National Conversation Question

Dave Coull · National Conversation Question

What is going on with Alex Salmond's national conversation blog on the Scottish Government website?

People were invited to send their views on the future of Scotland, and many have responded. But it is now ten days since this website conversation was last up-dated. The normal practice with web-based forums is that they are up-dated daily, and, at an earllier stage, the conversation on Alex's blog did appear to be being up-dated reasonably promptly. But - ten days? Yes, I know there is moderating involved, and I know that Alex is a busy man, but I assume he does have other folk who could check to see whether contributions to the conversation are within the guidelines or not. Is whoever is doing the moderating on behalf of Alex really so overwhelmed with contributions they can't update the site a bit more regularly? Doing so once in a blue moon hardly makes for much of a "conversation".

As you may have guessed, I have a particular interest in this. Somebody called Gordon MacAuslane, a member of the SNP apparently, wrote with mis-placed hostility and considerable inaccuracy about my own views on a referendum and on independence. I wrote a response setting the record straight, which has not appeared. I am beginning to wonder what is happening regarding contributions to the national conversation on Alex's blog, and whether I should seek to seek to set the record straight on this through some other media. Anyway, here is what I wrote:

*************************************************

Gordon MacAuslane (contribution number 1732), responding specifically to my post 1728, wrote "The usefulness of history, which you seem to have missed"

I am sixty six years old. Although most of my working life was spent in the building industry, all of my life, the study of history has been a major "hobby" or interest of mine. In late middle age, I went to university as a "mature" student and studied history more formally, graduating with an honours degree in the subject. Although I never expected my studies to lead to a new career late in life, I am well aware of the usefulness of my chosen subject.

And like I said, "in any country, at any time, the re-evaluation of history should be a continuous process, as new evidence comes to light, and as the re-examination of previous assumptions reveals just how flimsy the evidence is on which they are based". What I was objecting to was (1) the obviously loaded implication that this re-examination should ONLY apply to the past three centuries, and (2) any implication that this re-examination is a matter of greater urgency than holding a referendum on independence.

Gordon MacAuslane (1732), again responding specifically to me, asked me "why are you agitating for a referendum?"

Because I am consistently in favour of the right of self-determination. I was the very first person to propose the idea of a single-issue, non-party-political, campaign for a referendum on independence, back in September 2004. (Note that I stress "non-party-political" rather than "cross-party". There is a difference. The difference is that the first implies a major role for folk who are not in any political party, while the second implies some sort of co-operation between certain political parties.) That idea, proposed by me, caught on with others, and we did in fact press for such a referendum. We wrote to the British Government in June 2006 putting the demand for a referendum, and at the same time we also wrote to the First Minister Jack McConnell, and through him the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament, putting this demand. Although the answer from the Scottish Executive was buck-passing, and the answer from the British Government was negative, that was to be expected, and we continued to press this demand through petitions, demonstrations, and so on.

The demand for a referendum is in line with the internationally-recognised basic right of self-determination. The United Nations lays down three conditions for the United Nations requiring a government to hold a self-determination referendum in any particular case, and Scotland fulfills these three conditions better than any other territory on Earth which is not already independent. The UN conditions are (1) that there should be a recognisable 'nation' for whom this self-determination applies, (2) that there should be a recognised 'territory' within which this community lives and within which the self-determination referendum will take place, and (3) that there should be evidence of a 'significant' demand for independence. (Note that there is no requirement to prove 'majority' support for independence, whether it is majority or minority is for the actual referendum to establish, so far as the UN is concerned it is sufficient to prove 'significant' support.)

If a referendum on independence for Scotland is not held, then it is only a matter of time before this goes to the UN and they require one to be held. Anyone who considers themselves a democrat, regardless of which way they would vote in such a referendum, has no excuse for not backing the demand for a referendum.

Oh, by the way, I have been consistently in favour of independence for Scotland. When we finally get the referendum we have been demanding, I will campaign for a vote in favour of independence. But that is no reason why people who would vote differently should not also back this demand.

"What's the hurry?" - this year, 2007, is the three hundredth anniversary of the Act of Union. Three hundred years of not being asked whether we want to be independent or part of a united kingdom. And you, Gordon, are in favour of slowing things down still more??????!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Are you frightened the good governance of the SNP over time will win more supporters" - I don't give a damn which political party has more supporters. This is not a party political question. Yes, there are plenty of members of both the Labour Party and of the SNP (yourself included) who try to turn it into a party political question, but the whole point of a referendum is that there is plenty of evidence that, in a referendum, people do not automatically vote on party political lines.

"Like Gordon Brown re-his election, Alex Salmond will pick his own time" - I think the British prime minister being able to choose when to have an election is a disgracefully un-democratic way of doing things, and I am not in favour of any First Minister of Scotland being allowed to get away with imitating the disgracefully un-democratic ways of Westminster. In Scotland, the people are sovereign. Let's prove it by demanding

REFERENDUM NOW - INDEPENDENCE - YES OR NO

George · Re: National Conversation Question

This might work:

Open Internet Explorer and Click on Tools > Internet Options then delete your temp files and cookies.

Then log back onto the web site.

I noticed this problem when the site first became available and wondered what it was.

My other big complaint is that the site is not user friendly and is also difficult to navigate to.

RadgeJougal

Perhaps the website conversation has been monopolised by self-righteous bores, who have scared the general public away.

They think it's their politics. In fact, it's their dull personalities.

Dave Coull

I have said several times that Radge Jougal likes to bring discussions down to the level that suits him best, that of the gutter. I have only just noticed another example of this from him, presumably aimed at me.

He denies being in favour of sterilisation, but adds "but I might make an exception for folk who order their wives off the internet like a product from eBay!".

I met my wife on the internet. She is from San Francisco. We were both on the same international discussion forum (the anarchy list), and for months she kept saying on the forum that she liked things I had written. She was particularly interested in stuff about Scottish politics. This led on to us exchanging private e-mail messages, then to personal phone calls, then to exchanging photos of each other. She also sent me photos of where she lived, and I noticed that it was a lot nicer than my cooncil flat in Dundee. I told her that I was a grumpy old so-and-so who was very set in his ways and who would never change. I told her I couldn't see how this long distance romance could work. I told her that at my age there was no likelihood of me emigrating. I was completely honest with her. She told me she was a non-smoker. Apparently she had been a non-smoker, for about two days. Apart from that, the rest of what she told me was very honest. We finally met in person at Glasgow airport at the beginning of December 1998, and we have been very happy together ever since. Nowadays, many millions of people meet their future partners on the internet. In fact, nowadays, it is either already the most common way of meeting future partners, or close to becoming the most common way of meeting future partners.

agentmancuso · Re: National Conversation Question

National Conversation Question

Re: National Conversation Question

Re: National Conversation Question