Archive for Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Scottish Politics Discussion Forum / Messageboard - Dedicated to online discussion about Scottish Politics and an Independent Scotland, as well as Scottish Society today. We also have a section dedicated to Banter, Sport and Recommended Sites.
 

See your forums statistics


       Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Forum Index -> Scottish Politics and Independence
George

Lib Dems refuse coalition with SNP

Reported on Five Live just now, so there you go then. They've had their bluff called on their sham desire for new powers for the executive. They had more in common with the SNP than they ever had with Labour, but it seems they have had the strings pulled from Westminster.
Economist

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6631053.stm

Quote:
Liberal Democrats have tonight turned down the prospect of a coalition deal with the SNP to form the next government of Scotland.

Scottish Lib Dem leader Nicol Stephen said that the fundamental stumbling block was the nationalists' demand for a referendum on independence.

Mr Stephen forecast that there would now be an SNP minority government at Holyrood.

Earlier, the Lib Dems ruled out a coalition deal with Labour.


I was reading this morning how Salmond was preparing to kick the referendum into the long grass, talk of constitutional conventions etc.
skip

Quote:
Last Updated: Sunday, 6 May 2007, 19:52 GMT 20:52 UK

Lib Dems rule out SNP coalition

Liberal Democrats have tonight turned down the prospect of a coalition deal with the SNP to form the next government of Scotland.

Scottish Lib Dem leader Nicol Stephen said that the fundamental stumbling block was the nationalists' demand for a referendum on independence.

Mr Stephen forecast that there would now be an SNP minority government at Holyrood.

Earlier, the Lib Dems ruled out a coalition deal with Labour.



It seems strange that the SNP seemed prepared to move some way towards postponing the referendum in favour of investing its faith in a convention. The Lib Dems seemed up for more powers and a convention too. So did the SNP still insist on a multi-option ballot? I wonder if a consultative referendum on more powers was on the table, whereby the partners would agree on a few more reserved issues falling under scottish parliament control?

On one hand I'm pleased if the SNP stuck to their guns on the referendum thing. But on the other I'm thinking it could be an opportunity cost.

Aside from the above I also wonder to what extent Ming Campbell was trying to 'save the union' by not going into coalition??

It was discussed in another thread where someone suggested the Lib Dems would struggle if not in government. I believe that to be the case. Nicol Stephen in my opinion is worse than Wallace, Ming is worse than Charles Kennedy. If Nicol Stephen and his colleagues were rather faceless and unrecognisable now... then what would they be like in 4 years?

I wonder if this is final or just more manouvring to get more of what they want?

I think that they are so concerned by the constitution that they would only want a convention on their terms. Whereas the convention would be pointless to the SNP if it only touches on areas of the 'steel report' and not full independence.
Reluctant Hero

I forecast at the next election, Nicol Stephen will get his ar$e kicked by the Scottish electorate for this decision.

How will this play out when it comes to the election of First Minister?

Presuming all the parties put their leaders forward, it could just take one MSP as well as the Labour MSPs to vote for Jack McConnell and we would have him again for the next 4 years.
William_Cleland

One thing to note is that for Alex Salmond to be FM there have to be 18 non-SNP MSPs voting in favour. If he thinks it is going to happen it is a strong indication that the Lib Dems will vote for it as the 63 Labour and Conservative MSPs almost certainly won't. That means it all hinges on the Greens.
Reluctant Hero

The last result of First Minister vote in 2003 was:

Jack McConnell 67
John Swinney 26
David McLetchie 18
Robin Harper 6
Tommy Sheridan 6
Dennis Canavan 2
Margo McDonald 2

So if this time goes the same way, then Salmond would only have to get all his own parties votes to secure the First Minister post. But the worry is that one of the other party's MSPs votes for Jack McConnell.
William_Cleland

McConnell had an overall majority I think is a key detail here. If nobody gets a majority in 28 days then there is a new election is my understanding of how the system works.
Economist

Seems Salmond stuck to his referendum guns - probably just testing the water. What if he now drops that commitment (as we all know he will?)
William_Cleland

The fundamentalist wing of the SNP would go bananas. In some ways a minority based on tacit Lib Dem backing might be the best solution as it allows both to save face on the referendum and get a lot of their favoured policies through Holyrood if the Greens play along. The Lib Dems can't be too obstructive as the electorate will want to see politicians making an effort to make the parliament work at least for a couple of years.
skip

I'd love to be a fly on the wall of party HQs of SNP, Lib, Lab and indeed the venue of coalition talks. There must be so many strands of opinion within each camp right now. Any decisions that are taken now have so many implication for the future elections, people's careers, and whole party fortunes. I think its fascinating, moreso because its new to us all too. The annoying thing to me is how the Liberals caved in so easily on tuition fees for the first coalition agreement. PR for local government after 2003 reaped rewards for us all so I'll credit them with that.
Reluctant Hero

Economist wrote:
Seems Salmond stuck to his referendum guns - probably just testing the water. What if he now drops that commitment (as we all know he will?)


But it is quite weird that the Lib Dems have come out and said that a referendum is off. I would have thought in a negotiation process, either side wouldn't come out with a statement until the discussions could go no further.
skip

yes, Nicol Stephen would sound like a 'flip-flopper' if he says to the press that they won't have a coalition with labour and the snp and then changes his mind 24 hours later.

the only thing is that this might be part of stage-management. he must show himself to his own people standing up against something. The snp must show their own guys that they are sticking to their guns. then maybe after a break-down in talks they must for the 'good of scotland' get together on monday or tuesday to thrash out a half-way house deal. everyone's a winner. wishful thinking maybe on my part!
Economist

William_Cleland wrote:
The fundamentalist wing of the SNP would go bananas. In some ways a minority based on tacit Lib Dem backing might be the best solution as it allows both to save face on the referendum and get a lot of their favoured policies through Holyrood if the Greens play along. The Lib Dems can't be too obstructive as the electorate will want to see politicians making an effort to make the parliament work at least for a couple of years.


I don't think a minority administration is a good way to go, but a loose coalition would be a start, but I think it would just descend into tribal guerilla warfare led by the Labour Party each week. I can also see compromise after compromise each week watering down the will of the Government and watering down policies. Yes, measures may get through, but just to appease party differences they may end up nothing like anybody wants, but just really appealing to the different tribes in Parliament, as some kind of substitute for good governance.

In effect I could see an SNP Government not having any power and being made to look powerless, ultimately losing the next election in 2011. In Scotland people probably want good government, more than anything, but they would also want to see stable government. Minority administrations in Britain, do not have a record of being successful.
William_Cleland

Maybe the Lib-Lab pact at Westminster in the late 70s would be a good model. Not formal coalition but a deal between the parties for support in confidence motions.
Economist

Reluctant Hero wrote:
Economist wrote:
Seems Salmond stuck to his referendum guns - probably just testing the water. What if he now drops that commitment (as we all know he will?)


But it is quite weird that the Lib Dems have come out and said that a referendum is off. I would have thought in a negotiation process, either side wouldn't come out with a statement until the discussions could go no further.


It probably is a signal of intent that they do not wish to do any deals with the SNP come what may.
William_Cleland

Well in that case Jack will be back as they won't be voting for Alex Salmond as first minister but Nicol Stephen seems to think Alex Salmond is going to get in and that can't happen without the 16 Lib Dem votes.
SLG

William_Cleland wrote:
The fundamentalist wing of the SNP would go bananas. In some ways a minority based on tacit Lib Dem backing might be the best solution as it allows both to save face on the referendum and get a lot of their favoured policies through Holyrood if the Greens play along. The Lib Dems can't be too obstructive as the electorate will want to see politicians making an effort to make the parliament work at least for a couple of years.

As I've just said elsewhere, I don't think this is as serious a problem as some make out. People are pragmatic. They know that the SNP need to prove themselves. To do so as a single party minority government will be much harder. The press will be much harder on the SNP than on the Lib Dems if the SNP are the ones leading the Exec.

I really hope that this won't be the end and the SNP will take up talks with the Lib Dems again. They are calling the shots, but if the SNP are a governing by themselves, then they'll be calling the shots as well.

I suppose we don't know what offer Salmond has put to them. Mibee they are asking the SNP to give up too much.
darkside

William_Cleland wrote:
McConnell had an overall majority I think is a key detail here. If nobody gets a majority in 28 days then there is a new election is my understanding of how the system works.


correct there , but if no one is elected first minister then it will be re-run
Economist

Who becomes the First Minister, is something completely separate to running the Executive. I'm sure the LibDems may support Salmond as First Minister. So what? Anybody in the Scottish Parliament can theoretically be First Minister.

It is a bit like Norman Lamont's quote that the "Government are in office but not in power"
Stockholm

Tossers.

For eight years the lib dems have propped up an unimaginative and unpopular executive, but they spurn the chance to form a progressive coalition simply because they can't hack a democratic vote on independence. Makes you sick.
Economist

To be fair to the LibDems they really couldn't do anything else but adopt this position, after all they've said and done on the issue in the past 6 months or so. If they did a U-turn now, they would just make themselves look really, really stupid.
Reluctant Hero

I think the Lib Dems position was made clear on the Politics Show this morning.

Glen Campbell asked Tavish Scott, "If the SNP were to scrap the referendum on independence, would you enter a coalition?"

Scott refused to answer this question....
William_Cleland

To be fair he was hardly likely to say yes as there would no doubt be other policies they would want to get a commitment on as well.
wisnaeme

'
Not just Labour that have their strings pulled from London,Eh.

Alex has had the moral victory what ever happens after this, Justified in his declaration that he speaks for Scotland. Labour,so obvious with the pre-election royalty visits and string pulling from London and now the FibDems have been perceived to have joined them. It's Scotland's voice, don't ye know, providing it comes from London.

The 60% of Libdem voters that were in favour of a referendum and dare I say it a percentage of the other parties, excluding the tories will be very angry and resentful of this decision.Many Libdem supporters are probably scunnered by the inferrence that Scottish Libdems will indeed be run from London. Where does their fancy principles of "federalisation" stand now? Where has their leadership's principles of local democracy disappeared to? Disappeared to London by all accounts. There you have it. Back to being instructed by his master's voice,in London where else could important Scottish affairs be dealt with.Surely not in Edinburgh.

Edinburgh Calling , Edinburgh Calling this is Lord, erm sorry,Sir Haw bluidy haw calling............Can you hear me London.
.
Aventinian

*Sigh*

So it has to be "London" doing all the evil as usual...

It's got nothing to do with the Lib Dems in Scotland, and elsewhere in the United Kingdom, being Unionist?
mairead

I think Alec Salmond is an extremely astute politician and possibly had something up his sleeve in the event of something like this happenening. He will have looked at all these scenarios before the election. Just my thoughts.
Grachka

I think people are being a little unfair on the Lib Dems. They have always maintained the same position on this, so it hardly comes as a surprise that they are sticking to it. If the position had been reversed and there had been a proposal to scrap the Scottish Parliament from one of the Unionist parties, I don't suppose the SNP would be vilified for opposing a "democratic vote" outright.

That being said, I hope that a deal can be thrashed out, because a minority SNP administration would be detrimental to future election hopes.
agentmancuso

Stockholm wrote:

For eight years the lib dems have propped up an unimaginative and unpopular executive, but they spurn the chance to form a progressive coalition simply because they can't hack a democratic vote on independence. Makes you sick.


Another dose of double-standards from the backwoods.

In the context of a Liberal-Labour coalition, we are 'propping them up', 'only interested in power at any cost', 'wanting mondeos', 'have too much say for a minority party', 'undemocratic', 'devoid of principles' etc etc etc.

But when it comes to entering exactly the same arrangement with the SNP, we are "spurning the chance to form a progressive coalition" or "controlled from London" Rolling Eyes

Either Salmond has the authority to slap down the hillbillies and dump the referendum, or he doesn't. It's up to you. Cool
Shake It Up

But Agentmancuso, wouldn't a SNP-Lib Dem coalition be able to agree on and implement more than the Labour-Lib Dems pact? They wouldnt be "...entering the exactly the same arrangement with the SNP..." The Lib Dems are defninitely missing an oportunity to implement they're council tax policies and student policies. Correct me if Im wrong but are they not also opposed to renewing nuclear power stations? That opinion research expert Professor John Curtis from Glasgow uni found that if a multi-option referendum took place now, the majority of people would not vote for independence, they would in fact vote for more powers which is yet another Lib Dems policy...

Face it, the Lib Dems are flimsy, imagine spending all that time and effort to get backing for your policies and then snubbing the chance to implement them. Referendums are designed to put the trust in the peoples' judgement.
Do the Lib Dems not trust the people?
mairead

Lib Dems refuse coalition

Which beggars the question, 'What are they afraid of'
Possibly that the majority of people will want a referendum? Well if we live in a truly democratic society then the wishes of the people MUST be taken on board whether it's a yes or a no, we have the right to be asked. The decision to break up the union is not one only for those in power, it must surely be the will of the people which counts
Shake It Up

Does anyone know what measures Nicol Stephen was wanting to take in order to get more powers for Holyrood? On an issue by issue basis or what?
skip

The Steel Report (by lib dem's own lord steel) reported back to the party that they should consider a number of new powers for our parliament.

Fiscal Federalism - that is that taxes should be raised and spent by each part of the uk. This comes hand in hand with contol over other such things like the welfare state. I understand that his thinking was along the lines of if you wish to solve unemployment, preside over an improved economy, and shift spending to other areas, then you need more financial levers are your disposal. So he was considering VAT and environmental tax levy. If this happened the the Scottish Budget would not just be about allocating budgets but instead it would mean our own finance minister delivering a budget like at westminster and having all sorts of rabbits to pull out his hat!

As well as environmental taxes they might also give us energy policy.

The business of raiding assylum seekers homes at 6am and so on led him to believe we should take certain matters like asylum and immigration off the Home Office. And lets face it the home office was letting criminals out on the loose whilst rounding up folk and splitting up families that were often claiming legitimate political asylum. Drugs classification and National security are other home office duties might also fall under Scottish parliament control.

In my opinion most of these powers coming north would save us from nuclear power stations, ID cards, intollerance of asylum seekers, and other consequences that westminster decisionmaking brings us.

My question is why has this report which took 2 years and the input of Steel, chris huhne and some former BT executive, seemingly been buried??
William_Cleland

agentmancuso wrote:

Either Salmond has the authority to slap down the hillbillies and dump the referendum, or he doesn't. It's up to you. Cool


No coalition is probably what has to happen for many of "the hillbillies" to finally face reality about the current political situation i.e. the SNP will need a majority of pro-referendum MSPs for there to ever be an independence vote. There can still be a minority government, however.
voiceofourown

Apropos the Lib Dems refusal to countenance a constitutional referendum.

http://iainmacwhirter2.blogspot.com/ (scroll down to 'The Liberal Democrats: the Abominable No Men')
Economist

Well, as I've said before, I think the Steel Report is a step-by-step guide to dismantling the United Kingdom, although the LibDems probably didn't realise that at the time, but I think they do now.

FWIW, I agree with much of the Steel Report, it is a start to getting us to where we will ultimately end up, but it seems like the idea of extra powers is getting the cold shoulder now, as well.

I am beginning to think even if the SNP dump the referendum completely, the LibDems will still not work with them, in a formal coalition. Who would be the backward hillbillies then?
agentmancuso

Shake It Up wrote:
wouldn't a SNP-Lib Dem coalition be able to agree on and implement more than the Labour-Lib Dems pact?


Yes, very probably. But as the Liberal Democrats campaigned on a firm 'no referendum' ticket there will be no coalition that involves a referendum.

Quote:
The Lib Dems are defninitely missing an oportunity to implement they're council tax policies and student policies. Correct me if Im wrong but are they not also opposed to renewing nuclear power stations?


We're doing no such thing. If the SNP put forward sensible proposals, the Liberal Democrat MSPs will vote in favour. There is no need for a formal coalition for the two parties to reach agreement on any of the issues you mention.

Quote:
That opinion research expert Professor John Curtis from Glasgow uni found that if a multi-option referendum took place now, the majority of people would not vote for independence, they would in fact vote for more powers which is yet another Lib Dems policy


Of course it is. So if the SNP leadership can find a way to wriggle out of the absurd referendum obsession, they can join a new constitutional convention and participate in the process of bringing new powers to Holyrood.
agentmancuso

skip wrote:
My question is why has this report which took 2 years and the input of Steel, chris huhne and some former BT executive, seemingly been buried??


Since when? I'm never done referring to it. It's where the proposal to hold a new Constitutional Convention originates.
George

voiceofourown wrote:
Apropos the Lib Dems refusal to countenance a constitutional referendum.

http://iainmacwhirter2.blogspot.com/ (scroll down to 'The Liberal Democrats: the Abominable No Men')


Yes, just read the piece and I agree with almost all of it.

In another thread I made the same point to 'agent', that the electorate voted for parties who's stance on the constitution varied from no change to full independence. There is certainly a mandate for change.

I've also said this many times; There are around 10% of the electorate who do not take part in elections but certainly would take part in a referendum.

There are two possibilities here:

1. the Lib Dems have never had any intention of forming a coalition with the SNP. Westminster have decreed it and the referendum is just a lame excuse.

2. They do in fact see the benefits of joining with the SNP and this is just posturing in order to save face.

Salmond should stick to the three option referendum, no more concessions after that. To abandon it would mean short term gain but long term accusations of having no principles.
I wonder just how many voters opted for the Liberals because of their stated desire for more powers? I wonder what will happen to their vote should they spurn the opportunity to implement this policy, and more, due to their rigid loyalty to the Union?
George

Quote:
Of course it is. So if the SNP leadership can find a way to wriggle out of the absurd referendum obsession, they can join a new constitutional convention and participate in the process of bringing new powers to Holyrood.


This works both ways, the SNP are committed to (obsessed with) a referendum.

The Lib-Dems are committed to (obsessed with) anti-referendum.

The larger party has already made a concession by adding another option but the smaller party will not even talk.

The question is:

Why are the Liberals so anti-referendum?
There is a mandate for constitutional change at Holyrood. The party that offered a referendum received more votes than the other two parties of change combined. It is clear to me that a referendum must be held, albeit with three options.

The only reason that I have heard thus far is that they do not want to see the break up of the U.K., in other words they are afraid that the people will opt for something which they theselves do not want.
Jimbo

George wrote:
Quote:
Of course it is. So if the SNP leadership can find a way to wriggle out of the absurd referendum obsession, they can join a new constitutional convention and participate in the process of bringing new powers to Holyrood.


This works both ways, the SNP are committed to (obsessed with) a referendum.

The Lib-Dems are committed to (obsessed with) anti-referendum.

The larger party has already made a concession by adding another option but the smaller party will not even talk.

The question is:

Why are the Liberals so anti-referendum?
There is a mandate for constitutional change at Holyrood. The party that offered a referendum received more votes than the other two parties of change combined. It is clear to me that a referendum must be held, albeit with three options.

The only reason that I have heard thus far is that they do not want to see the break up of the U.K., in other words they are afraid that the people will opt for something which they theselves do not want.


Yes, they have to put England's Westminster party's interests first.
William_Cleland

It could also be something as simple as they don't believe in independence. The way to get a referendum is to win outright or in combination with the Greens. Although it sounds like mission impossible it would probably only take another 12% or so. At one point in the campaign the SNP was only about 6% shy of doing it according to the opinion polls.
agentmancuso

George wrote:
Quote:
Of course it is. So if the SNP leadership can find a way to wriggle out of the absurd referendum obsession, they can join a new constitutional convention and participate in the process of bringing new powers to Holyrood.


This works both ways, the SNP are committed to (obsessed with) a referendum.

The Lib-Dems are committed to (obsessed with) anti-referendum.


Nonsense. The Liberal Democrats, the Conservatives and the Labour Party are all opposed to holding a referendum on an issue over which the parliament has no legal authority. Presumably the voters were aware of this when they elected an overwhelming majority of MSPs opposed to independence on May 3rd.

The only people talking about a referendum are the SNP. The only reason even they talk about it is to keep their swivel-eyed fundamentalist wing on -side. The referendum, and all talk of referendums, is completely irrelevant to the business of running Holyrood.

If there is to be constitutional change, it will come in one of two ways:

Option 1: Interested parties work together with representatives of civic bodies in a new Constitutional Convention, and produce an agreed settlement to present to Westminster, leading to the devolution of further powers, notably financial and tax-raising powers, to Holyrood.

Option 2: The SNP win a majority of Scottish seats.

That's it. Choose whichever seems most likely, and work towards it. There is no other feasible option. Please stop boring us all with this ridiculous obsession with holding an entirely symbolic and pointlessly unconstitutional referendum.
agentmancuso

Jimbo wrote:
they have to put England's Westminster party's interests first.


How does the Scottish Liberal Democrats entering or not entering a coalition with the SNP affect the interests of the federal party?
agentmancuso

Economist wrote:

I am beginning to think even if the SNP dump the referendum completely, the LibDems will still not work with them, in a formal coalition.


It depends what's on offer I suppose. I think most LibDems would be prefer if a formal coalition could be negotiated, but even if talks fail to reach an solution there is plenty room for issue by issue agreement.

Quote:
Who would be the backward hillbillies then?


Same as now, the folks outback who complain about 'foreigners', 'outsiders' and people of 'mixed background'.
George

OK agent, I can see that your getting a bit worked up here.

I suppose it boils down to whether the Lib-Dems are serious about negotiating. If they won't even enter the room for talks then it suggests that they have had no intention all along.

There's nothing to stop them engaging with the SNP then pulling out if the SNP won't drop the referendum, but both parties have to negotiate before any of them agree to drop anything.

Oh, and the BBC insist on stating that the SNP have refused to drop the referendum and that the Liberals in turn have declined a coalition. This is untrue and was explained by Brian Taylor. The Liberals have stated that the SNP must drop their referendum BEFORE they will even enter talks. As Taylor himself stated, no party will start shedding policies prior to negotiations........that is why they negotiate.
William_Cleland

The referendum is a condition the SNP set for coalition. The Lib Dems appear to be saying "no thanks but we will back you to get in as a minority from the backbenches." They are perfectly within their rights to do that. In order to ensure a referendum there needs to be a majority of MSPs in favour of it. That's how democracy works.
Anthropos

George wrote:
I suppose it boils down to whether the Lib-Dems are serious about negotiating. If they won't even enter the room for talks then it suggests that they have had no intention all along.


Equally George the Lib Dems could say that by refusing to drop the referendum the SNP are not serious about negotiating, and that if they - the Lib Dems - hold the position that this is a non negotiable demand then frankly there wouldn't be much to discuss.

That is just how PR works, the 4th largest party can hold you over a barrel in this way.
Jimbo

agentmancuso wrote:
Jimbo wrote:
they have to put England's Westminster party's interests first.


How does the Scottish Liberal Democrats entering or not entering a coalition with the SNP affect the interests of the federal party?


For the reasons that you well know. Just like the Tory Party and New Labour, their policies are decided by their Westminster members just as their policies in Scotland are dictated by their Westminster leaders. If the talks between Ming Campbell and Brown culminate in in a deal between Labour and Liberal to keep the SNP out of Holyrood administration or force them into a minority government then if Campbell says 'jump' Stepehen has to say 'How high'. By virtue of the fact the Liberals are refusing to even negotiate at this stage unless the SNP drop the referendum issue leads me to believe they are stalling until the outcome of the aforementioned talks.

Just like his ex coalition partner McConnell, Stephen has to look south for directions. The wishes of the Westminster parties will always take precedence to the political arena in Scotland. You being an ex SNP member and obviously an educated man will be well aware of this.
agentmancuso

George wrote:
I suppose it boils down to whether the Lib-Dems are serious about negotiating. If they won't even enter the room for talks then it suggests that they have had no intention all along.


Exactly. Stephen has said time and time again that there will be no coalition deal unless the SNP drop the referendum. There's not much point holding talks if everyone knows in advance that they're doomed to failure.

Some sensible comment on the referendum red herring from DoctorVee.
Anthropos

Remember as part of the 2003 coalition deal the Lib Dems insisted that Proportional Representation be brought in for Local Government and this has now resulted in Labour dominance of that sector being shattered. They now only control Glasgow and North Lanarkshire.

Labour were not happy about that, but it was the price of a coalition to keep them in power. The SNP will also have to make a significant sacrafice if it wants a deal.
George

Anthropos wrote:
George wrote:
I suppose it boils down to whether the Lib-Dems are serious about negotiating. If they won't even enter the room for talks then it suggests that they have had no intention all along.


Equally George the Lib Dems could say that by refusing to drop the referendum the SNP are not serious about negotiating, and that if they - the Lib Dems - hold the position that this is a non negotiable demand then frankly there wouldn't be much to discuss.

That is just how PR works, the 4th largest party can hold you over a barrel in this way.


Yes Anthropos, I appreciate that. My point is that they don't know what the SNP will offer. No party will shed a policy unilaterally without something being offered in return.

You enter the room, you talk, you try to persuade the other to meet your requests. you haggle........then you either enter agreement or you don't.

The Lib_Dems stated that they would enter talks with the SNP first if it were the largest party........the SNP had first dibs if you like. They never stated that the referendum had to be dropped as a pre-requisit to talks, only that they would not enter into coalition with it. So this demand pre-talks is something new, where has it come from? It seems to me that they have effectively gone back on a pre-election promise.

Now, I actually have no problem with the Lib-Dems declining after talks. My fear is that they have never had any intention of coalition and might seek to cause disruption along with Labour in order to destabalise the executive.
George

agentmancuso wrote:

Stephen has said time and time again that there will be no coalition deal unless the SNP drop the referendum. There's not much point holding talks if everyone knows in advance that they're doomed to failure.


How do you know what will be offered if you don't at least get into discussion?
Aventinian

George wrote:
Yes Anthropos, I appreciate that. My point is that they don't know what the SNP will offer. No party will shed a policy unilaterally without something being offered in return.


They're getting something very significant being offered in return: the chance to have a coalition partner.
mairead

maybe the reason why the Lib Dems in Scotland did so badly was because they were adamant about having no referendum. Should that not tell them something
kevin04

I really am not sure of what the SNP should do next, It's really a no win situation and I really fear that if we go for a Minority government It could welll fall due to the closeness of the actual vote in the elections, Then there is the option if the SNP ditched the referendum (it almost certainly looks doomed to lose in a minority government billl) and build up a coalition and do some good work in office and then hopefully become re-elected for a 2nd term in 2011 and then hopefully win enough seats to put the bill through,

It's all If's and but's but we'll see how the next few days go, Surely Salmond & Stephen will be on the phone to each other in the next couple of days anyhoo]s
voiceofourown

A typically provocative view from that grand old curmudgeon Ian Hamilton. He's as much a national treasure as 'the stone' itself!
http://www.ianhamiltonqc.com/wordpress/
agentmancuso

Jimbo wrote:
For the reasons that you well know. Just like the Tory Party and New Labour, their policies are decided by their Westminster members just as their policies in Scotland are dictated by their Westminster leaders.


No, they aren't. Policies are decided at twice yearly party conferences, on a one-member-one-vote basis.

Please abandon the conspiratorial flights of fancy. Gordon Brown has no more say in Liberal policy than he does in SNP policy. There will be no deal with Labour this parliament.

Let me put it another way: why would Campbell, or federal MPs, want to keep the SNP out of Holyrood? How would they benefit in any way from this?
agentmancuso

mairead wrote:
maybe the reason why the Lib Dems in Scotland did so badly was because they were adamant about having no referendum. Should that not tell them something


It might, if it were remotely true. We lost one seat, which was disappointing, but hardly disastrous. Especially since 40,000 people more people voted Liberal Democrat in the constituency vote, and 5,000 more on the list vote than did in 2003. The votes were just spread more evenly than has traditionally been the case.

Given that we have been in coalition with Labour for eight years, and therefore perceived as guilty by association in some bizarre way for the widely unpopular acts of the Westminster government, it could have been a lot worse.

Anyway, twice as many people voted for parties opposed to independence as voted for parties in favour; the unlikely assumption that our position on the referendum red-herring was the cause of our losing one seat only reflects that the this policy makes the Liberal Democrats unpopular with SNP activists, not with the voting public.
agentmancuso

George wrote:
agentmancuso wrote:

Stephen has said time and time again that there will be no coalition deal unless the SNP drop the referendum. There's not much point holding talks if everyone knows in advance that they're doomed to failure.


How do you know what will be offered if you don't at least get into discussion?


It doesn't matter much what else is offered does it? If Salmond has the authority to drop the referendum, he will do so.
George

Aventinian wrote:
George wrote:
Yes Anthropos, I appreciate that. My point is that they don't know what the SNP will offer. No party will shed a policy unilaterally without something being offered in return.


They're getting something very significant being offered in return: the chance to have a coalition partner.


I see, drop one of your main policies before negitiations begin and we might form a coalition. Rolling Eyes

The Liberals have absolutely no idea what the SNP might offer or ask for until they begin talks. As I have already stated, if the parties negotiate but cannot reach agreement then fine, the Liberals have no obligation to support any party.

Imagine if the SNP had set a referendum precondition prior to talks with the Liberals, what would the reaction have been?

1. Arrogant Salmond erects barrier to coalition
OR
2. Principled SNP leader stands firm on core policy?

Oh, I'm not taking bets on the answer to that one!!
agentmancuso

George wrote:

The Lib_Dems stated that they would enter talks with the SNP first if it were the largest party........the SNP had first dibs if you like.


No, we said that the SNP would have the moral authority to seek to form a government. And so they do. If they want a coalition, they know what to do.

Quote:
they have effectively gone back on a pre-election promise.


The only pre-election promise was that we would not enter any coalition involved in an independence referendum. That still stands, loud and clear.

Quote:
My fear is that they have never had any intention of coalition and might seek to cause disruption along with Labour in order to destabalise the executive.


Highly unlikely; what would we possibly have to gain by destablising the executive? Voters aren't that stupid, they would see through it a mile off.

Stephen did not expect to be a seat down: the polls were averaging us up by about 4 or so. If there had been a possibility of a simple two party coalition, and we had been in a stronger bargaining position, then Salmond would have found it easier to loose face by dropping the referendum. Our comparative weakness makes this much harder for him to do, as the fundamentalists won't allow it. Hence, no coalition is likely.
William_Cleland

George wrote:
Imagine if the SNP had set a referendum precondition prior to talks with the Liberals, what would the reaction have been?


They did George and have done so for about a decade now because the fundamentalist wing of the SNP would go completely bananas if they hadn't. The "confidence and supply" stuff is the possible face saving way out for both sides, which is why Alex Salmond is making very positive noises about forming a minority government instead.
agentmancuso

William_Cleland wrote:
The "confidence and supply" stuff is the possible face saving way out for both sides, which is why Alex Salmond is making very positive noises about forming a minority government instead.


I agree entirely. I think the closeness of many SNP policies to Liberal policies makes the likelihood of 'confidence and supply' working tolerably well much greater.
George

agentmancuso wrote:
George wrote:
agentmancuso wrote:

Stephen has said time and time again that there will be no coalition deal unless the SNP drop the referendum. There's not much point holding talks if everyone knows in advance that they're doomed to failure.


How do you know what will be offered if you don't at least get into discussion?


It doesn't matter much what else is offered does it? If Salmond has the authority to drop the referendum, he will do so.


Yes, but in the context of private negotiations Salmond would be at liberty to ask what the Liberals would be prepared to give up in return. That is why a demand that one party unilaterelly bin a key policy prior to talks is ridiculous.
George

William_Cleland wrote:
George wrote:
Imagine if the SNP had set a referendum precondition prior to talks with the Liberals, what would the reaction have been?


They did George and have done so for about a decade now because the fundamentalist wing of the SNP would go completely bananas if they hadn't. The "confidence and supply" stuff is the possible face saving way out for both sides, which is why Alex Salmond is making very positive noises about forming a minority government instead.


Salmond has stated publicly that there are no pre-conditions to talks with the Liberals. I don't know how clearer that can be and how you can say otherwise.
William_Cleland

The referendum thing has been SNP policy for a decade and it was mentioned repeatedly during the campaign with the only movement being that a multioption referendum might be doable. Everybody knows that the SNP expect a referendum with indpendence as one of the options in exchange for a coalition deal.
George

Anyone catch Nicola Surgeon on Newsnight last night? She seemed to strongly suggest that the constitutional convention is indeed being considered. The SNP are sending strong signals to the Liberals that they are willing to compromise.

I also note that thus far the press seem to be holding their fire on this one, no party is being heavily criticised yet.
kevin04

I did indeed catch Nicola on newsnight last night and that interview, the ball is truly in the dems corner now, Surely they should come out and have even in-formal talks.

It could backfire in their face next election..
skip

I think if there was a referendum on whether the SNP, Greens and Liberals should govern as a coalition there would be a resounding YES.

However, the Lib Dems won't even talk to the Greens about talking to the SNP. So much for the 'new politics'.

From the Newsnight interview it looked like the SNP was prepared to budge... by not talking it suggests the Lib Dems were putting up a false barrier to negotations all along and in fact they just want nothing to do with more powers for the parliament unless forced into it as a last resort.
Aventinian

skip wrote:
I think if there was a referendum on whether the SNP, Greens and Liberals should govern as a coalition there would be a resounding YES.


Referendums are contemptable at best, but talking about them in this way is plainly ridiculous.

Everyone knew the Lib Dem position when they voted for them.

Quote:
However, the Lib Dems won't even talk to the Greens about talking to the SNP. So much for the 'new politics'.


What the catchphrase the SNP have been throwing about - 'a progressive coalition' or something. I think the problem here is that most of the other parties don't see the SNP are progressive in the least, quite the opposite in fact. I think they ought to realise this.
George

Aventinian wrote:

Everyone knew the Lib Dem position when they voted for them.

Yes, as with every party. Care to comment on the Liberals refusal to enter talks after stating that they would indeed talk to the largest party. I detect that even the pro-unionist press are beginning to tire of this ridiculous stance.

Aventinian wrote:

What the catchphrase the SNP have been throwing about - 'a progressive coalition' or something. I think the problem here is that most of the other parties don't see the SNP are progressive in the least, quite the opposite in fact. I think they ought to realise this.

Aventinian, I don't quite know what you are trying to say here. I don't think that it enhances an otherwise excellent thread.
Aventinian

George wrote:
Aventinian wrote:

Everyone knew the Lib Dem position when they voted for them.

Yes, as with every party. Care to comment on the Liberals refusal to enter talks after stating that they would indeed talk to the largest party. I detect that even the pro-unionist press are beginning to tire of this ridiculous stance.


I don't ever recall them saying that they would definitely talk to the largest party - I wonder what their position would be had the National Front won! I'm open to correction, but I can't say I recall them making that statement.

Quote:
Aventinian wrote:

What the catchphrase the SNP have been throwing about - 'a progressive coalition' or something. I think the problem here is that most of the other parties don't see the SNP are progressive in the least, quite the opposite in fact. I think they ought to realise this.

Aventinian, I don't quite know what you are trying to say here. I don't think that it enhances an otherwise excellent thread.


So you didn't get what I was saying yet still found it not to 'enhance' the thread?

What I'm saying is that I don't think Salmond and Co. actually realise that they're not considered progressives by anybody serious outside of their own party and should stop harping on about it.

The Lib Dems will be quite comfortable without being in coalition. They require wooing.

If they were to negotiate, it'd still be down to the SNP to make the first move. Perhaps they're not doing it over a table, but the Lib Dems have made it clear what the first concession they want is - which is far simpler than most wooings.

It's very rare that one gets to say 'woo' three times in one post.
Shake It Up

Anyone see newsnight last night with McWhirter and the Herald Politcal editor (Douglas I think). Made a few good points about the Libs not even talking to the SNP.
1) Look at Northern Ireland - they can sit around a table and get on with it...
2) Look at the council negotiations - all parties are getting on with it
3) They pointed out the same thing I said earlier on in this thread - libs could implement about 90% of their policies with SNP and help shape them before they are presented to the other MSPs. The one main area of disagreement (Ref) would not even get through Parliament anyway whether lib dems were in coalition or not... so what is their problem?

I think I'm missing something here. The lib dems support PR and they know that situations can arise whereby you might need to talk and negotiate with a party with a different set of beliefs from your own... that is the point in having separate parties with different ideas, if everyone agreed on everything we wouldn't need a bloody Parliament.
George

This is a paragraph from an interview Nicol Stephen gave the Scotsman. It took around 10 seconds to locate this and I am sure that there will be many more instances where he has confirmed he would take part in talks with the SNP should they become the largest party.

Quote:
Mr Stephen said that if the SNP emerged as the biggest party he would try to do a deal with the Nationalists. But if that foundered because of divisions over an independence referendum, then it was likely he would take his party to the "opposition benches" without trying to form a coalition with Labour....................................

Mr Stephen added: "We have been through this situation twice before, in 1999 and 2003, so we will put in place appropriate arrangements to have those discussions once the election is decided, once we know what the outcome is."


So, why the refusal to have talks. If the talks break down over the SNP refusal to budge over the referendum then fine..........but to now refuse to even talk!!
mal

I thought the best item on Newsnight was the highlighting of the Tories stance on no coalition so that their electorate knew that policy before they voted,however the fibs have now turned into the Tories in this aspect but at least they were up front about it.(no surprise there then!)

I`m quite happy for the fibs to scramble about with their 16 msps,no influence,no cabinet salaries,no executive expenses and no fancy motors,Salmond should go for it himself and blame the fibs as soon as 1 policy that they have in common is voted down by them.

How many Fib seats are the SNP in second place? Wink
Aventinian

George wrote:
So, why the refusal to have talks. If the talks break down over the SNP refusal to budge over the referendum then fine..........but to now refuse to even talk!!


I think it's a silly artificial barrier myself.

Even if the Lib Dems are being a bit obtuse about this, if the SNP wants the moral high ground then they should acknowledge this as a ridiculous situation, accept reality and give in on the referendum front.

The thing is, to negotiate for the Lib Dems would actually hold it up as something that was negotiable - which it clearly isn't to them - and set a future precedent.
Aventinian

mal wrote:
I thought the best item on Newsnight was the highlighting of the Tories stance on no coalition so that their electorate knew that policy before they voted,however the fibs have now turned into the Tories in this aspect but at least they were up front about it.(no surprise there then!)

I`m quite happy for the fibs to scramble about with their 16 msps,no influence,no cabinet salaries,no executive expenses and no fancy motors,Salmond should go for it himself and blame the fibs as soon as 1 policy that they have in common is voted down by them.

How many Fib seats are the SNP in second place? Wink


If the Liberals choose to try to bring down the SNP while they're in minority government, it'll be the Nats who look weak.

With a minority government, the SNP will still be relying on the good grace of the Lib Dems.
William_Cleland

I think people shouldn't overlook the possibility that the Lib Dems are simply hurting big time after a major electoral setback in terms of their expectations. As recently as 2005 at the Westminster general election they broke the 20% barrier and overtook the SNP in terms of the popular vote with major protest vote swings across the central belt going their way rather than to the SNP for the first time since the SDP era in the mid-80s just before the Govan by-election. Many of them probably thought the tide was finally flowing in their direction. Nicol Stephen even started making noises about being the next First Minister. Fast forward two years and they have lost three seats they worked very hard to take in the Tory years i.e. Gordon, Argyll & Bute and Roxburgh & Berwick and a few more like Aberdeen South, West Aberdeenshire, Ross Skye & Inverness West and Caithness Sutherland & Easter Ross are now starting to look like marginals because of the progress made by the SNP. Not surprising that a bunker mentality might set in after that and that feelings of jealousy make it very difficult for them to back the SNP at this point.
agentmancuso

George wrote:

So, why the refusal to have talks. If the talks break down over the SNP refusal to budge over the referendum then fine..........but to now refuse to even talk!!


The Liberal Democrats did not refuse to talk. Stephen spoke to Salmond informally on the phone on Sunday. He said that no formal coalition talks would take place unless the SNP dropped their commitment to a referendum. Salmond refused to do so. Fair enough, it's his call. But there will be no more talks.

It's depressingly typical of the SNP that even in their moment of triumph they're still whining 'it's no fair'.

Get on with the job, stop blaming everybody else for everything.
agentmancuso

Aventinian wrote:

What the catchphrase the SNP have been throwing about - 'a progressive coalition' or something. I think the problem here is that most of the other parties don't see the SNP are progressive in the least, quite the opposite in fact. I think they ought to realise this.


Exactly. Nationalism is a reactionary and irrationalist creed. The SNP do an excellent job of repackaging nationalism as a progressive and viable force (despite the best efforts of some of their supporters on this forum..), but in many people's eyes it remains just that and no more: attractive progressive packaging hiding a stinking corpse.

To prove themselves as progressive and viable, the SNP must permanently struggle against the fundamentalist militant tendency; a tendency that manifests itself at this moment in time as an obsession with a pointless referendum. If even now, in his moment of presidentialist triumph, Salmond lacks the authority to put the fundamentalists in their place, then that is a problem for the SNP, and nobody else.
William_Cleland

agentmancuso wrote:
Exactly. Nationalism is a reactionary and irrationalist creed.


Seems to me that nationalism can mean very different things. Yes the fundamentalist types in the SNP who flirt with blood and soil type ethnic nationalism are usually highly irrational but there is a rational form of civic nationalism as well based on enlightened self interest and believing that there is such a thing as society and that people owe a loyalty to that and should not just be selfishly looking after numero uno. Really not that different from liberalism when you come down to it.
agentmancuso

Shake It Up wrote:
Anyone see newsnight last night with McWhirter and the Herald Politcal editor (Douglas I think). Made a few good points about the Libs not even talking to the SNP.
1) Look at Northern Ireland - they can sit around a table and get on with it...
2) Look at the council negotiations - all parties are getting on with it


Those are not good points. They are shallow and fatuous points.

1) The comparison with Northern Ireland is utterly contemptible. It is essential that nationalists of all tribes be encouraged to work together in Northern Ireland, to prevent more bloodshed. As yet, there has been no blood shed here; the most manifestations of nationalism in Scotland are outbursts of self-pity and 'it's no fair'-ness.
Why a nationalist should wish to draw attention to a country torn apart by nationalist fanaticism is a bit of a mystery in any case.

2) As far as I am aware, no local authority SNP group is demanding a referendum to separate East Lothian or Inverclyde from the rest of the country. If they were, there would be no talks there either.

In one council (South Ayrshire?) the SNP have agreed a sort of 'confidence and supply' agreement with the Tories, precisely because they refuse to co-operate formally with the Tories under any circumstances. So the SNP whine about us not talking to them over a fundamental policy difference, but they won't talk to the Tories just because of who they are! Talk about utter hypocrisy.

Quote:
3) They pointed out the same thing I said earlier on in this thread - libs could implement about 90% of their policies with SNP and help shape them before they are presented to the other MSPs. The one main area of disagreement (Ref) would not even get through Parliament anyway whether lib dems were in coalition or not... so what is their problem?


We don't have one. You, on the other hand, do. In any case it may prove just as easy to get agreed policies through without a formal coalition.
William_Cleland

Think you need to decide what your definition of a country is. In point 1) NI appears to be a country, while in point 2) only the UK of GB and NI appears to merit that status. If the UK is "the country" why is it OK in an NI context to do deals with people who want a "border poll" to remove a large chunk of "the country"? I hope you are not suggesting that violence makes all the difference in that regard and that the SNP should be penalised for always having been peaceful and democratic.
agentmancuso

William_Cleland wrote:
Think you need to decide what your definition of a country is. In point 1) NI appears to be a country, while in point 2) only the UK of GB and NI appears to merit that status. If the UK is "the country" why is it OK in an NI context to do deals with people who want a "border poll" to remove a large chunk of "the country"? I hope you are not suggesting that violence makes all the difference in that regard and that the SNP should be penalised for always having been peaceful and democratic.


You've lost me entirely I'm afraid. Northern Ireland is a country. Scotland is a country. Great Britain is a country. The United Kingdom is a country. So what?

In Northern Ireland, the direct result of a surfeit of nationalism has been thousands of murders. It is evidently essential that the two sides are kept talking, to prevent further bloodshed, and to allow democratic institutions to settle down.

None of this has anything to do with Holyrood. The Liberal Democrats do not wish at present to enter a coalition with the SNP, because we think nationalism is a potentially dangerous force. If the SNP were seen to be suppressing internal fundamentalism, it would make co-operation easier. But co-operation there will be nonetheless, just not in the way the SNP judge most convenient for their own ends.
agentmancuso

William_Cleland wrote:
Seems to me that nationalism can mean very different things. Yes the fundamentalist types in the SNP who flirt with blood and soil type ethnic nationalism are usually highly irrational but there is a rational form of civic nationalism as well based on enlightened self interest and believing that there is such a thing as society and that people owe a loyalty to that and should not just be selfishly looking after numero uno.


Nationalism is, by definition, selfish. Collective egoism is still egoism.

Civic nationalism is nice idea, but it is a house built on sand.

Quote:
Really not that different from liberalism when you come down to it.


Very different. Liberals do not believe that emotional attachments are a good basis for public policy. Nor do they believe that the accident of being born to a specific tribal/ethnic/religious/national identity is particularly relevant when it comes to deciding how best to administer the apparatus of the state.
George

agentmancuso wrote:

The Liberal Democrats did not refuse to talk. Stephen spoke to Salmond informally on the phone on Sunday. He said that no formal coalition talks would take place unless the SNP dropped their commitment to a referendum. Salmond refused to do so. Fair enough, it's his call. But there will be no more talks.


Sorry agent but this argument is, to be polite, weak. You and I know that a phone call does not constitute negotiations, besides you simply don't know what was said. There is also the inconvenient statement from Nicola Sturgeon on newsnight stating clearly that the constitutional convention could provide a solution....in other words the commitment has been dropped.

agentmancuso wrote:

It's depressingly typical of the SNP that even in their moment of triumph they're still whining 'it's no fair'.

Get on with the job, stop blaming everybody else for everything.


No-one is blaming anyone for anything, the SNP will govern the best they can. All that is being done on this thread is that the hypocrisy and lies of the Liberals is being highlighted. I have posted the statements that Nicol Stephen made prior to the election, he has not honoured them.
agentmancuso

George wrote:
Sorry agent but this argument is, to be polite, weak. You and I know that a phone call does not constitute negotiations,


It might not constitute the kind of negotiations you were looking for, but that's a different matter altogether.

Quote:
the constitutional convention could provide a solution.


Yes, it could. The SNP could drop all talk of pointless referendums, and agree to join a new constitutional convention. Unfortunately, Salmond is afraid that the boys from the backwoods will come looking for him, cardboard claymores to the ready.
George

Oh dear, not the 'nasty nationalists' diatribe again. Rolling Eyes

Agent, you are beginning to morph into Aventinian.
agentmancuso

George wrote:
Oh dear, not the 'nasty nationalists' diatribe again. Rolling Eyes

Agent, you are beginning to morph into Aventinian.


Nationalists in Scotland are not nasty, as a general rule. But nationalism is nasty, as a general rule.

I do agree with Aventinian very frequently, in the context of this particular debate at least. But surely yous can cope with two objectors to your collective tribal utopia?
George

agentmancuso wrote:
George wrote:
Sorry agent but this argument is, to be polite, weak. You and I know that a phone call does not constitute negotiations,


It might not constitute the kind of negotiations you were looking for, but that's a different matter altogether.


It would appear that even the Nicol Stephen agrees with me.......since the Liberals are still saying that they will not talk. Using your logic then they already have and have simply forgotten.

agentmancuso wrote:

Quote:
the constitutional convention could provide a solution.


Yes, it could. The SNP could drop all talk of pointless referendums, and agree to join a new constitutional convention. Unfortunately, Salmond is afraid that the boys from the backwoods will come looking for him, cardboard claymores to the ready.

Now, now....disparaging remarks don't strengthen your argument. However, you have now acknowledged that what is on offer could provide a solution...............talks anyone?
George

agentmancuso wrote:
George wrote:
Oh dear, not the 'nasty nationalists' diatribe again. Rolling Eyes

Agent, you are beginning to morph into Aventinian.


Nationalists in Scotland are not nasty, as a general rule. But nationalism is nasty, as a general rule.

I do agree with Aventinian very frequently, in the context of this particular debate at least. But surely yous can cope with two objectors to your collective tribal utopia?


Nothing to do with tribal anything, this thread is an objective analysis of a baffling Liberal standpoint. I have posted what I believe is proof of Nicol Stephen going back on his word re: talking to the largest party.

Goodness, even Aventinian has conceded that the pre-condition is an artificial barrier. I would be interested to know what purpose Aventinian thinks it serves........there must be a reason.
agentmancuso

George wrote:
It would appear that even the Nicol Stephen agrees with me.......since the Liberals are still saying that they will not talk. Using your logic then they already have and have simply forgotten.


Only if you think refusing to talk mean that you haven't previously talked.

Quote:
Now, now....disparaging remarks don't strengthen your argument. However, you have now acknowledged that what is on offer could provide a solution...............talks anyone?


No, but they help me keep my head above the tide of dreary semantic squabbling.

Only the SNP can provide a solution to this by dropping the referendum. Honestly, no-one else cares any more. The SNP had the chance to drop it, they chose not to. So life goes on. Here's hoping the current display of scholastic navel-gazing is not indicative of the way the SNP intend to govern. I fear the worst.
agentmancuso

George wrote:
the pre-condition is an artificial barrier.


Of course it is. It was a tactical blunder by Stephen to make the commitment before the election that there would be no coalition unless the referendum was dropped. He should have refused entirely to comment on post-election possibilities.

But why you would rather that everyone went through the pointless process of convening formal coalition talks, for the two parties to spend weeks agreeing on the finer points of a dozen joint policy initiatives, only for the whole thing to collapse because Salmond can't wriggle out of the referendum is a complete mystery. What's the point? We know everything there is to know already. So get on with it, stop looking for someone else to blame.
William_Cleland

agentmancuso wrote:
William_Cleland wrote:
Think you need to decide what your definition of a country is. In point 1) NI appears to be a country, while in point 2) only the UK of GB and NI appears to merit that status. If the UK is "the country" why is it OK in an NI context to do deals with people who want a "border poll" to remove a large chunk of "the country"? I hope you are not suggesting that violence makes all the difference in that regard and that the SNP should be penalised for always having been peaceful and democratic.


You've lost me entirely I'm afraid. Northern Ireland is a country. Scotland is a country. Great Britain is a country. The United Kingdom is a country. So what?

In Northern Ireland, the direct result of a surfeit of nationalism has been thousands of murders. It is evidently essential that the two sides are kept talking, to prevent further bloodshed, and to allow democratic institutions to settle down.

None of this has anything to do with Holyrood. The Liberal Democrats do not wish at present to enter a coalition with the SNP, because we think nationalism is a potentially dangerous force. If the SNP were seen to be suppressing internal fundamentalism, it would make co-operation easier. But co-operation there will be nonetheless, just not in the way the SNP judge most convenient for their own ends.


When it suits you the country is Scotland and when it suits you the country is the UK in other words. Real countries in a 21st century context have their flag flying at the United Nations. Scotland and Northern Ireland are constitutional regions in European Union terms like Flanders or Catalonia and are not sovereign member states. The UK of GB and NI has been torn apart by violence over the last century but it didn't have to be that way. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland almost federalised within the context of the Empire, peacefully based on the concept "devolution all round" in the early years of last century. A Scottish Home Rule Bill even passed its second reading at Westminster in 1913. If the Archduke had not been shot in Sarajevo history would have gone in a very different direction in other words. The "surfeit of nationalism" that prevented it from happening was as much that of the British State and the other empire that dominated Europe at the time as that of Sinn Fein and the Ulster Unionists.

I find it a bit offensive when people try to make out that Ulster's problems are only down to the "sectarianism" and general all around backwardness of the people who live there and try to act as if the rest of the UK is a completely innocent bystander when they are in fact caused by a constitutional settlement from the 1690s and early 1700s that fitted England and Scotland much better than it ever did the island of Ireland because it pre-dated the 18th century Enlightenment and all the notions of separation of church and state that went with it.
William_Cleland

agentmancuso wrote:
George wrote:
Oh dear, not the 'nasty nationalists' diatribe again. Rolling Eyes

Agent, you are beginning to morph into Aventinian.


Nationalists in Scotland are not nasty, as a general rule. But nationalism is nasty, as a general rule.

I do agree with Aventinian very frequently, in the context of this particular debate at least. But surely yous can cope with two objectors to your collective tribal utopia?


That makes no more sense than accusing Labour of being like Pol Pot because of a shared notion of socialism. The national state is a key feature of modern human society. Belief in the national state as the key mechanism for beneficial social change in the modern world does not make someone an ideological fellow traveller of Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic. The nature of citizenship within a national state does not have to be about blood and soil notions of age old ethnicity. The picture of Bashir Ahmad in his traditional Pakistani jacket should be a strong hint that the SNP does not see things that way.
agentmancuso

William_Cleland wrote:
When it suits you the country is Scotland and when it suits you the country is the UK in other words.


Not just me, anybody else too, if they like. Why not? Which one isn't a 'country'?

Quote:
Real countries in a 21st century context have their flag flying at the United Nations.


I think you'll find those are the flags of states. The United Kingdom is a state, and it is a country. Scotland is a country, but not a state. Some people would like it to be one, but it isn't at the moment.

Quote:
Scotland and Northern Ireland are constitutional regions in European Union terms like Flanders or Catalonia and are not sovereign member states.


That's right. So what?

Quote:
The UK of GB and NI has been torn apart by violence over the last century but it didn't have to be that way.


Nothing in history ever "has to be that way". It gets made that way, by individual people making individual decisions. Some good, some bad.

Quote:
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland almost federalised within the context of the Empire, peacefully based on the concept "devolution all round" in the early years of last century.
Yes. It's a pity that excellent Liberal policy never lived to see the light of day.

Quote:
IThe "surfeit of nationalism" that prevented it from happening was as much that of the British State and the other empire that dominated Europe at the time as that of Sinn Fein and the Ulster Unionists.


I don't recall any Austrians vandalising post offices in Dublin.

Quote:
I find it a bit offensive when people try to make out that Ulster's problems are only down to the "sect