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.
 



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

MSPs to debate independence bill

An independence referendum and minimum pricing for alcohol are among the bills to be introduced at the Scottish Parliament in the coming year.

The Scottish Government confirmed they would be among 13 bills brought forward in the SNP's third legislative session.

Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said the people of Scotland had a democratic right to have their say on the issue of independence.

The programme will be debated by MSPs at Holyrood on Thursday

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8228599.stm
Stevie

Thanks for the post Red.

I couldn't help however notice Labour's political genius displaying itself again, so excuse me for picking on some of their quotes.
Quote:



Scottish Labour said an independence referendum would destabilise an already faltering economy.


The best they could do... ?


Quote:
"Labour has called for a much more vigorous response to the recession, tough action to bring in mandatory sentences on knife crime and better protection for vulnerable children.


Rich, considering they did f**k all when they had power...

Quote:
"We also want to see a credible package of measures for dealing with Scotland's culture of alcohol abuse, but the Scottish Government has so-far failed to bring one forward. Instead, we are confronted with proposals for a referendum on independence that will cost Scotland jobs by creating more economic uncertainty."


Sounds less like a professional politician than it does a low level county councillor drawling out something he was told to say by someone who was told to tell him what to say...

Labour, the sheer daring of them trying to make us think they are incredibly dull and unimaginative so that at some crucial moment to come in the future, they will surprise us with their sparkling wit and passionate diatribe...


Oh, any news about Tommy S?
Red Justice

I think the Labour arguments against a referendum are pretty weak. I concur with the SNP view that it is about the right to democraticaly decide.

As for Tommy you are best asking Rinty I am sure everything is fine. But can't remember date of court case is it January?
Reluctant Hero

In the Sunday Herald it was saying that the Unionist Parties might be considering a court challenge to the legality of the Scottish Parliament holding a referendum.  If this happens or if the Unionist parties vote against the bill, do people expect major fallout, or do the public generally not give a toss?
Aventinian

If the SNP truly believe it would be 'unpardonable folly' (to remind you all of one of your less glorious moments) for the other parties to vote against a referendum bill, why not introduce it back in 1999?

For my part, I think it's a nonsense. You can't expect other parties to support your policies when you simply don't have the numbers in the parliament to actually enact them. What sort of precedent is that setting? The Bill is a waste of parliamentary time which could be used for far more practical purposes.

Reluctant Hero wrote:
In the Sunday Herald it was saying that the Unionist Parties might be considering a court challenge to the legality of the Scottish Parliament holding a referendum.  If this happens or if the Unionist parties vote against the bill, do people expect major fallout, or do the public generally not give a toss?


I know that Nats won't agree, but I personally don't think the average fellow will give much of a toss. If anything, the Fundamentalist wing will kick up a massive stink over it, which will turn people off to the SNP altogether.

Not only that, but if it is referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council or, if after the appropriate date, to the new UK Supreme Court, it will be tied up there for months, possibly years.  

Stick to your popular policies. Scottish independence isn't one of them.
Alasdair

Aventinian wrote:
For my part, I think it's a nonsense. You can't expect other parties to support your policies when you simply don't have the numbers in the parliament to actually enact them.


Despite my desire to see a referendum and later independence I do agree with this statement.  I think what we can expect though is that party members be allowed a 'free vote' on certain issues of conscience, I'd suggest that this is one such issue.

Will we see a free vote though?  Will we buggery!
Holebender

If, as some believe, the numbers aren't there, I still think it is worthwhile introducing the bill. It will force opponents to actually vote it down rather than just talking about it and, once that happens, their votes will be a matter of public record which they will have to justify in future elections. There is nothing like the thought of facing the electorate for focusing a politician's mind.

I'm not saying it'll pass or fail, but I do think a lot of those who say the bill shouldn't even be introduced are doing so because they fear the prospect of actually having to vote against it. After all, the bill is just enabling a consultation of the electorate; try explaining to a voter why you believe he/she has no business deciding his country's constitutional future.
Stevie

I've no doubt the unionist MSPs will vote against it BUT what I don't get is that Alec Salmond is the smartest politician in Scoland and wonder why he would introduce a doomed bill?

Simply, however, the Scots deserve the democratic right to vote for or against the bill.

One wonders what genius the Brit Labour MSPs will expound for killing the bill?

Anybody got any polling figures following the Magrahi escapade.
Dave Coull

Bravehand wrote:
what I don't get is that Alec Salmond is the smartest politician in Scoland and wonder why he would introduce a doomed bill?
I have never accepted that there is anything inevitable about the bill being voted down. The leaders of the unionist parties, and their friends in the media, say that because they want the bill not to be put, they don't want to be put in the position of actually having to vote against consulting the people of Scotland. Guess what? If the leaders don't want to be in that position, some of their "supporters" want it even less. Some of them may have a sicknote from their doctor on the day the bill gets voted on. Some dissident unionist MSPs may get sent by their party leaders on a fact-finding mission to Outer Mongolia. And some may show up but abstain from voting. Besides, like I said on this forum several months ago
Quote:
who knows who will be leading the Labour Party, either at UK level or in the Scottish Parliament, by early next year? Who knows what their policy will be? Who can be sure what the LibDems will do?  A week is a long time in politics, and we are talking about a vote that is still many months away. All we can say for certain, at this stage, is that it will be very interesting to see who actually votes against a referendum on independence, who has a sick note from their doctor, etc etc. Oh, and of course we shoud keep insisting that it has to be a free vote. Matter of conscience. No party whips.
Holebender wrote:
The SNP has to introduce the Bill
Of course the SNP has to introduce the referendum bill. If they didn't introduce the bill, that really WOULD mean it had been pointless anybody voting for them in 2007. But all of the question marks and doubts over the bill being introduced have come from the unionist parties or from the unionist media. None of it from the SNP.
Holebender wrote:
and force the opposition's hand, they have to be made to vote it down, if that's their intention. I think enough of the opposition are afraid to vote against it with an election on the horizon that it can pass
That's what I've been saying too. Some SNP supporters have been talking only in terms of the bill being defeated, and how this would cost the unionist parties dear at a general election.  I think people should be focussing far more on the distinct possibility that the bill will pass, and on what happens WHEN the bill passes. When the bill passes, there will then be a period of a few months before the actual referendum. It is important that, right after the bill passes, groups organising on a non-party-political basis should be ready to start campaigning for a "yes" vote. This should be done on their own initiative, independently of anything that the SNP Scottish government may be doing.
William_Cleland

Too bad that one of the opposition parties won't/can't call the SNP's bluff by agreeing to vote for a referendum if the bill is amended to make the result binding for a minimum of 25 years so this issue can be put to rest for a couple of decades and Scotland's political elite can focus on issues that are a bit more relevant to people's mundane daily lives than the ongoing post-imperial identity crisis driven independence fantasy (if it were at all likely to happen it would have happened back in the 70s). This referendum stuff is empty posturing by Alex Salmond to stop the Fundie faction of the SNP, who have a tenuous grip on electoral reality, from completely losing the plot and breaking away to form a more hardline fringe party. The last thing he actually wants is to have a referendum next year because he knows full well that the Yes side would get gubbed.
Zed

As I have said all along, it won't just be SNP voters who will vote YES in a referendum.

Is ultra unionist George Galloway wavering as well ?  What a dilemma eh ?

"Bestowing even secondhand praise on the SNP sticks in my gullet. More than that, it puts me in a dilemma. I campaigned for a Scottish parliament and, all my political life, against independence.

But if - and it's a considerable if - the Nats are able, next year, to get through a referendum bill, can I line up with the opposition knowing a 'no' vote would condemn the country to Conservatism and David Cameron? By the time it takes place David and the Bullingdon boys will be, in tradition of that Oxford club, hog-whimperingly drunk on power. A rock and a hard place."
Alasdair

Bravehand wrote:
... what I don't get is that Alec Salmond is the smartest politician in Scoland and wonder why he would introduce a doomed bill?


I think he has to, it's the reason for the existence of his party.  If it's not introduced there will be discontent inside the party and he'll also have the unionist parties saying the SNP have dropped it because they "know it can't be won" and "it's another broken promise".
Alasdair

William_Cleland wrote:
Too bad that one of the opposition parties won't/can't call the SNP's bluff by agreeing to vote for a referendum if the bill is amended to make the result binding for a minimum of 25 years so this issue can be put to rest for a couple of decades


Can't be done, no future government could be bound by it.

WC wrote:
... and Scotland's political elite can focus on issues that are a bit more relevant to people's mundane daily lives


Arguabely independence would be the single most relevant issue to effect our mundane lives, providing Holyrood with the powers to change the lives of everyone in Scotland in the most radical of ways.

WC wrote:
The last thing he actually wants is to have a referendum next year because he knows full well that the Yes side would get gubbed.


We'll see Wink
Dave Coull

William_Cleland wrote:
The last thing he actually wants is to have a referendum next year

How come Annabel Goldie, Scott Tavish, and that Gray fella are so reluctant to give Alex Salmond what he doesn't want?
William_Cleland

^^Because they have much the same status as local government leaders in terms of the inner workings of the mainstream British political parties. These parties have zero interest in doing something that would be perceived by a large portion of the Daily Record/Sun/Star reading demographic as actual support for the break up of the UK. Hence why Wendy Alexander didn't last very long when she started saying "Bring it on!". Gordon Brown was quickly able to reassert his authority.

Alisdair wrote:
We'll see  Wink


Almost certainly not in 2010. You will have to wait until there is an actual majority for a referendum in Holyrood. That's how parliamentary democracy works. I wouldn't hold your breath waiting because the d'Hondt PR system was deliberately selected to greatly reduce the likelihood of that ever happening.
Rinty

we dont use the d'hondt system to elect the Holyrood parliament.

I think, as I have said before, that we will see all sides blustering about a straight yes/no vote, calling the other side scared for not taking it on.  Meanwhile all sides know that compromise re more devolved powers will be the likely result and they would all probably settle for that now, but just cant be seen to say it.
Dave Coull

William_Cleland wrote:
You will have to wait until there is an actual majority for a referendum in Holyrood.

You mean, one more MSP has to vote for allowing the people of Scotland a choice, than the number of MSPs who vote against allowing the people of Scotland a choice? (The ones who have a sicknote from their doctor, the ones who are on fact-finding missions to foreign parts, and the ones who are present but abstain from voting, don't count). As Harold Wilson said, a week is a long time in politics, and has been pointed out, six months is a VERY long time in politics, and like I've said often before, I don't think anybody can accurately predict the actual numbers on the day.

You, William, are a unionist. You WANT the bill to fail, and you want supporters of independence to believe that the bill will fail. I, on the other hand, think supporters of independence should be focusing on the possibility that the bill will pass, and on what happens THEN. In that scenario, there will be a period of a few months before the actual referendum. It is important that, right after the bill passes, groups organising on a non-party-political basis should be ready to start campaigning for a pro-independence vote. This should be done on their own initiative, independently of anything that the SNP Scottish government may be doing.
Corby Boy

I think the calling a referendum is a good option for the SNP.

1) It still puts the constitutional issue at the forefront of people's minds. If the unionist parties put in a 25 year clause with no change to current situation - that might actually tip the balance in favour of a YES, as people may not like the prospect of waiting 25 years.

2) A YES vote could happen in a years time if events, policies go the independence movements way.

3) or the unionists push for the more powers option (as Salmond himself has said he would consider). This in itself is not a doomsday option, although not ideal (for those who want independence). More powers has got to be a good option, as it in effect give Scotland de facto self gov't on  most things and is a small hop from full independence, which I personally believe will then happen.

Culturally, whether the unionists like it or not, Scotland and England are culturally moving apart in terms of their identities with Britishness being diluted as time passes. Hence, Broon's bluster on British day, Team GB etc.. siege mentality. This only turns people off IMO.

With point three above - most Scots of a small u - unionist persuasion would support the continuance of the union if Scotland's place within it was recognised as an equal partner, with its own distinct idenity whose, specific social/economic needs were being met by decisons being made in Scotland.

I think it is only that way that the union as far as Scotland is concerned will survive in the long term. (I however, subscribe to the slippery slope argument).

Bit of a, "having your cake and eating it" scenario. The English tend to think this is the case already!
Corby Boy

I do think Salmond knows that the undecideds are perhaps not quite ready for independence yet, but more powers would satisfy them.

Although, I hope we would all be surprised on this with a YES, if the electorate where given a straightforward YES/NO choice.
William_Cleland

Dave Coull wrote:
You, William, are a unionist. You WANT the bill to fail, and you want supporters of independence to believe that the bill will fail.


I have stated that I hope one of the three mainstream British parties will call Alex Salmond's bluff on this so the issue can be put to rest for a generation or so.  No point discussing these issues further with you if you are not going to take what I write at face value. You appear to be trying to deflect attention away from my answer to your earlier question about the motives of Goldie, Gray and Scott as you have no answer to it and find the prospect of there being no referendum next year highly unpalatable.

Whether you like it or not in a parliamentary democracy, it is parliament that makes the key decisions, not the people, and there is absolutely no requirement that parliament neatly falls into line with the desires of the electorate on an issue by issue basis. The SNP will need to win an outright majority before there is likely to be a referendum, which suits Alex Salmond just fine, because unless/until that can be achieved odds on the referendum would fail anyway, which would take the wind right out of the SNP's sails for a generation or so.

Going through the motions allows him to appear hardline about independence to his activist base, while in reality actually being engaged in a more gradualist strategy that allows him to enjoy the trappings of devolved power. That's the last thing he is going to admit to the Fundie faction, however, because most of them are incapable of being rational on this issue and simply can't face the reality that the No side would win right now.

Rinty wrote:
we dont use the d'hondt system to elect the Holyrood parliament.


Wikipedia may not be the most reliable source but I am far from alone in thinking d'Hondt is used in that context:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%27Hondt_method

Beyond semantics it is worth bearing in mind that Jack McConnell has openly admitted that Holyrood's electoral system was deliberately designed to make it very difficult for the SNP to ever achieve a majority of MSPs.
Holebender

How come so many unionists know what Alex Salmond really wants?
Dave Coull

William_Cleland wrote:
The SNP will need to win an outright majority before there is likely to be a referendum
Alternatively, a majority of the MSPs in the present parliament could decide not to vote AGAINST consulting the people on this issue. Of course, there ought to be a free vote on the issue.
William_Cleland wrote:
I hope one of the three mainstream British parties will call Alex Salmond's bluff on this
You mean you want them to actually SUPPORT a referendum? Such a U-Turn on the part of one or more of the unionist parties would be very welcome, as far as I'm concerned, but it isn't actually essential. Just some of their MSPs not voting against in a free vote would be enough.
William_Cleland wrote:
You appear to be trying to deflect attention away from my answer to your earlier question about the motives of Goldie, Gray and Scott?
No, I take note of your view that these party "leaders" at Holyrood will dance to the tune played by the UK leaderships of their parties. I then went on to something more important (from my point of view). You wrote
Quote:
You will have to wait until there is an actual majority for a referendum in Holyrood.
That means until one more MSP votes for allowing the people of Scotland a choice, than the number of MSPs who vote against allowing the people of Scotland a choice. (The ones who have a sicknote from their doctor, the ones who are on fact-finding missions to foreign parts, and the ones who are present but abstain from voting, don't count). As Harold Wilson said, a week is a long time in politics, and has been pointed out, six months is a VERY long time in politics, and like I've said often before, I don't think anybody can accurately predict the actual numbers on the day.
William_Cleland

Holebender wrote:
How come so many unionists know what Alex Salmond really wants?


Assuming that's aimed at me (probably based on the avatar) I think his actions speak clearly on this. If he were actually serious about having a referendum he would have forced the issue back in 2007 as a precondition for accepting the first minister's job rather than delaying until 2010. Instead of going for broke, he has let events unfold so that his gradualist faction have got what they wanted i.e. power at Holyrood, while his fundie faction will wind up blaming the opposition parties for not getting their referendum and won't, therefore, be tempted to join the hardline Jim Fairlie types in a breakaway that would siphon off much needed votes on the regional ballot. Won't be so easy to pull off next time around if the SNP wins a plurality of seats again in 2011 though. I suspect another three year delay would start to be seen as a sell out by the more hard line independence nothing less types at that point.
Rinty

I would agree that the scottish system makes it almost impossible for majority government, but Scotland uses a FPtP system with top up seats from a closed list.  The nethod used in the list is similar to d'hondt but it is the balance of FPTP seats that combines to make the majority unlikely.

I dont know what the make up of the Scottish parliament would be if we used the d'hondt system, if I get the time I will try to calculate a guess, but because we have a combined system it is hard to tell whether peoples list votes reflects what they would do in a d'hondt system.

Personaly I belive it is in the democratic interests of the country to debate and vote on issues, whether the government can win the vote or not.  The debate itself is important.

But I dont believe that the Scottish Government do need a majority to introduce legislation, that can, as a government, do it anyway.  In the case of Scottish independence, the UK government decides, no matter what the vote of the Scottish people OR the Scotish parliament.
Holebender

The language of the opposition parties is interesting. When Wendy was heid bummer in Labour they said they "would not oppose" a referendum. Big Bella now says the Tories "will not support" a referendum. They never come out and say they will vote for or against it, only that they will not take a particular stance. Labour need only abstain to "not oppose". The Tories need only abstain to "not support".

I've said before that opposition politicians want to stop the bill being introduced so that they can avoid having to vote on it, and I still think that. I believe there are going to be a lot of abstentions when the votes are cast, and a lot of smug unionists are going to get a surprise.
Dave Coull

Rinty wrote:
I dont believe that the Scottish Government do need a majority to introduce legislation, that can, as a government, do it anyway.
Then your belief is wrong. There are some things that can be decided by a government without a bill being passed by parliament, but this isn't one of them.
Rinty

are you sure dave?  havent regional councils held referendums in the past?  I cant see that organising a bill, on an issue where they dont even have the powers to implement the outcome of that referendum, is beyond their powers.  What exactly would prevent them from doing it?
Holebender

Money. The block grant is paid to the Parliament and the Parliament allocates a portion to the government. An anti-referendum parliament would never approve the funds required to organise a referendum.
Rinty

possibly holebender but there is no constitutional or legal barrier to the Government staging a referendum.  After all, the result of the referendum isnt legally binding, the UK parliament would have to approve.  All a 'yes' vote would do is empower the Scottish Government to negotiate a break.  What comes from those negotiations is a different matter.
Dave Coull

Rinty wrote:
All a 'yes' vote would do is empower the Scottish Government to negotiate a break.

That's a very big "all".

Rinty wrote:
the result of the referendum isnt legally binding

IRRELEVANT.

Under the Westminster doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, there can never be anything to prevent parliament from changing its mind, therefore there has never been such a thing, and never could be such a thing, as a "legally binding" referendum in the UK. However, never mind the lawyerspeak. (Is it because of Tommy's long involvement with the legal profession, and his ambition to join them, members of Solidarity find it so difficult to look beyond the legalities and deal with the nasty business of power politics?) In practice, UK governments can't ignore the results of referendums,  they never have, and they certainly couldn't ignore THIS one   -   as long as it is authorised by the Scottish Parliament.
I wrote:
There are some things that can be decided by a government without a bill being passed by parliament, but this isn't one of them.
Rinty wrote:
are you sure dave?
Absolutely certain.
Rinty wrote:
What exactly would prevent them from doing it?
Holebender wrote:
Money. The block grant is paid to the Parliament and the Parliament allocates a portion to the government. An anti-referendum parliament would never approve the funds required to organise a referendum.
Rinty wrote:
possibly holebender
There is no "possibly" about it. Your idea that the SNP could just go ahead without parliament (maybe with the financial support of Brian Soutar or some other wealthy backer?) is just plain bonkers. The result of a referendum authorised by the Scottish Parliament could NOT be ignored by the British government. The result of an unofficial referendum conducted by a political party certainly could, would, and should be.
William_Cleland

Rinty wrote:
possibly holebender but there is no constitutional or legal barrier to the Government staging a referendum.


Interesting theory but the stumbling block surely is where the money comes from. Would there not still need to be some legislation involved at least in the form of the annual budget as that forms the legal basis for subsequent discretionary spending decisions by cabinet ministers?
Rinty

"(Is it because of Tommy's long involvement with the legal profession, and his ambition to join them, members of Solidarity find it so difficult to look beyond the legalities and deal with the nasty business of power politics?)"

I find that comment puzzling given that, in the past, you have defended my right to debate here without being boxed as a solidarity spokeperson.

I think my argument is preciseley about power politics, it is my opinion (not solidarity's) of how those power politics could play out.

"Your idea that the SNP could just go ahead without parliament (maybe with the financial support of Brian Soutar or some other wealthy backer?) is just plain bonkers. The result of a referendum authorised by the Scottish Parliament could NOT be ignored by the British government. The result of an unofficial referendum conducted by a political party certainly could, would, and should be."

I agree that it would be bonkers, I was merely pointing out that I didnt see any actual constitutional or legal barrier to it.  That was in response to a post from you where I think you suggested that there was.

Overall, this is what disgusts me about debating anything to do with nationalist politics.  Any sign that could be interpreted as not fully supporting the program is atacked as if part of a unuionists conspirracy.  I consider your last post to be unnecesarily hostile and a distraction from what we were talking about.

I think I will back out of this one to keep the peace, you win!

       Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Forum Index -> Scottish Politics and Independence
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum
Our Scotland Hit Counter Scottish Top Site - Topsites Our Scotland Forums Critical Acclaim ~ Politically Progressive Top Sites View Site Stats Scottish Politics