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
Economist

Nationalists earmark 2010 for referendum on independence

http://www.sundayherald.com/news/...dnews/display.var.1284323.0.0.php

Quote:
SNP LEADER Alex Salmond would give Scots a vote on independence in 2010 should he replace Labour's Jack McConnell as first minister.

The Banff and Buchan MP has today confirmed, for the first time, the timing of the referendum, its cost, and the exact wording of the question, following talks with the civil service.

His plans, which have so far been kept secret, are revealed in an exclusive interview with the Sunday Herald, in which he sketches out the details of his referendum plan.

Salmond, whom opinion polls claim is in line to be the next first minister, has made a referendum on independence the number one priority of an SNP-led Scottish Executive.

So far, he has insisted the poll on separation would be held "within the four-year term" of the Scottish parliament, but has never ventured beyond this timescale. However, he has now confirmed the independence vote will be at the end of an SNP-led term in office.

"I'm persuaded the key argument is about the SNP building up credibility in government, which is the essential requirement to win an independence referendum. The referendum would be close to the end of the four-year term," he says.

One factor, he says, is the next general election, which he believes must come before a Scottish referendum: "Would it be after the next general election? The answer is yes."

Still hedging his bets on the exact timing of the referendum, he says the poll would be staged in the "second half" of a four-year term. However, an SNP memo passed to the Sunday Herald clarifies Salmond's position: "SNP strategists have pencilled in the date 2010 for the referendum. The main argument being that this will give them time for the administration to prove itself in government and thus gain credibility."

Salmond also addressed the process by which he intends to deliver a referendum. A white paper, setting out the details of independence, would be laid within the first 100 days of the next parliament. An SNP-led Executive, he hopes, would then pass an enabling bill to give Scots the choice of independence in a referendum held in 2010.

However, in recent talks with the SNP, civil service officials expressed concern that the wording of the referendum question might not be covered by the powers of the parliament.

The civil servants instead suggested a new version which made clear the question had to be explicit about being based on the contents of the white paper.

Salmond said he could "not comment" on discussions with the Executive, but confirmed that a "tweaked" question had been drafted.

"Any talks with the civil service are private, but the wording on the ballot will be, The Scottish parliament should negotiate a new settlement with the British government, based on the proposals set out in the white paper, so that Scotland becomes a sovereign and independent state'. The responses would be Yes I agree' or No I disagree'."

In other words, a "Yes" vote would give Holyrood the right to negotiate an independence settlement, rather than a straight endorsement of a separate state.

As for the definition of independence in an SNP-led Executive's white paper, Salmond is keen to stress a separate state would involve ending the 1707 Treaty of Union, not the 1603 Union of the Crowns.

"That is the argument to transfer full political and economic control to Scotland, not to interfere with either the monarchy or social union between England and Scotland. The two countries will be independent but with the same head of state.

"After independence, the white paper will say, England will remain Scotland's closest friend, ally and trading partner."

Salmond believes separating political independence from republicanism will win his party support, although he declines to say whether his support for the current monarch means that he is a monarchist. He also downplays suggestions an independent Scotland would back an elected head of state.

"I cannot imagine the circumstances in which there would be a vote on the current monarch in her lifetime," he says.

The SNP leader's timetable for a referendum may be set in his own mind, but it is does not automatically follow that the parliament will give Scots a vote on independence.

SALMOND'S most likely coalition partners, the LibDems, are opposed to a referendum and say they will not budge on the issue. One senior LibDem told the Sunday Herald that the party might reverse their opposition if independence and more powers for Holyrood, the LibDem policy, were both on the ballot.

Could Salmond live with a multi-option referendum, rather than one simply on independence? "They the LibDems would have to say that to me under appropriate circumstances," he says, opening the door to such a possibility.

More broadly, the SNP leader admits his tactics for a referendum are modelled on Labour's delivery of a Scottish parliament. For instance, in 1994, Tony Blair said devolution could only come via a referendum, a strategy taken up by the SNP in 2001.

In 1997, the late Donald Dewar asked Scots to vote for a home rule package based on the contents of a white paper, an approach now adopted by Salmond.

The SNP leader says: "I would pay tribute to Donald Dewar. Having the referendum on the principle of devolution, in the style he did, was a act of near-genius. I learned about the referendum from him."

On the cost of an independence referendum, Salmond again points to the devolution precedent.

"The devolution referendum cost £5 million in 1997, so a comparable figure 10 years on would be in the region of £7m. FOI (freedom of information) figures that were reported a couple of years ago showed that the Executive was running a rate of 164 consultations a year, at an estimated cost of £5m per annum," he says.

His tactics, if they are not obvious already, are to break up Britain by copying an approach to constitutional change that was supposed to help save the union. So much for devolution killing nationalism "stone dead".
SLG

Yeah, I think it was the Scotsman that talked about how the members of the civil service were helping the SNP draft the referendum and overcome legal difficulties. A shocking betrayal of the Union on their part Wink

I have to say that although I have always backed a quick referendum, I'm coming round to the idea of waiting a couple more years.

Westminster will try to undermine the Executive in the lead up, and I had always worried that they would do so in such a way as to leave the Executive appearing to fail. Now, I'm thinking that if Labour are in power in Westminster, they will not be capable of doing this without being caught out. And for a Westminster government to be caught deliberately undermining the Scottish Exec/Parliament would be the real death knell for the Union. If the Tories are in power, I expect there to be a few speeches etc, but mainly disinterest. Again, nothing that is going to save the Union.
Anthropos

SLG wrote:
If the Tories are in power, I expect there to be a few speeches etc, but mainly disinterest. Again, nothing that is going to save the Union.


I think you might actually find more than disinterest, there may well be encoragement. The younger generation of Tories (Cameron's mob) who are likely to take power after the Labour party's reign comes to an end do not have any attachment to the idea of Britain. They could indeed benefit from the rise of a specifically English nationalism that we saw at last years World Cup, and the removal of Scottish MP's from Westminster would certainly work greatly to their advantage.

Despite Cameron's generally positive rhetoric on the Scottish question you can be sure that when he takes power you will certainly see Scottish MP's banned from voting on England only legislation.

I have heard some English Tories say that although they would like to see Scottish independence because it is in England's interest, they also think it would be good for Scotland too.

There is no reason why it should not be a win-win situation for both countries.
azzuri

I think waiting a few years for a referendum is suicide, but the chance of one at all is all I'm looking for.

I'm not complaining about timescale if we get it at all.
Aventinian

Remember this? http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=77682007
SLG

Aventinian wrote:
Remember this? http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=77682007

Sillers has his own agenda. Are you suggesting that the SNP are making this up?
Aventinian

No, I'm suggesting that their question is very questionably legal. Obviously however, it'd be nice to see this white paper to which they refer.

Funny how they can churn things like this out, but when it comes to a costed analysis of their proposals for government...
Lothian Sky

azzuri wrote:
I think waiting a few years for a referendum is suicide, but the chance of one at all is all I'm looking for.

I'm not complaining about timescale if we get it at all.


Waiting a few years until the Tories re-establish their grip on power is a fantastic idea. Wink
azzuri

The UK is coming to the end of an economic cycle and it could quite easily slide into a recession over the next couple of years.

If this happened when the SNP are in power, then there is every chance that they could be blamed for the poor economic performance in Scotland when in reality there is absolutely nothing the devolved parliament can do to prevent or influence it.
Lothian Sky

Exactly, and everyone will blame the Tories, whatever happens.
The recession wont stop at the Tweed!
SLG

azzuri wrote:
The UK is coming to the end of an economic cycle and it could quite easily slide into a recession over the next couple of years.

If this happened when the SNP are in power, then there is every chance that they could be blamed for the poor economic performance in Scotland when in reality there is absolutely nothing the devolved parliament can do to prevent or influence it.

Well it's always going to be hard to know when these things are happening. I don't see any sign of a slow down just yet though. You'd think with Salmond's background he'd take this into consideration.
Economist

I honestly don't think a referendum of the nature propsed above is illegal. After all the question they are proposing is not a simple 'Yes' or 'No' to the end of Britain, neither is it fundamentally altering the constitution. As I see it, it simply seems to be them asking the electorate to authorise the Scottish Executive to enter into negotiations on their behalf. And also, senior civil servants don't appear to think it is ultra vires, either.

I also think this type of question has a much higher chance of success.

I see the BBC have picked up on this too:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6492787.stm

Don't you just love the typical response from Labour:

Quote:
Labour MSP Andy Kerr MSP said: "By pledging to break up Britain, the SNP have set the timer on their massive ticking tax bomb.

"The SNP have today proven they do not come without independence and we all know that independence does not come without a cost."
SLG

Andy Kerr is an idiot. Does he really think folk don't realise that the SNP want independence?
Reluctant Hero

I am quite disappointed with that question.

I know it needs to be put like this in order not to be "illegal", but it is too long winded. In the 1997 referenndum, the question was precise and straight to the point:

I agree that there should be a Scottish Parliament
I do not agree that there should be a Scottish Parliament

Even if this proposed referendum gets a positive result of just say 54%, then the British government will refuse to negotiate.

The referendum is assuming that the British government will willing enter negotiations, but I have severe reservations as to if that would happen.
Karenisabitch

I think if the Tories are in power they will put up only token resistance to the defence of the Union as if there are 50 or so less labour MP's the Tories could govern in the rest of the Uk for 50 years or more.

Jim Sillars I would ignore - he seems to be embittered and attacks the SNP at every opportunity. I really don't have any more respect for him.
Economist

If the Tories are in power at Westminster in 2010, I really don't believe they will oppose this at all, and if Brown becomes PM this Summer, it really is almost certain the Tories will win at UK level. There is a distinct lack of feeling towards the Union, and increasingly Scotland in large sections of the Tory party down south and the sense of Tory Britishness (like general Britishness) is in a devastating and irreversible decline. Salmond knows this, which is why he tried to tap into the increasing anti-Unionist feeling in his little foray into the Daily Torygraph last week.

And also, no doubt, the UK Tory party are increasingly exasperated by their Scottish Tory party appendige. I was watching a webcast with the Tory blogger Iain Dale, who was interviewing Brian Monteith MSP, and when Monteith mentioned that the Scottish Tory party would consider propping up a Labour/LibDem minority Executive, Dale said, that as an English Tory, he would be angry at the Scottish section of his party helping Labour maintain power in the Scottish Parliament, like that. And he wouldn't be alone!!!

As for the question, I can see why people are disappointed by it, but I like this idea of it being emphasised about Scotland "becoming" an independent and sovereign state. It just seems to me to be less threatening, if people see it is a process, or a transition if you like, because that is what it will be if it takes 6 months or a year for independence to come to bear, if we decide that in a referendum.
SLG

Regardless of who is in power in London at the time, we need to go into negotiations from a position of strength. That means committing 100% to independence following a successful referendum. This will allow the Executive/Parliament to start negotiations with no dual motives. If certain parties think there is a bringing us back from independence by disrupting negotiations, it will make them much more difficult.
VLK

One factor which may hasten the process of Scotland becoming independent, is the rise of Englishness in England. The English consider themselves less and less as British and more and more as English, which they are. The whole Britishness is a totally artificial concept in the first place. I don`t talk about the pre-Saxon era.

For most people in England the rise of a Scotsman Brown as PM is like a foreigner becoming a leader of their country. As far as many English people are concerned, you could as well invite Bertie Ahern or Angela Merkel to be the PM of their country as the foreigner Gordon Brown.
Aventinian

VLK wrote:
One factor which may hasten the process of Scotland becoming independent, is the rise of Englishness in England.


A sense of watching the last horse crossing the finishing line just struck me.

Quote:
The English consider themselves less and less as British and more and more as English, which they are. The whole Britishness is a totally artificial concept in the first place.


It's no more artificial than any other nationality, and I think for you to say it is simply enters the realm of bigotry.

I am British, and that is by no means artificial. In pretending it is, I think you simply attempt to find a flimsy justification for the fact that you are intolerant towards certain people's identity.

Quote:
For most people in England the rise of a Scotsman Brown as PM is like a foreigner becoming a leader of their country. As far as many English people are concerned, you could as well invite Bertie Ahern or Angela Merkel to be the PM of their country as the foreigner Gordon Brown.


Anyone who'd view Gordon Brown as a foreigner really doesn't get out much, even if they were an English nationalist. We don't consider the Irish foreigners either, by the way.
Holebender

Aventinian wrote:
I am British, and that is by no means artificial. In pretending it is, I think you simply attempt to find a flimsy justification for the fact that you are intolerant towards certain people's identity.


Substitute the word "Scottish" for "British" in the above sentence and try applying it to a great deal of your writing on these fora, Aventinian.
Economist

VLK wrote:
One factor which may hasten the process of Scotland becoming independent, is the rise of Englishness in England. The English consider themselves less and less as British and more and more as English, which they are. The whole Britishness is a totally artificial concept in the first place. I don`t talk about the pre-Saxon era.

For most people in England the rise of a Scotsman Brown as PM is like a foreigner becoming a leader of their country. As far as many English people are concerned, you could as well invite Bertie Ahern or Angela Merkel to be the PM of their country as the foreigner Gordon Brown.


Yes I entirely agree with this. It could even be our secret weapon to Scotland getting independence. Aventinian may stick his head in the sand, but this is unchartered territory. There is no great affection for the Union in Scotland or England any more. And the sense of Britishness - the great sticking plaster that kept us together - is in irreversible and devastating decline. These competing pressures on the Union, make me a bit less concerned about the need for a referendum to determine Scottish independence, I believe we are going there, whether we want to or not. There is no alternative.

Aventinian wrote:
Anyone who'd view Gordon Brown as a foreigner really doesn't get out much, even if they were an English nationalist. We don't consider the Irish foreigners either, by the way.


Many view him as "foreign" to their way of thinking and political orthodoxy. Much in the same way many people in Scotland saw Mrs Thatcher as "foreign" to Scotland. Blair is "foreign" to both Scotland AND England, I'd say.
Aventinian

Economist wrote:
the sense of Britishness - the great sticking plaster that kept us together - is in irreversible and devastating decline.


I haven't seen any figures or surveys to that effect produced in the past, oh, eight or so years.

However the notion that we should adhere to identity politics is pretty much self-evidently in decline...

Quote:
Many view him as "foreign" to their way of thinking and political orthodoxy.


I disagree with that a great deal. Up until recently, he was being hailed as the greatest chancellor in history.

Holebender wrote:
Substitute the word "Scottish" for "British" in the above sentence and try applying it to a great deal of your writing on these fora, Aventinian.


I don't quite understand that. I am entirely tolerant of other people's identities - which is why I am not a Nationalist and never will be, not a Scottish one or a British one.

So I'm inclined to believe this last statement was pulled out of your arse.
Economist

Aventinian wrote:
I haven't seen any figures or surveys to that effect produced in the past, oh, eight or so years.

However the notion that we should adhere to identity politics is pretty much self-evidently in decline...


You haven't? That's surprising there are a fair few of them.

Aventinian wrote:
I disagree with that a great deal. Up until recently, he was being hailed as the greatest chancellor in history.


By Tony Blair and Jack McConnell? That's hardly an unbiased endorsement.
Holebender

Aventinian wrote:
Holebender wrote:
Substitute the word "Scottish" for "British" in the above sentence and try applying it to a great deal of your writing on these fora, Aventinian.


I don't quite understand that. I am entirely tolerant of other people's identities - which is why I am not a Nationalist and never will be, not a Scottish one or a British one.

So I'm inclined to believe this last statement was pulled out of your arse.


You're inclined to believe a lot of things which are patently absurd, why should this one be an exception?

As you're having trouble comprehending, I'll try to clarify just a little; you state your Britishness and accuse others of pretending it is something artificial and that such pretence is merely a flimsy attempt to justify intolerance towards others, but when other posters state their Scottishness and their dissatisfaction with the union you dismiss their very real views with a sort of "that's the way it is, like it or lump it" attitude. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, you cannot expect others to have the slightest regard for your Britishness when you have so much contempt for their Scottishness. Shall I distill it all down for you? You're a hypocrite, Aventinian.
Aventinian

Holebender wrote:
Aventinian wrote:
Holebender wrote:
Substitute the word "Scottish" for "British" in the above sentence and try applying it to a great deal of your writing on these fora, Aventinian.


I don't quite understand that. I am entirely tolerant of other people's identities - which is why I am not a Nationalist and never will be, not a Scottish one or a British one.

So I'm inclined to believe this last statement was pulled out of your arse.


You're inclined to believe a lot of things which are patently absurd, why should this one be an exception?

As you're having trouble comprehending, I'll try to clarify just a little; you state your Britishness and accuse others of pretending it is something artificial and that such pretence is merely a flimsy attempt to justify intolerance towards others, but when other posters state their Scottishness and their dissatisfaction with the union you dismiss their very real views with a sort of "that's the way it is, like it or lump it" attitude. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, you cannot expect others to have the slightest regard for your Britishness when you have so much contempt for their Scottishness. Shall I distill it all down for you? You're a hypocrite, Aventinian.


Now it seems you find it impossible to remove identity, culture, ethnicity and so forth from politics. Not to worry, I'm sure the church once had this problem in terms of dividing spiritual from temporal; or perhaps apartheid South Africa in its own terms.

I will not go into detail, mainly because I don't have time to: but I have never, ever in my life rubbished or even criticised another man's sense of identity. That would be a disgraceful and vile thing of me to do. I am Scottish as well as British, so I don't see what such a move would accomplish on my part.

I have rubbished a lot of politics in my time, because a lot of political views are indeed rubbish. I find fault in logic, not in emotion or allegiance.
SLG

Aventinian wrote:
I have rubbished a lot of politics in my time, because a lot of political views are indeed rubbish. I find fault in logic, not in emotion or allegiance.

That may be your opinion, but you cannot tell me that the UK state does not use and manipulate the national identity of its population. That is the state that many of us here would like to see reformed out of existence, partly for that reason.
Aventinian

SLG wrote:
That may be your opinion, but you cannot tell me that the UK state does not use and manipulate the national identity of its population. That is the state that many of us here would like to see reformed out of existence, partly for that reason.


True, but it very rarely suceeds. You see, I don't think you nationalists are completely useless - in the structure of the UK at least you're cynical enough to not be driven by blind patriotism on behalf of Britain; the same (perhaps moreso) applies to the Irish nationalists in Northern Ireland. It's as close to a sterile state as we're going to get.

Yet another check and balance on power.
SLG

Aventinian wrote:
True, but it very rarely suceeds. You see, I don't think you nationalists are completely useless - in the structure of the UK at least you're cynical enough to not be driven by blind patriotism on behalf of Britain; the same (perhaps moreso) applies to the Irish nationalists in Northern Ireland. It's as close to a sterile state as we're going to get.

Yet another check and balance on power.

You may be right, but only due to constant pressure by Scots nationalists. Take that away and things would be very different IMO. That is one reason why nationalists cannot just work within the current system and give up on independence.

       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 'Top Scottish Websites' - www.our-scotland.org Scottish Top Site - Topsites Top 100 Scottish Websites Our Scotland Forums Critical Acclaim ~ Politically Progressive Top Sites Tartan Army Topsites View Site Stats Our Scotland Blog Scottish Politics Scottish Lads