrageous gaffes and down-right bigotry to keep viewers entertained.

Dave Coull

Holebender wrote “Well that's ten minutes of my life I won't be getting back. Could you have made it any duller?”

There are really only two good reasons for making something like this. Either (A) to convince folk who are undecided, or (B) to inspire and motivate those who are on your side. I can’t see this being much practical help with either of these things. I just hope the actual “working conference” produced more, in practical terms, than just this. Because if it didn’t, then it wasn’t “working”.

I noticed Isobel Lindsay there, she was one of the SIC folk to whom I sent what I consider to be five practical suggestions for the petition campaign making some real progress. Since I think these suggestions are worth seriously considering, I will repeat them again here:

(1) the paramount importance of keeping the petition non-party-political; (2) the need for the SIC itself to play a role in organising the petitioning, rather than relying on political parties and other political organisations; (3) the superfluity of speeches at meetings - both the speech-makers themselves, and their listeners, would be better out on the streets collecting signatures; (4) the need for targeted coverage of certain areas; and (5) the desirability of the SIC asking for INDIVIDUAL (not "organisational") commitments from supporters of the petition.

Regarding my first point, I believe the SNP alone claims a membership of twelve and a half thousand. If each of those SNP members was to fill up one petition sheet (15 signatures, their own signature and 14 others, not impossible given that most folk could raise half a dozen signatures just from their own family and close friends) that would give a total of 175,000 signatures. However, in my view, relying on the SNP (or any other political party) to organise the petitioning would be self-defeating. The reason is that, if it was widely known that this was what was happening, then opponents of a referendum on independence would dismiss the petition before it was even presented, as merely a party-political stunt. In my view, a petition of 100,000 signatures, collected on a genuinely non-party-political basis, would carry far more weight than a petition of 200,000 signatures collected by a political party. ANY political party.

Regarding my second point, quite simply, the petition is in the name of the SIC. For this reason alone, they cannot abdicate responsibility for organising the petitioning.

Regarding my third point, I am very doubtful of the strategy of "rolling launches". As I understand it, there is supposed to be an SIC "press launch" meeting, with some "local celebrities", in Dundee on 5th April. But the first, national, "press launch" was in January. If the press show any interest at all in additional "launch" meetings, it might be along the lines of "what went wrong with the first launch? Is this a RE-launch?" and "have you been collecting signatures on your petition since it was launched in January, and, if you have, why do you need a re-launch in April?" If there are some celebrities prepared to turn up for a local "launch", then forget the speeches, get them out on the streets. If you can actually get a few celebrities, even relatively minor, local celebrities, out on the streets of a town, with a clipboard and a pen, asking folk for their signatures on a petition, then THAT is worth a photo in local or regional newspapers at least, and, if it's worth a photo, then it's worth a news report to accompany the photo. But speeches at a meeting? Not even worth reporting..........

Regarding my fourth point, as the Summer approaches, it could be worth organising, spread out over two or three of the less-chilly months, some door-to-door collection of signatures. It would be impossible to knock on every door in Scotland, but what I'm suggesting is TARGETED canvassing, in specific areas of each of Scotland's major cities, plus SELECTED towns.

Regarding my fifth point, in an hour and a half out on the streets I personally collected 30 signatures. So it would only take a few more such efforts, over the next few months, for my own personal total to go over 100. Let’s suppose that there are one thousand people prepared to put in a not-too-strenuous bit of effort to collect signatures on this petition. (This doesn't seem like an unreasonable assumption to me. So far as the SNP, Green Party, SSP, Solidarity, are concerned, if even just one party member in twenty shows sufficient commitment, plus a somewhat higher percentage of members of some other organisations, plus a few non-aligned individuals, that could easily add up to a thousand.) If 1,000 people collect 100 signatures each, that’s 100,000 signatures. So, what I proposed to the SIC is, that they should ask INDIVIDUALS to commit themselves to collecting 100 signatures. Not their parties, not their organisations, but them as individuals. I suggested doing this on the basis “I WILL, IF YOU WILL, SO WILL I”. If people know that other people are also committing themselves to do this, then they are much more likely to do so themselves, and they will encourage each other to keep the commitment. Of course there could be no way of verifying people’s individual totals, but, nevertheless, asking for an individual commitment is likely to have a more positive effect than just relying on the political parties.

In my view, by adopting the approaches outlined above, there is no reason why 100,000 signatures could not be collected, on a non-party-political basis, within six months. The petition could be ready for presenting by September.

carol

Dave i think it's a case 1k political activists is easier to motivate than others of non-political persuasion, also they are easier to access.

Were the questions you presented answered?

Dave Coull

Carol asked "Were the questions you presented answered?"

I don't even know if they were presented at the most recent SIC meeting. So far, I have only received one written response, warmly welcoming and agreeing with all of my suggestions, from an individual SIC committee member. I have no idea what the other committee members thought of my suggestions. However, these are meant as positive, constructive suggestions, and I intend to keep pushing them.

Aventinian

carol

Dave If it's an approach that they're not going to take ie for practical reasons as indicated above, why keep pushing it?

Any organisational 'strategy' in my opinion would had to have been there from the beginning.

Dave Coull

Carol wrote "Dave if it's an approach that they're not going to take"

That remains to be seen. So far, I'm not aware of the SIC committee having even considered my suggestions, never minded rejected them. Perhaps they will consider my five suggestions at their next meeting. And even if the SIC committee DID reject all five of my suggestions (and, by the way, I don't think they will), that is most certainly NOT the end of the matter so far as I'm concerned. I'm not just concerned with the committee, but with all of the activists who will actually be doing the petitioning. Of course other folk may also have good suggestions to put forward, and I will happily consider any constructive proposals from anybody, as well as putting forward my own suggestions.

"ie for practical reasons as indicated above"

What practical reasons "indicated above"? I'm not aware of anybody having given any practical reasons against my five suggestions.

"why keep pushing it?"

Because I think these are five good suggestions, and it continues to be a good idea to push them. To show you what I mean, we’ll go through the five suggestions again, one by one, and I will show how they will continue to be relevant, regardless of whether their initial reception is one of enthusiastic acceptance or not.

(1) the paramount importance of keeping the petition non-party-political.

This will continue to be relevant because, even though mistakes have been made in this regard, continuing to insist on the importance of keeping things non-party-political may help to reduce the likelihood of even more, and bigger, mistakes.

(2) the need for the SIC itself to play a role in organising the petitioning, rather than relying on political parties and other political organisations

This is the SIC's petition. It cannot, and it should not be allowed to, abdicate responsibility for its own petition. Even though mistakes have been made in this regard, continuing to insist on this may help to reduce the likelihood of even more, and bigger, mistakes.

(3) the superfluity of speeches at meetings - both the speech-makers themselves, and their listeners, would be better out on the streets collecting signatures.

In my view, speeches at meetings do not add a single signature to the petition. The chances are that those likely to turn up at meetings are activists who would have signed the petition anyway. If you can get (for instance) 20 people along to a meeting, then you would be far better having just one, very short, announcement about what you're going to do, then getting both the would-be-speech-makers and the would-be-speech-listeners out on the streets for an hour or so, actually collecting signatures. As I understand it, there is supposed to be an SIC "press launch" meeting, with some "local celebrities", in Dundee on 5th April. But the first, national, "press launch" was in January. If the press show any interest at all in additional "launch" meetings, it might be along the lines of "what went wrong with the first launch? Is this a RE-launch?" and "have you been collecting signatures on your petition since it was launched in January, and, if you have, why do you need a re-launch in April?" It is still not too late to change the nature of this event on 5th April, if there are some celebrities prepared to turn up for a local "launch", then forget the speeches, get them out on the streets. If you can actually get a few celebrities, even relatively minor, local celebrities, out on the streets of a town, with a clipboard and a pen, asking folk for their signatures on a petition, then THAT is worth a photo in local or regional newspapers at least, and, if it's worth a photo, then it's worth a news report to accompany the photo. But speeches at a meeting? Not even worth reporting..........

In any case, even though mistakes have been made in this regard, continuing to insist that getting out on the streets is more useful than sitting listening to speeches may help to reduce the likelihood of even more mistakes.

(4) the need for targeted coverage of certain areas

It is certainly not too late to say that, as the Summer approaches, it could be worth organising, spread out over two or three of the less-chilly months, some door-to-door collection of signatures. Of course it would be impossible to knock on every door in Scotland, but what I'm suggesting is TARGETED canvassing, in specific areas of each of Scotland's major cities, plus SELECTED other places.

(5) the desirability of asking for INDIVIDUAL (not "organisational") commitments from supporters of the petition.

This point remains relevant regardless of whether or not it is adopted as "official policy" by the SIC committee. Of course it would be better if it WAS "official policy", but, if enough of the individual activists who are actually doing the petitioning were to be prepared to commit themselves to collecting at least 100 signatures, on the basis “I WILL, IF YOU WILL, SO WILL I”, then this can have a positive effect anyway. If people know that other people are also committing themselves to do this, then they are much more likely to do so themselves, and they will encourage each other to keep the commitment. Of course there could be no way of verifying people’s individual totals, but, nevertheless, asking for an individual commitment is likely to have a more positive effect than just relying on the political parties.

So, as I have now shown, every one of these five suggestions remains, and will continue to remain, relevant. So of course I will continue to push them.

Carol says "Any organisational 'strategy' in my opinion would had to have been there from the beginning".

Okay, so this might have been desirable, but it's not what happened. The Irish comedian Dave Allen used to tell a joke about a traveller arriving at some village and asking a local person for directions to Ballywellost. The local thinks about possible routes for a couple of minutes, and then replies "If I were you, and I were going there, I wouldn't start from here".

As a strategy, "not starting from here" has obvious drawbacks, if "here" is where you are. The suggestions I've put forward, and will continue to put forward, are relevant to where we are now.

Dave Coull

I wrote "as the Summer approaches, it could be worth organising, spread out over two or three of the less-chilly months, some door-to-door collection of signatures. It would be impossible to knock on every door in Scotland, but what I'm suggesting is TARGETED canvassing".

Aventinian says "I'll set the dog on you".

Look, I did stress "targeted" canvassing.

The chances are we wouldn't be knocking on your door anyway.

During the anti-poll-tax campaign, I took part in a fair bit of door-to-door canvassing. This wasn't "petitioning" as such, because of course we didn't present a "petition" to Maggie Thatcher or anybody else, it was simply asking people to support the campaign of non-payment of the poll tax. We did this canvassing in teams of six. Three people would take one side of the street, three people would take the other side of the street. So if I knocked on one door, the next door I would knock on would be three doors away, with my colleagues covering the two in-between. Sometimes there would be loud barking from a house as I approached, but one of my colleagues might say "Oh, that's so-and-so's house, their dog's bark is worse than its bite, and they are likely to support the campaign". However, if there was fierce barking, and no such assurance, then I would simply miss that house out.

So far as the SIC petition is concerned, I did say there was no need to aim to knock on EVERY door. Maybe this will mean missing out some folk who would have signed the petition, but, after all, by following the guidelines which I have put forward, enough signatures could be achieved.

carol

Dave they may well be 5 good suggestions, due to limited resources etc they may not be implemented. Whether we like it or not, the easiest and most practical route to get activists on the ground is to utilise what resources we already have and the most logic route is through political parties and pro independence groups. Any individual may be invited to canvass but those most likely to come forward are through these 2 groupings. In reality the hardest thing to do on the ground is to bring everyone to work on the ground together, rather than having wee cliques etc working alone. There's not just canvassing, there's also fundraising, and like any other grouping SIC will only have a core of those willing to put effort into organising things, and even then due to various restrictions those resources may be stretched.

If SIC's response doesn't meet your approval, move on, and work the ground to the best of your ability.

Holebender

Why fundraising? Apart from a minimal amount of stationery, what costs are involved?

Dave Coull

Carol says “Dave they may well be 5 good suggestions, due to limited resources etc they may not be implemented.”.

My suggestions would consume LESS resources than the things to which they are alternatives. For instance, the hire of a hall for yet another “launch” meeting certainly won’t come free. Whereas my suggestion of getting folk out on the streets does.

“Whether we like it or not, the easiest and most practical route to get activists on the ground is to utilise what resources we already have and the most logic route is through political parties and pro independence groups”.

By all means, use the networks of connections which we have through having colleagues who are members of political parties and other organisations. But that is a different thing from relying on these political parties AS SUCH. It might not suit the leadership of some political party for the petition to be presented until late 2009 or even 2010, and yet it might suit significant numbers of their members for the petition to be presented as soon as possible.

“Any individual may be invited to canvass but those most likely to come forward are through these 2 groupings” - and I have never suggested otherwise!

“There's not just canvassing, there's also fundraising” - while a certain amount of fundraising may be necessary, in my view, there is no need for huge amounts of money to be raised. It is set-piece public meetings and things like that which can cost a lot, and I have already indicated that, in my view, these things are superfluous. Sympathetic printers have indicated a willingness to produce all the petition forms we could possibly need at negligible cost. Since the petition forms are already available at negligible cost, getting out on the streets with them costs the SIC nothing. All it costs is the will to do it.

“like any other grouping SIC will only have a core of those willing to put effort into organising things” - then they should lead by example. By saying that they, as individuals, will commit themselves to a certain target, and inviting all supporters of the petition to do likewise. Then they should get out on the streets and do it.

“If SIC's response doesn't meet your approval” - like I already said, so far, I have only had one response from a member of the SIC committee, and that response warmly welcomed all of my suggestions. It remains to be seen what the response of other members of the committee will be. Maybe my suggestions will be discussed at their next meeting. Also, very important, besides the SIC committee, it very much remains to be seen how the rank-and-file folk who will be doing the actual canvassing will respond to my suggestions.

“move on”

What does that mean? It sounds suspiciously like “give up” to me. Of course I will do no such thing.

“work the ground to the best of your ability” - well of course I will be doing that anyway. AS WELL AS continuing to put my five suggestions forward to EVERYBODY who is involved with this petition. .

carol

i think you're a bit over bearing Dave and the more you come across with your 'persistent' attitude the more folk are less likely to listen you.

Move on doesn't mean give up, it's meant to encourage you to continue working the petition but realising that there may well be restrictions due resources etc that we have to work within

Dave Coull

Carol wrote “I think you're a bit over bearing Dave”

So what else is new????????!!!!!!!!!!!

Sometimes I can be quite determined about things. In some ways this can be a good thing, but I acknowledge that it can also have its negative side. Either way, the simple fact is, I’m me, and I’m not about to turn into somebody else.

“the more you come across with your 'persistent' attitude the more folk are less likely to listen you” - while being persistent may put some folk off, others are likely to listen, and my judgement is that, on balance, weighing up the pros and the cons, it is worth doing.

”Move on doesn't mean give up, it's meant to encourage you to continue working the petition but realising that there may well be restrictions due resources etc that we have to work within” - both myself and Holebender have questioned the need for any significant degree of fundraising, in fact I think doing things the way I suggest could cost less. Of course I will work the petition. But I will also put forward my views on the most effective ways of the campaign as a whole doing this.

carol

funds are essential to the success of the campaign, high visual materials, banners etc, leaflets, badges etc publicity the list is endless.........

Dave Coull

Carol says “funds are essential to the success of the campaign”.

I disagree.

Funds might be USEFUL to the campaign, providing fundraising doesn’t take up time which could be more usefully spent, and providing the funds raised are then spent on things that are genuinely useful.

But “essential”?

No.

It’s a petition. It’s a piece of paper which says at the top “We, the undersigned, request that……..”

What is essential is signatures on the petition. Genuine signatures from separate individual supporters of a referendum on independence. What is essential is to go out into the streets, or to go knocking from door to door, explaining to people what the petition is about, and asking them if they would like to sign it. Some people will say “no”, and some people will say “yes”. Enough people will say “yes” for this to be a worthwhile exercise.

What we need is people prepared to commit themselves to doing this, and for them to make a start on doing this as soon as possible. Any “celebrity” who is under the illusion that they have done something particularly special for the campaign simply by lending their name to it has, in actual fact, done no more than any other person who signs the petition. I would be more impressed by them if they went out into the streets, or knocking from door to door, explaining to people what the petition is about, and asking them if they would like to sign it. Anybody who thinks that they have done something particularly special for the campaign because they have designed a badge, or “high visual materials”, or whatever, is kidding themselves. I would be more impressed by them if they went out into the streets, or knocking from door to door, explaining to people what the petition is about, and asking them if they would like to sign it. Anybody who thinks they have done something particularly special for the campaign by raising funds is kidding themselves. I would be more impressed by them if they went out into the streets, or knocking from door to door, explaining to people what the petition is about, and asking them if they would like to sign it.

“the list is endless.........”

Yes, the list of things for which funds could be raised is endless, just as the list of things for which the government could tax citizens is endless. But that doesn’t mean it is all useful . Trident nuclear missiles, for instance, are not useful. So far as petitioning is concerned, we really don’t need loads of complications. What we need is petition sheets with signatures on them. What we need is people prepared to go out and get these. Everything else is just a distraction which might make some folk feel like they are doing something more important, but doesn't really advance the campaign significantly. We don't need endless "launch" meetings with folk making speeches. We need folk prepared to get out into the streets, or going door-to-door, and the sooner the better.

carol

Dave if you spent as much time ranting as you could collecting signatures, you'd have a helluva lot more than 30. Put into practice what you preach go out on the streets and see if you can rally up activists instead of telling others what they should be doing, work towards signing up the 1k non political activists you require for 'your' campaign.

also you're in dreamland if you think this campaign needs little funding.

Dave Coull

Carol wrote “Dave if you spent as much time ranting as you could collecting signatures, you'd have a helluva lot more"

Calm down, Carol. You’re beginning to make mistakes. For instance, you got that sentence the wrong way round. What you were actually trying to say was “if you spent as much time collecting signatures as you do ranting……”

Look, what I’ve said is that if a thousand folk are prepared to commit themselves to collect 100 signatures each, then we could easily have 100,000 signatures within six months. I guarantee to fulfil my part of that deal.

“Put into practice what you preach”

I do. See above.

“work towards signing up the 1k non political activists you require for 'your' campaign”

Carol, once again, I think you need to calm down. The idea that I have ever, at any time, used the expression “non political activists” is a complete figment of your imagination. In fact, to me, that expression is almost a contradiction in terms. What I have said is that the campaign itself should not be PARTY-political. Of course there will be plenty of people involved who are members of political parties, but the campaign as such should not be organised by the political parties as such.

And it’s not “my” campaign. See my suggestion number (2) , about the need for the SIC itself to organise the petitioning. What I am proposing is that everybody who supports the SIC petition should make this their campaign, make this their policy, their commitment, and I will keep my part of the deal, just like everybody else.

carol

Dave Coull

Carol asks "where is Dave Coull going to get 1k individuals from?"

What a pointless question. As I have said repeatedly, this is the SIC's petition, and the SIC cannot escape responsibility for their own petition. Me, I'm not even a member of the SIC, I'm just somebody who is willing to help a bit with collecting signatures for the petition, providing that other folk do likewise - in my very first post about this matter, I suggested doing so on the basis "I will, if you will, so will I". I am also, of course, somebody who doesn't want this petitioning business to drag on too long, somebody who has an interest in the SIC, and all active supporters of the petition, acting in ways that will not drag things out un-necessarily.

The SNP claims some very large figure for membership. I have heard both twelve and a half thousand and even fourteen thousand mentioned. I'm not sure which of these figures is right, or if it's somewhere in between, or whatever, but nevertheless, it's a lot. Smaller parties such as the Greens, the SSP, and Solidarity may be more hesitant about making claims for membership figures, but, nevertheless, they all add to the numbers of those who are said to be in favour of a referendum on independence for Scotland. There are even some members of officially "unionist" parties who are in favour of a referendum on independence. At least one member of the Lib Dems is a member of the SIC and has taken part in their committee meetings. To all of that, you can add the admittedly smaller number of "non-aligned" activists for a referendum on independence. Although small in numbers, this is nevertheless an extremely important grouping, because it is the involvement of this grouping which proves the point that the campaign as a whole is genuinely non-party-political. Now, when you take into account all of these different groupings, of course it would be possible to find one thousand folk who would be prepared to have a go at collecting one hundred signatures each. Maybe some of them wouldn't quite reach that target, but on the other hand there would probably be some who would exceed it. In general terms, it is a realistic target to ask folk to aim for. Will a lot of these one thousand folk be members of political parties? Of course they will. Does that mean the SIC should abdicate responsibility for their own petition and rely on the political parties doing their work for them? Of course it doesn't. A political party may have its own set of priorities, which may be geared to the timing of the next general election and other party political considerations. ONLY the SIC has an agenda which is exclusively tied to reaching their target of 100,000 signatures and getting their petition presented as soon as possible. Therefore, they should make use of political party connections and networks, but not depend on the political party organisations and organisers as such to do this for them. That is what I have been saying, and I will continue to say.

Carol asks "what's the difference between a party political activist and an individual?"

This is another completely pointless question. The answer is, the category of "individual" includes all political party activists, but the category of "political party activist" does not include all individuals. A political party is composed of individuals, but sometimes this simple fact can get lost sight of when it functions as a party machine. It is a fact that, for a great many years, a large number of members of the Labour Party have been against nuclear weapons, in favour of peace, etc etc; and yet the party machine of that party has persistently supported nuclear weapons, war, etc, against the wishes of many individual members. Now, I am not suggesting that the SNP is as bad as the Labour Party in this respect; but it is a fact that the party as a machine can have different priorities from many of the individuals of whom it is comprised. The party as a machine may be more-or-less solely geared to the next election, whereas an individual member might think it worth aiming AS SOON AS POSSIBLE to collect 100,000 signatures on a petition for a referendum on independence and to get this petition presented to parliament. Because of this possible difference in timing, in priorities, between some individual party members and the party machine, it doesn't make sense for the SIC to abdicate responsibility for seeking out their active, individual, political party supporters, themselves. Yes, of course, the SIC members best placed to do this will themselves be SNP members. The point, once again, is that they should take individual initiatives amongst their fellow members on behalf of the SIC, and not just rely upon the party machine.

carol

Dave Coull

Carol wrote "SIC's resources etc are already stretched"

Not being a member of the SIC, I can't know exactly what their resources are, but I do know enough to have my doubts about whether the resources that they do have available are always being wisely used. For instance, the allocation of hundreds of pounds for additional "launch" meetings strikes me as being of questionable value.

"what about yourself instead of preaching to others take the initiative to contact all these groups and start recruiting 1k activists from them?"

Like I have already said numerous times, and will keep repeating until the message sinks in, this is the SIC's petition. THEY decided to have a petition, THEY decided on the wording of their petition, and THEY cannot abdicate responsibility for it. Me, I have never in my life been involved in initiating any petitions. I tend to be a wee bit sceptical about petitions in general. The very act of petitioning seems to imply a recognition of the legitimate authority of those whom you petition, something I'm always very reluctant to give. Besides, the evidence of history seems to suggest that many petitions are unsuccessful, and that those petitions which succeed are often backed up with a bit more than signatures on a piece of paper. Nevertheless, the SIC did decide on this petition, and, on reflection, I decided it was one worth supporting, and with a good chance of success, if it was gone about in the right way. I have in fact supported it in terms of getting out on the streets and collecting signatures. But, since I said it has "a good chance of success if gone about in the right way", I'm also making suggestions for what I think would be the right way.

"I think David McCann has exhausted himself with emails/circulars to SIC members attempting to get activity on the ground, so it's not as if SIC haven't tried."

One possible way of getting activity is by example. By picking a city, say, Dundee, for instance, or Edinburgh, or wherever, and saying "I will be at such-and-such a street at X pm on Saturday the xxxxxxxx - who else will join me in collecting signatures on our petition?"

But in any case David McCann is just one member of the SIC. He has the addresses of SIC members, but that is all. There are other members of the SIC who have access to other networks. There are members of the SIC committee who are quite prominent in the SNP, for instance. Don't tell me they don't have access to a lot of SNP members, because I don't believe it. There are members of the SIC committee who are from other political parties, and they also have access to networks which may be inaccessible to David McCann. You yourself, Carol, have stated that you are a member of the SIC, and you're the secretary of Independence First, so although the network of potential supporters available to you may be much smaller than that available to a fairly prominent member of the SNP, it could nevertheless be significant. As for me, I'm a member of a small grouping called Determination. And yes, I do urge the members to actively support the SIC petition. As you know, canvassing of support for the petition on the streets of Dundee has been organised by this small group.

carol

mairead

Re. Referendum now.
The way things are shaping up, I have no doubt that a referendum will come, but the timing must be right.
At the moment the Scottish government seem to be doing all the right things, and if they continue in that vein, a referendum must come. I don't think we should rush it just now though.

Dave Coull

In an earlier message, Carol wrote “Dave if you spent as much time ranting as you could collecting signatures….” and that was obviously a typing error, what she had actually meant to say was ““if you spent as much time collecting signatures as you do ranting……”

The OED defines ranting as “to speak or shout at length in a wild, impassioned way”. Well, (1) I am neither speaking nor shouting, but merely typing on a keyboard. (2) as for being “wild”, I’m not the one getting my sentences the wrong way round because of responding too hastily. I carefully and calmly read things over before sending them. Some folk may not like what I say, but it’s not a “rant” by the dictionary definition.

I suggested to Carol that she calm down, as she was obviously responding to messages far too hastily. Unfortunately, she is apparently finding it difficult to calm down. She now refers to me sarcastically as “the great Dave Coull”.

Carol, I have never claimed to be “great”. I'm well aware of my own limitations. Also, I have avoided any personal remarks in this exchange. If you are unable to do likewise, there is a possibility the discussion might end up getting closed down, as has happened with a couple of other threads. That would be a pity, as there are genuine issues to be discussed, and it’s even possible we might be getting somewhere. In an earlier message you said that you thought there should be an overall “co-ordinator” for the petition campaign. I was a wee bit sceptical about this, but would be prepared to support yourself or anybody else in carrying out this role provided (1) it's done on a non-party-political basis, (2) the SIC take charge of their petition campaign, (3) the emphasis is on street work rather than speeches at meetings, (4) consideration is given to targeted canvassing of support in the Summer months, and (5) the SIC asks individual activists, and not just their organisations, to make a specific commitment of support.

“does Determination back your proposed suggestions to SIC?”

I didn’t ask them to. As clearly stated, these were put forward as my suggestions.

“One of the main hurdles to independence is ones like you who go out their way to cause disruptions no matter what”.

I’m not seeking to cause disruption, Carol. All I have done is to make a few suggestions. I’m not criticising anybody, I’m not making any personal attacks on anybody, I’m just suggesting some things which I think would help. Okay, so some folk might not like my suggestions, but that doesn’t prevent me from expressing my views. As long as we avoid personal attacks etc there is no reason why healthy discussion of the campaign can’t continue. It’s called freedom of speech.

Dave Coull

Mairead wrote "Re. Referendum now"

You mean, the slogan in the heading of this topic ?

" Let Scotland decide - independence referendum now " ?

That was apparently decided on by the Independence First group, and used as the title of a topic on this forum by their press officer Joe Middleton.

Mind you, I do agree with the slogan.......

"The way things are shaping up, I have no doubt that a referendum will come, but the timing must be right. At the moment the Scottish government seem to be doing all the right things, and if they continue in that vein, a referendum must come. I don't think we should rush it just now though."

And there, in a nutshell, we have it. Although I happen to disagree, it's quite a reasonable point of view. There are probably a lot of folk who would agree with Mairead. Quite a lot of members of the SNP, for a start. Not all of them, mind you. Oh, I'm sure they would all agree that the SNP is doing a good job in government, but some of them would still say "Let Scotland decide - independence referendum now ! ", while others would agree with Mairead that "I don't think we should rush it". The thing is, many of those who would agree with Mairead that "I don't think we should rush it" hold official positions within the SNP. Thank you, Mairead. You have just completely and irrefutably proved my point that the SIC should not rely entirely on a political party to do their job for them.

carol

Margaret I fully support what you say, the ground is far from fertile where a referendum is concerned. Activists haven't covered the ground sufficiently, unfortunately the only time when visible is at elections, but that isn't sufficient to guarantee a yes vote if the referendum is held in the near future. Now is the opportunity to get out and convince people that the best way forward for Scotland is independence. Whether the mighty Dave agrees or not one those ways of putting it across is through high profile figures such as Elaine C Smith, who regardless what Dave thinks is a work horse for the convention and is definitely worth her weight in gold, as well as all the activists who give up their time to campaign for an independent Scotland.

Spouting from behind a keyboard isn't going to convince people the way forward is independence, in fact at times if anything Dave's contributions can wear folk down, which means needless energies and time wasted from ones like myself responding to him.

Dave Coull

Carol wrote “Whether the mighty Dave agrees or not” - you’re doing it yet again, Carol. I have kept the discussion on the level of principles, but you keep tryng to personalise it.

And by the way I have never claimed to be “mighty”.

“Elaine C Smith, who regardless what Dave thinks is a work horse for the convention”

I haven’t said a single word against Elaine C. Smith. You’re imagining things, again, Carol.

“Dave's contributions can wear folk down, which means needless energies and time wasted from ones like myself responding to him.”

And how do you think I feel, having to respond to you?????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Carol also wrote “the ground is far from fertile where a referendum is concerned”.

This is confusing. Joe Middleton is still the press officer of Independence First, isn’t he? And the link he sent at the top of this discussion was to something he had produced on behalf of IF, yes? And the slogan he chose as the title of that video, and the topic heading he chose for this subject here on Our Scotland, with the words “Independence Referendum Now” (exclamation mark), that is what the press officer of IF is saying on behalf of IF, yes? And you’re still the secretary of IF, are you, Carol? So, are you just disagreeing with each other, or is one of you disagreeing with the policy of your organisation? Not that there is anything wrong with disagreeing with the “party line”, but it would be nice to know which it is.

carol

Joe has his own opinions no doubt Dave, I don't know why he used that particular slogan