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

Nationalists 'give up' on 2010 referendum

http://www.scotsman.com/latestnew...ts-39give-up39-on-2010.5783424.jp

By DAVID MADDOX

SENIOR figures within the SNP have privately accepted that their hopes of securing a referendum on independence in 2010 are dead, The Scotsman can reveal.

While SNP MSPs are still pushing publicly for a vote, there is a growing acceptance in the party hierarchy that none of the Labour, Conservative or Liberal Democrat opposition parties will support a poll before the next Scottish Parliament elections in 2011.

However, party officials are hopeful that a referendum can be held in 2012, with a growing possibility that the Lib Dems will support the Nationalists' call for the people of Scotland to be given their say.

Without the support of at least one of the main opposition parties, the Referendum Bill would not be able to proceed.

Significantly, the Scottish Liberal Democrats will meet today in Dunfermline to discuss the party's position on a referendum, after senior figures openly split on the issue over the past few weeks. While the party is against independence, many believe denying the public a vote could be seen as undemocratic.

A senior SNP source has told The Scotsman that, while they do not expect the Lib Dems – who currently have 16 MSPs – to do an immediate U-turn on the referendum, they anticipate the party will change its position after the 2011 election.

This would give the Lib Dems leverage in possible coalition negotiations, if the SNP is once again returned as Scotland's largest party.

The SNP source said today's Lib Dem conference "is about having a new position for 2011, when they will be looking to negotiate to be part of a coalition".

He went on: "We don't expect that they (the Lib Dems] will change their position immediately, but this is clearly the beginning of a process where their position will change.

"This conference is about keeping a lid on it, but it is also about the how, the why and the when that position will be changed."

John Curtice, a professor of politics at Strathclyde University, said Scots should now "pencil in" the first Thursday of May 2012 as a probable date for an independence poll.

"I think it is clear now that there will not be a referendum next year, and it is clear from these comments that the SNP now accept that," said Prof Curtice, who is one of the UK's leading political analysts.

"We all thought it was dead anyway until the Liberal Democrats announced this conference. Now there is a life-support machine waiting to be attached to it. It looks likely, though, that it will not be attached immediately.

"The SNP are, of course, looking for political leverage to get one, so they will be hoping that the Liberal Democrats will want to use that as political leverage after the Holyrood election in 2011 to get what it wants."

He believed it would be difficult for the Lib Dem leadership to maintain its opposition to a referendum and that the excuse of "it's not what people in the street are worried about" would "wear thin".

He added: "Personally, I would pencil in the first week of May 2012, when the Scottish council elections will be held.

"Tavish Scott (the Scottish Lib Dem leader] would not agree to a referendum on a nationally charged date like St Andrew's Day, so the day of the council elections might be a useful compromise for the SNP to put forward."

Prof Curtice suggested First Minister Alex Salmond would make good on his promise to introduce a multi-option referendum, including the option of greater devolution favoured by the Lib Dems, to start the process of compromise towards an eventual agreement in 2011.

But he warned both parties that the Westminster election result might add further complications, with the possibility of a hung parliament that could see both the SNP and Lib Dems trying to ring out concessions on their different constitutional goals.

The Scottish Lib Dems' debate on independence and the party's position on a referendum will be held behind closed doors today and chaired by former leadership contender Ross Finnie.

It follows a call for a referendum from the Lib Dem MEP George Lyon and the Edinburgh North and Leith candidate Kevin Lang ahead of the party's UK conference in Brighton last month.

Several MSPs, including the veteran John Farquhar Munro, are also believed to back a referendum.

But Mr Scott has consistently opposed holding an independence plebiscite, and it is his firm position that is believed to have been a major reason why the Lib Dems did not go into coalition with the SNP in 2007.

But the party's Scottish leader has been looking increasingly isolated on the issue. A YouGov poll in September showed that 65 per cent of Scottish Lib Dem voters supported a referendum, while only 28 per cent were against.

Yesterday, a senior party source was reported as saying: "It is very likely a clear majority of people are going to speak and vote in favour of the principle of having a referendum."

Last night, a spokeswoman for the Lib Dems said: "We're looking forward to the session at conference at the weekend. This will be a chance for party members to have their say about independence."
Fidget

Re: Nationalists 'give up' on 2010 referendum

Red Justice wrote:

SENIOR figures within the SNP have privately accepted that their hopes of securing a referendum on independence in 2010 are dead, The Scotsman can reveal.


Well that came as a shock!

 
Holebender

Yes, a real shock that the Scotsman would run an anti-SNP story with no actual basis in fact. Just the usual unnamed "senior figures".
Fidget

It's only 2 months til 2010 and not a peep about a referendum officially being held. Do you really think an independence referendum is still on the cards for 2010?  
Dave Coull

Fidget wrote:
It's only 2 months til 2010 and not a peep about a referendum officially being held.
Which country are you in?
Fidget

Why do you ask?
Dave Coull

Fidget wrote:
It's only 2 months til 2010 and not a peep about a referendum
I wrote
Quote:
Which country are you in?
Fidget wrote:
Why do you ask?
Because "not a peep about a referendum" might be how it looks from London, for example. The scanty and biased reporting of Scottish politics that folk down south receive is even worse than the scanty and biased reporting we get here.
Holebender

Why don't you save me the bother and go to http://news.google.com and search for "Scotland independence referendum" all by yourself. I'm sure you'll find more than a few peeps in the past week alone.
Fidget

Dave Coull wrote:
Fidget wrote:
It's only 2 months til 2010 and not a peep about a referendum
I wrote
Quote:
Which country are you in?
Fidget wrote:
Why do you ask?
Because "not a peep about a referendum" might be how it looks from London, for example. The scanty and biased reporting of Scottish politics that folk down south receive is even worse than the scanty and biased reporting we get here.


You misunderstand me, or I've not been clear enough.  But whatever, I mean there's not a peep about any official green light for a referendum to go ahead. I would've expected that to have happened by now if it was likely to go ahead.
Alasdair

I'm not sure why anyone should be surprised by this headline, it doesn't take a genius to work out that if everyone follows their party line then the bill won't be passed as things currently stand ... please save me the arguements about politicians breaking the party line, I live in hope but I'll not hold my breath.

Anyway, we should be closer to the truth once the Lib Dems have decided on their position on the issue following their conference to discuss it.  Let's hope they agree to back a referendum, but let's not hold our collective breaths.
Holebender

Fidget wrote:
Dave Coull wrote:
Fidget wrote:
It's only 2 months til 2010 and not a peep about a referendum
I wrote
Quote:
Which country are you in?
Fidget wrote:
Why do you ask?
Because "not a peep about a referendum" might be how it looks from London, for example. The scanty and biased reporting of Scottish politics that folk down south receive is even worse than the scanty and biased reporting we get here.


You misunderstand me, or I've not been clear enough.  But whatever, I mean there's not a peep about any official green light for a referendum to go ahead. I would've expected that to have happened by now if it was likely to go ahead.

Do you have even an inkling of how a parliament works? If you did you would know that a referendum cannot go ahead unless and until a bill is passed by a vote of the members of that parliament. The timetable is that the bill will be presented in about a month's time. After a period of deliberation the bill will be put to a vote early next year. Only then will we know if there will be an official green light for the referendum to go ahead. I hope that has helped clear up your obvious confusion.
Dave Coull

Fidget wrote:
I mean there's not a peep about any official green light for a referendum to go ahead.
The thing that makes something "official" is it being passed by parliament. There can't be any "official green light" for a referendum to go ahead until legislation for a referendum has been passed by the Scottish Parliament.
Fidget wrote:
I would've expected that to have happened by now
If that's what you "expected", then you just haven't been listening. The SNP stood for election in 2007 on a manifesto of holding a referendum "within the lifetime of this parliament". That meant by 2011. Unlike at Westminster, where the Prime Minister gets to decide the timing of an election, the lifetime of a Scottish Parliament is fixed    -    it's four years.  So in 2007 they were promising a referendum by 2011. Now, some of us saw this as unnecessary delay, and would have liked a referendum sooner, but, nevertheless, the SNP pledge was to hold one by 2011. So far, they are sticking to what they promised. As I understand it, they intend to put the legislation before the parliament, have the vote by MSPs on that legislation in early 2010, and hold the actual referendum in the Autumn of 2010. That's well within what they promised.
Fidget

How much notice was given in relation to the referendum on devolution?
Ultra

The referendum is over. You can give up now.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8336195.stm
landg

Ultra wrote:
The referendum is over. You can give up now.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8336195.stm


to be fair salmond was a good politician but their few years in power just seem so pointless now.
nothing in particular has changed with the snp being in charge and their main mainfesto focus is gone.
the union it is. as predicted.
anyway, maybe we could have a referendum about having a referendum about having a referendum about indepedence.
FRRRRRRRRRRREEEEeeeedoo....cut to credits.
Dave Coull

Ultra wrote:
The referendum is over.
Nonsense.
Of course it isn't.
Ultra wrote:
You can give up now.
Back in the days when Jack McConnell was still First Minister, and the LibDems were part of the Scottish government, along with the Labour Party, an on-line petition for a referendum, addressed to the Scottish Parliament, was organised, in the name of none other than the poster known on here as Holebender, and with his being the first signature. That petition got a couple of thousand signatures, within a short space of time. But it was rejected by the 5-member Petitions Committee of the Scottish Parliament, by one vote. That didn't lead those who supported holding a democratic self-determination referendum to conclude "we can give up now", and neither will this latest minor development.
Ultra

Dave Coull wrote:
Ultra wrote:
The referendum is over.
Nonsense.
Of course it isn't.
Ultra wrote:
You can give up now.
Back in the days when Jack McConnell was still First Minister, and the LibDems were part of the Scottish government, along with the Labour Party, an on-line petition for a referendum, addressed to the Scottish Parliament, was organised, in the name of none other than the poster known on here as Holebender, and with his being the first signature. That petition got a couple of thousand signatures, within a short space of time. But it was rejected by the 5-member Petitions Committee of the Scottish Parliament, by one vote. That didn't lead those who supported holding a democratic self-determination referendum to conclude "we can give up now", and neither will this latest minor development.


I am sure the SNP will keep pushing for a referendum bill. However, with no support from the main political parties this won't get through Parliament. So the referendum is indeed over for this term of Parliament.

Another failed election pledge by the SNP whose support is on the wane.
landg

[quote="Dave Coull   minor development.[/quote]
















hahahha.it was the last chance of securing votes for the referendum.hardly minor.
farewell, auf wiedersen, adios, cheerio then.
Dave Coull

Ultra wrote:
failed election pledge by the SNP
I have not got a lot of faith in any politician or in any political party, but, even if the referendum legislation should be defeated in the Scottish Parliament (which despite all of the propaganda about this being "inevitable" still remains to be seen) as long as the SNP actually do put the legislation before Parliament, they will have carried out the pledge that they gave.
landg

Dave Coull wrote:
Ultra wrote:
failed election pledge by the SNP
I have not got a lot of faith in any politician or in any political party, but, even if the referendum legislation should be defeated in the Scottish Parliament (which despite all of the propaganda about this being "inevitable" still remains to be seen) as long as the SNP actually do put the legislation before Parliament, they will have carried out the pledge that they gave.


like a small child in a sweetie shop who cannae reach the sweeties. dave, you are a gem. honest.
Ultra

Dave Coull wrote:
Ultra wrote:
failed election pledge by the SNP
I have not got a lot of faith in any politician or in any political party, but, even if the referendum legislation should be defeated in the Scottish Parliament (which despite all of the propaganda about this being "inevitable" still remains to be seen) as long as the SNP actually do put the legislation before Parliament, they will have carried out the pledge that they gave.


Yes, another worthless pledges just like several others in a long list since the SNP came to power and failed to deliver.

It's not propaganda. It's a fact that the main 3 political parties do not support this referendum bill and without at least one of these parties support currently the bill will be defeated.
Stevie

The SNP's the only party that gives a t**s about Scotland and your gloating over this thing or that thing speaks about you, not about the SNP.

May you see the light and join the SNP or...
landg

Stevie wrote:
The SNP's the only party that gives a t**s about Scotland and your gloating over this thing or that thing speaks about you, not about the SNP.

May you see the light and join the SNP or...


now,now.play nice.
anyhoo's if you believe that the snp are the only party that give a s**t about scotland and then turn that into an insult suggest's you are pyoor warped by the way.
it's the democratic process.
the snp have again failed and this time with their main piece of their manifesto.
more broken promises.
Ultra

Stevie wrote:
The SNP's the only party that gives a t**s about Scotland and your gloating over this thing or that thing speaks about you, not about the SNP.

May you see the light and join the SNP or...


Then again the SNP may just disappear like most other minority parties into obscurity.

Funny how a few weeks ago the nationalists were getting excited about the prospect of hooking up with the Lib Dems for the referendum bill. Now it's a minor issue. Oh dear...
landg

Ultra wrote:
Stevie wrote:
The SNP's the only party that gives a t**s about Scotland and your gloating over this thing or that thing speaks about you, not about the SNP.

May you see the light and join the SNP or...


Then again the SNP may just disappear like most other minority parties into obscurity.


maybe a role for tommy sheridan if he doesnae get the jail, 2 sinking parties combine?
Stevie

landg is sprightly this evening, basking in the glow of his minder Ultra.  Ultra won't save you because, well because...

Sinking party... Labour are currently destroyed and the Tories in Scotland are as popular as a dose of the clap.

Labour is sunk, the Tories are drowned and the party that will take the reigns is the SNP.

And, pinch me, I'm not dreaming, you though are positively fantasizing dear landg.

Living in Easter bunny land with fountains of chocolate and fields of edible daisies...
Ultra

Stevie wrote:
landg is sprightly this evening, basking in the glow of his minder Ultra.  Ultra won't save you because, well because...

Sinking partie... Labour are currently destroyed and the Tories in Scotland are as popular as a dose of the clap.

Labour is sunk, the Tories are drowned and the party that will take the reigns is the SNP.

And, pinch me, I'm not dreaming, you though, positively fantasizing dear landg.


So what the voters should do is vote for the party who are worse than the rest and cannot deliver their main manifesto pledge?

The SNP were inexperienced enough to promise all things to all people. Now that we are 2 years into their term and they have to come up with their own ideas to stimulate the economy and improve quality of life they haven't delivered.

The best they can come up with is cancelling GARL, trying to build a Forth Road Bridge with no capital to do it, and crofters rights. Hardly an issue which affects the majority of Scotland.

No doubt Labour and the Conservatives will say the SNP have tried and failed and the other main parties can comment on the vast experience and pledges they have indeed delivered over the years.

And no doubt have another few pledges in place ready to be delivered.

The SNP are all out of ideas. It was only a matter of time.
magister ludi

I can't help but think that for Liberals and Liberal Democrats  in Scotland this, now, is a defining time for their party, their politics and what they stand for.
Stevie

Ultra wrote:
The SNP are all out of ideas. It was only a matter of time.


Silly talk.

You'll notice Labour and Tory are getting their asses kicked by the SNP, even more popular with the voters now than they were before.
landg

Stevie wrote:
Ultra wrote:
The SNP are all out of ideas. It was only a matter of time.


Silly talk.

You'll notice Labour and Tory are getting their asses kicked by the SNP, even more popular with the voters now than they were before.


this is greaaaaaaaaat as tony from the frosties advert would say.
Dave Coull

Ultra wrote:
it's a fact that the main 3 political parties do not support this referendum bill
I don't much like political parties, but, recognising that they do exist, I have nevertheless said all along that the referendum should be a matter for the individual consciences of individual MSPs. It shouldn't be a matter of party politics, and it most certainly shouldn't be a matter for party line enforcement and whipping individual MSPs into line. I believe that, on a genuinely free vote, the referendum would pass. If it doesn't, that will be because the party HQs in London have succeeded in twisting the arms of the MSPs.
Ultra

Stevie wrote:
Ultra wrote:
The SNP are all out of ideas. It was only a matter of time.


Silly talk.

You'll notice Labour and Tory are getting their asses kicked by the SNP, even more popular with the voters now than they were before.


I hadn't noticed. In the same way the other minority BNP nationalists are getting more popular?

Usually that popularity transaltes to winning council seats and by elections. In the SNP case, it hasn't.
Ultra

Dave Coull wrote:
Ultra wrote:
it's a fact that the main 3 political parties do not support this referendum bill
I don't much like political parties, but, recognising that they do exist, I have nevertheless said all along that the referendum should be a matter for the individual consciences of individual MSPs. It shouldn't be a matter of party politics, and it most certainly shouldn't be a matter for party line enforcement and whipping individual MSPs into line. I believe that, on a genuinely free vote, the referendum would pass. If it doesn't, that will be because the party HQs in London have succeeded in twisting the arms of the MSPs.


Well it's not. The parties vote in a certain way and agree at their policies at their conferences and national level. If the single MP has a different agenda they could always become independent couldn't they?

The Lib Dems have the equivalent of a free vote this weekend and chose the union not a referendum.

I don't see the other main unionist political parties being any different.
Stevie

Ultra wrote:
Usually that popularity transaltes to winning council seats and by elections. In the SNP case, it hasn't.


The SNP are currently the biggest party in Scotland.  Did this completely miss your attention?
Dave Coull

Ultra wrote:
The Lib Dems have the equivalent of a free vote this weekend and chose the union not a referendum
WRONG.

The choice wasn't between "union or referendum".

The choice was between allowing the people of Scotland democratic self-determination   -  or not.

After all, the Lib Dems could support a democratic referendum AND campaign for the Union in that referendum. There was and is no need to choose between the union or a referendum.

As for the SNP, as long as they actually put the legislation before Parliament, they will have carried out the pledge they gave. I will await the parliamentary vote on the referendum with interest.
Ultra

Stevie wrote:
Ultra wrote:
Usually that popularity transaltes to winning council seats and by elections. In the SNP case, it hasn't.


The SNP are currently the biggest party in Scotland.  Did this completely miss your attention?


And the other 3 unionist parties have far more share of the vote.

The SNP are a minority Government who can't get bills through parliament.

Even the ones that have been agreed on they make a mess off. Minimum alcohol pricing and stopping petrol stations selling alcohol to name 2. Both completely laughed out of court.
Stevie

I repeat the SNP are the biggest party in Scotland at the moment.

Actually, they could get bigger.
Ultra

Dave Coull wrote:
Ultra wrote:
The Lib Dems have the equivalent of a free vote this weekend and chose the union not a referendum
WRONG.

The choice wasn't between "union or referendum".

The choice was between allowing the people of Scotland democratic self-determination   -  or not.

After all, the Lib Dems could support a democratic referendum AND campaign for the Union in that referendum. There was and is no need to choose between the union or a referendum.

As for the SNP, as long as they actually put the legislation before Parliament, they will have carried out the pledge they gave. I will await the parliamentary vote on the referendum with interest.


Ha ha.

The Lib Dems debated the topic behind closed doors and had a vote and decided not to back an independence referendum. So unless something significately changes the bill will not pass through Parliament.

Twist it whatever way you like Dave. They had a FREEDOM vote and it failed to provide backing for an independence referendum regardless of what was put to the Lib Dem conference.

Chances are because the referendum bill would decend into farce on what the wording of a question might be or how many options shouild be on the ballot paper. Backed up by how things get twiested by the independence figures of fun on here.

'It's black, not it's white, no it's off white, no it's a shade of grey'
Ultra

Stevie wrote:
I repeat the SNP are the biggest party in Scotland at the moment.

Actually, they could get bigger.


And the SNP could get smaller and not be in Government any more.

Whats your point?
Stevie

Your point is things could be worse... of course.

My point is the other parties are still reeling from the body blow the SNP gave them and if they screw up the Scottish government then they'll pay not the SNP.

You're weakly trying to say the SNP is failing but in fact the people of Scotland don't seem to think so and the SNP is at least as popular as before.
Ultra

Stevie wrote:
Your point is things could be worse... of course.

My point is the other parties are still reeling from the body blow the SNP gave them and if they screw up the Scottish government then they'll pay not the SNP.

You're weakly trying to say the SNP is failing but in fact the people of Scotland don't seem to think so and the SNP is at least as popular as before.


Sorry but the SNP promised umpteen election pledges and delivered very few of them which is failure. They have failed to deliver what they promised. Is that simple enough for you?

The SNP have 2 more years to come up with relevent bills to put forward which can be achieved. Again, most are dead in the water already.

Some of the other election pledges around alcohol have failed as they do not stand up in Scottish courts or EU.  Drug addiction in Scotland is up 20%.

The voters will sooner or later blame the SNP. If the Conservatives get into Westminister they will just point the finger at the SNP and say this is the party who are running your country.

The voters might well decide that they have given the SNP a chance and nothing much has changed. Also, the SNP don't have much power outside Scotland to change anything or fight for Scotland's interests in a UK context.
Reluctant Hero

Is it just me or does no-one else see this as a win-win for the SNP?

If they get someone else to back their referendum, then happy days they will get the vote.

If they don't get support, then it is no great loss.  The vote is going to be ultra tight anyway.  Rather than set the vote back a generation, and despite everything that is being said, it would be that long, they would be able to play the card that all the other parties don't care about Scotland.

They would then sit back for a couple of years and watch Tory spending cuts rip right through Scotland, then try again.

Win - Win.
magister ludi

absolutely.......and remember this isn't going to be an independence referendum......it's a referendum on opening negotiations for independence......I speculate that even with a yes vote there will need to another referendum on whether to "ratify" the negotiations........and a "no vote" at that stage even then won't be a mandate for maintaining the union, it will be a mandate to negotiate a "better deal".
Ultra

And the bad news for the SNP just keeps on coming...

http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/s...re-is-brighter-for-the-party.html
mairead

Why don't the SNP  just declare UDI and be done with it.
William_Cleland

Probably for the same reason they can't unilaterally proceed with a referendum.
Alasdair

Ultra wrote:
The referendum is over. You can give up now.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8336195.stm


While this does strongly suggest that the referendum will not happen in 2010, don't think that this is the end of it.  It just means that it will roll over into the next term and will no doubt form part of the SNP platform in the election for that term, it'll be interesting to see how it plays out.

Personally, I find it disappointing, although not surprising.

landg wrote:
to be fair salmond was a good politician but their few years in power just seem so pointless now.
nothing in particular has changed with the snp being in charge and their main mainfesto focus is gone.


Nothing's changed?  Where've you been!
Alasdair

Ultra wrote:
And the bad news for the SNP just keeps on coming...

http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/s...re-is-brighter-for-the-party.html


News of the World Rolling Eyes
Stevie

It's one poll and if it's correct, so what?

Ultimately, the SNP is gaining strength and in the years to come will grow.

It's inevitable the SNP will go up and down but there is a general trend upwards over the years (albeit slow).

You seem to think that numbers matter, the only thing that matters is the ONE time the SNP gain enough popular support to gain 51% of the seats in Holyrood, then it's up to the Scots at a referendum.
Shagpile

magister ludi wrote:
I can't help but think that for Liberals and Liberal Democrats  in Scotland this, now, is a defining time for their party, their politics and what they stand for.


Looks like they'll be sticking with hypocracy as their main theme..... as far as the referendum option goes:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/com...ktat-is-bad-for-scotland-1.929363

Quote:
At a constituency level I have been struck increasingly by the extent to which public bodies and agencies have become reorientated far more in the direction of central diktat than before. Lines of accountability now run firmly up towards the capital instead of down towards the community. The most audacious move in this direction came in the form of the Concordat between the government and the local authorities. That, coupled with recurrent freezing of council tax, has rendered Scottish local government the most emasculated within the UK. It is a highly retrograde development.


Well he's totally wrong about that...... Westminster has now DECIDED to let devolution work. YES, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT will now let devolution work! Like they allowed it to work in the Welsh Assembly right from day 1, where there was little chance working devolution there would lead to the break up of the UK.

Forgetting completely that their 'flagship success' whilst in coalition with Labour was decimated by Westminster. (Free Personal Care For The Elderly).

Quote:
The irony is twofold. Despite the ongoing tension between a nationalist government in Edinburgh and a Labour government at Westminster, the real political battleground is to be found within Scotland itself – between Edinburgh and the legitimate alternative sources of power that make up the wider Scottish body politic. A Nationalist government may find itself coming under greater political pressure from within Scotland than from outside. Even David Cameron, if he becomes UK Prime Minister, is sounding more emollient towards Holyrood sensitivities than Gordon Brown. This is not how the plot was meant to unfold.


He should know as one of the architects of devolution..... right? The SNP were never expected to form a government. That minority government was never ment to leave the 'big three' caught like startled rabbits in the headlights of a referendum debate which would box them into their London Centralist Party Line. How can they talk about democracy and expect to get away with it for much longer.

"You can fool some of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time".

Quote:
Nationalism in power is becoming too centralised; Liberal Democrats in opposition need to be its principal enemy. That is a far better constitutional priority for the here and now.


AND TO SUM UP...... It's ok for Westminster to be the central power on devolved issues. It's even ok for English and Welsh Party members; in a London Centric Party, to say how Scotland's devolved government should govern.

But it's definately not ok for the Scottish People to have a say. Even worse.... allow Scotland's elected representatives without external influence from London.

Quote:
Charles Kennedy is Liberal Democrat MP for Ross, Skye and Lochaber.


And is still drunk.... obviously.
Shagpile

Ultra wrote:
Ha ha.

The Lib Dems debated the topic behind closed doors and had a vote and decided not to back an independence referendum. So unless something significately changes the bill will not pass through Parliament.


Ah-Ha!

Why behind closed doors? How do you know what was discussed, debated or voted on?

It was probably because their 'rebels' were being read 'the riot act' by their London bosses. My theory fits better than yours.

Otherwise...... why the secrecy?
Shagpile

magister ludi wrote:
absolutely.......and remember this isn't going to be an independence referendum......it's a referendum on opening negotiations for independence......I speculate that even with a yes vote there will need to another referendum on whether to "ratify" the negotiations........and a "no vote" at that stage even then won't be a mandate for maintaining the union, it will be a mandate to negotiate a "better deal".


Can I just add my 'absulutely' to that too.

Fear distroys ambition, fear holds you back and moulds you. What we can all see from the unionist camp is fear.

Truth be told..... Wendy was terrified when she said "Bring It On". All the cheering from the Labour seat when she said that will dissapear when the time comes to put their bravado into a cold sweat 'Yes' to the Referendum Bill.

Some might be truely brave and do it. The majority of them will lament the passing of their gravy train, win-win, we'll be well rid of them.
Red Justice

Looks like the Lib Dums have made up their minds
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8336195.stm
Holebender

On the ball as ever, Red.
Red Justice

I am not trying to bring you bad news. I would support the Referendum Bill being passed. I just fear this is become a mere party political parliamentary campaign by the SNP. My wish is for more public pressure for a referendum.

Why are supporters of an independence referendum not organising public meetings across Scotland?
Fidget

The sooner this referendum is done the better. I'm sick tired of hearing excuses from the SNP and its supporters for the why it is not being done.
Shagpile

Fidget wrote:
The sooner this referendum is done the better. I'm sick tired of hearing excuses from the SNP and its supporters for the why it is not being done.


I'm sick and tired of "bring It On", and Hypocrites blocking the Referendum Bill.

Are you too now saying "Bring It On"?

I don't believe you....... say it with an across political devide gusto, make your reasons why you are against but campain for it...... I bet you wont.....Fear Is The Key!
Dave Coull

Ultra wrote:
The Lib Dems debated the topic behind closed doors and had a vote and decided not to back an independence referendum.
They had their debate "behind closed doors" because there is so much dissent within their party in Scotland on this issue. Okay, so the line handed down from party HQ in London has been held for now. But it's still the case that, on a free vote, without the whips enforcing the party line from London, some LibDem MSPs would undoubtedly back a referendum.
Ultra wrote:
unless something significately changes the bill will not pass through Parliament
As one of the most successful leaders of the Labour Party said, a week is a long time in politics. It remains to be seen how that vote in a couple of months' time will go.
Holebender

Red Justice wrote:
I am not trying to bring you bad news.

Take a look at the 14th post on this thread. You're not bringing us news at all.
Ultra

Alasdair wrote:
Ultra wrote:
And the bad news for the SNP just keeps on coming...

http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/s...re-is-brighter-for-the-party.html


News of the World Rolling Eyes


Yougov poll Mr M.  Rolling Eyes
Fidget

Shagpile wrote:
Fidget wrote:
The sooner this referendum is done the better. I'm sick tired of hearing excuses from the SNP and its supporters for the why it is not being done.


I'm sick and tired of "bring It On", and Hypocrites blocking the Referendum Bill.

Are you too now saying "Bring It On"?

I don't believe you....... say it with an across political devide gusto, make your reasons why you are against but campain for it...... I bet you wont.....Fear Is The Key!


Really, really, really - I so much want too see a referendum on independence for Scotland and then it'll be settled one way or the other.
landg

Dave Coull wrote:
Ultra wrote:
The Lib Dems debated the topic behind closed doors and had a vote and decided not to back an independence referendum.
They had their debate "behind closed doors" because there is so much dissent within their party in Scotland on this issue. Okay, so the line handed down from party HQ in London has been held for now. But it's still the case that, on a free vote, without the whips enforcing the party line from London, some LibDem MSPs would undoubtedly back a referendum.
Ultra wrote:
unless something significately changes the bill will not pass through Parliament
As one of the most successful leaders of the Labour Party said, a week is a long time in politics. It remains to be seen how that vote in a couple of months' time will go.



so IF that happens, and IF that happens and IF that happens we MIGHT get a referendum on deciding to have a referendum on independence, further devolution or no change. Surprised
Alasdair

Ultra wrote:
Alasdair wrote:
Ultra wrote:
And the bad news for the SNP just keeps on coming...

http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/s...re-is-brighter-for-the-party.html


News of the World Rolling Eyes


Yougov poll Mr M.  Rolling Eyes


I know, but News of the World Rolling Eyes

The facts might be right, but it read like it was written by a child!
landg

Alasdair wrote:
Ultra wrote:
Alasdair wrote:
Ultra wrote:
And the bad news for the SNP just keeps on coming...

http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/s...re-is-brighter-for-the-party.html


News of the World Rolling Eyes


Yougov poll Mr M.  Rolling Eyes


I know, but News of the World Rolling Eyes

The facts might be right, but it read like it was written by a child!



facts are facts.
Fidget

landg wrote:



so IF that happens, and IF that happens and IF that happens we MIGHT get a referendum on deciding to have a referendum on independence, further devolution or no change. Surprised




I shouldn't laugh at that I suppose. But it is how it is. Delay, delay, delay... and all sweet-nothing to do with the SNP. All just because of legalities and them other big bad political parties.  Laughing
landg

Fidget wrote:
landg wrote:



so IF that happens, and IF that happens and IF that happens we MIGHT get a referendum on deciding to have a referendum on independence, further devolution or no change. Surprised




I shouldn't laugh at that I suppose. But it is how it is. Delay, delay, delay... and all sweet-nothing to do with the SNP. All just because of legalities and them other big bad political parties.  Laughing


why not laugh, it's bloody hilarious.
Stevie

It's one poll.

The Brits need to win every time, we need to win once.

The SNP's fortunes will go up and down but one day they'll go up enough to win independence.

So, it never makes good reading a -ve poll but I look to the future.  The fact that the SNP are in power as the biggest party is good but the SNP doesn't exist to be 'in power', it exists to break up the union and that we will do.
Braveheart

landg wrote:
Alasdair wrote:
Ultra wrote:
Alasdair wrote:
Ultra wrote:
And the bad news for the SNP just keeps on coming...

http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/s...re-is-brighter-for-the-party.html


News of the World Rolling Eyes


Yougov poll Mr M.  Rolling Eyes


I know, but News of the World Rolling Eyes

The facts might be right, but it read like it was written by a child!

It's in the Sunay Herald. Does that make it any more respectable.

Anyway, it was commsssioned by the Greens, the only party that suports the SNP in the Parliament...


facts are facts.
landg

Stevie wrote:
It's one poll.

The Brits need to win every time, we need to win once.

The SNP's fortunes will go up and down but one day they'll go up enough to win independence.

So, it never makes good reading a -ve poll but I look to the future.  The fact that the SNP are in power as the biggest party is good but the SNP doesn't exist to be 'in power', it exists to break up the union and that we will do.



FFFFFRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEDDDDDDDDDDDOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
Very Happy
Alasdair

Braveheart wrote:
Alasdair wrote:
I know, but News of the World Rolling Eyes

The facts might be right, but it read like it was written by a child!

It's in the Sunay Herald. Does that make it any more respectable.

Anyway, it was commsssioned by the Greens, the only party that suports the SNP in the Parliament...


facts are facts.


Rolling Eyes

Really, my comment was on The News of the World.  It's a piece of s**t, who in their right mind reads such a thing, nevermind quotes it's illiterate ramblings.
Braveheart

Alasdair wrote:
Braveheart wrote:
Alasdair wrote:
I know, but News of the World Rolling Eyes

The facts might be right, but it read like it was written by a child!

It's in the Sunay Herald. Does that make it any more respectable.

Anyway, it was commsssioned by the Greens, the only party that suports the SNP in the Parliament...




Really, my comment was on The News of the World.  It's a piece of s**t, who in their right mind reads such a thing, nevermind quotes it's illiterate ramblings.


That's the point: it wasn't just a quote of the NoW's illiterate ramblings, it was a quote of the Green's opinion poll. An the opinion poll was good news for Labour and bad news for the SNP.

Anyway, it wasn't just in the NoW, it was also in the Sunday Herald (and other papers for all I know).

"Shooting the messenger" is often a diversion, an attempt to try to ignore or downplay the message. I suspect that would be the case for nationalists in this instance.
Dave Coull

At the risk of stating the obvious, the "Scotsman" newspaper is against independence. It has had a long series of "news" articles over the last few years playing down the prospects of a referendum on independence. The title of this thread, taken from a headline in the Scotsman, is
Quote:
Nationalists "give up" on 2010 referendum
but that title looks inaccurate to me. I'm not a member of the SNP, and certainly not close to any member of the Scottish government, but, so far as I'm aware, they still plan to put legislation for a referendum before the Scottish Parliament. They could only be said to have "given up" if they dropped that intention. That is what the leaders of the Labour Party, the LibDem party, and the Tory party would like the SNP to do, but, so far as I'm aware, the SNP plan to go ahead with presenting legislation for a 2010 referendum to parliament. Therefore, it's not true to say that they have "given up" on a referendum.

Having promised legislation for a referendum in their manifesto, it would be quite disgraceful if the SNP   DID   "give up".

Some of us have been campaigning, on a non-party-political basis, for a referendum, for quite some time. Back in the days when Jack McConnell was First Minister, "Holebender" sponsored a petition for a referendum, which, to my certain knowledge, got the support of some folk who were members of the Labour Party, as well as folk from the SNP, the Green Party, etc, plus, of course, the majority of those who signed the petition were, like myself, not members of any party. That cross-party or non-party-political demand for democratic self-determination is not going to go away. On the assumption that legislation will in fact be put before parliament, how MSPs vote on that should be a matter of conscience, not a matter of toeing the party line. There should be no twisting of arms, no whipping into line. Of course MSPs have different views on independence, but that's not what they'll be voting on, what they will be voting on is whether or not to allow the people of Scotland democratic self-determination. Unionist MSPs can support a referendum AND campaign against independence in that referendum. Holding a referendum is not, or at least should not be, a party-political issue. MSPs of all parties should be allowed a free vote. If some MSPs want to deny the Scottish people a say on democratic self-determination, then they should be publicly   SEEN   to be doing this. My suspicion is still that, despite the pressure from party HQ in London, some MSPs will balk at actually voting against holding a referendum.

But just suppose the vote goes against holding a referendum "at this time"  -   does anybody seriously imagine, for one minute, that will mean the issue of a referendum has gone away?
Fidget

Dave Coull wrote:


Having promised legislation for a referendum in their manifesto, it would be quite disgraceful if the SNP   DID   "give up".


I love how it has sneakily gone from having a referendum to legislation on a referendum....  

http://www.snp.org/node/15623

"The SNP leader wants to stage the independence referendum in 2010."

Stevie

FIdget thinks he's gaining ground.

Playing with this little point and that little point of information means that you play with little things.  None of us like a bad poll, I personally don't trust polls that much; they vary with the weather.

A I said, the SNP only has to win once. Maybe not today, maybe not in 2011, maybe not in 10 or 15 years but they will win eventually.

I think the poll is fair, but if you look at it, the SNP vote is fine but the seats that help Labour are concentrated into a useful hotspot for them.

Time and tide will change that situation and when it does the SNP will end our conversations.

I wait in anticipation.
Fidget

It is quite a big point I'd say. It's only a little point to you because it doesn't suit you so you prefer glossing over it. If the shoe was on the other foot though, the SNP would be on it in a flash.
Dave Coull

Fidget wrote:
"The SNP leader wants to stage the independence referendum in 2010."
That's what Alex Salmond said. He WANTS an independence referendum in 2010. Because that's what he wants, he plans to put legislation for a referendum before the Scottish Parliament.
Fidget wrote:
sneakily gone from having a referendum to legislation on a referendum
Okay, you're going to have to explain your use of the adverb "sneakily". I'm neither a member, nor a "supporter", of the SNP. In general, I'm very skeptical about  ALL politicians' promises. I don't really trust  ANY  politician. But as long as Salmond does what he said he would do, put legislation for a referendum before the Scottish Parliament, what's "sneaky" about that?
Aventinian

Stevie wrote:
It's one poll.

The Brits need to win every time, we need to win once.


Perhaps twice, if something similar to the SNP question is asked. Personally I think that's an excellent way to ensure it is the 'settled will' of the people.
Fidget

Dave Coull wrote:
Fidget wrote:
"The SNP leader wants to stage the independence referendum in 2010."


That's what Alex Salmond said. He WANTS an independence referendum in 2010. Because that's what he wants, he plans to put legislation for a referendum before the Scottish Parliament.


Guff. 2010 was his year for having a referendum, not legislating about it.    


Fidget wrote:
sneakily gone from having a referendum to legislation on a referendum


Dave Coull wrote:
Okay, you're going to have to explain your use of the adverb "sneakily". I'm neither a member, nor a "supporter", of the SNP. In general, I'm very skeptical about  ALL politicians' promises. I don't really trust  ANY  politician. But as long as Salmond does what he said he would do, put legislation for a referendum before the Scottish Parliament, what's "sneaky" about that?


Well.. people, yourself included, are all now talking about legislation on a referendum on Scottish Indepedence in 2010 and completely dissing the SNP having a rerendum in 2010. Sounds sneaky to me.
Braveheart

Fidget wrote:
Dave Coull wrote:
Fidget wrote:
"The SNP leader wants to stage the independence referendum in 2010."


That's what Alex Salmond said. He WANTS an independence referendum in 2010. Because that's what he wants, he plans to put legislation for a referendum before the Scottish Parliament.


Guff. 2010 was his year for having a referendum, not legislating about it.    


Fidget wrote:
sneakily gone from having a referendum to legislation on a referendum


Dave Coull wrote:
Okay, you're going to have to explain your use of the adverb "sneakily". I'm neither a member, nor a "supporter", of the SNP. In general, I'm very skeptical about  ALL politicians' promises. I don't really trust  ANY  politician. But as long as Salmond does what he said he would do, put legislation for a referendum before the Scottish Parliament, what's "sneaky" about that?


Well.. people, yourself included, are all now talking about legislation on a referendum on Scottish Indepedence in 2010 and completely dissing the SNP having a rerendum in 2010. Sounds sneaky to me.


Actually, the SNP said it would "legislate for a referendum within 100 days of coming to power".

This is a (deliberately?) ambiguous statement....

.....legislate within 100 days?

Or....

... have areferendum within 100 days?

Anyway, they have done neither.

And their fallback of holding the referendum in 2010 looks a no-go as well.

Has there ever been a more incompetent government anywhere?
Holebender

You had better produce a source for that statement of yours. My recollection was they said they would publish a white paper within 100 days (which they did) and introduce the legislation to hold the referendum within the lifetime of the parliament. I'm willing to search for evidence to back my recollections, are you?
Alasdair

Braveheart wrote:
Has there ever been a more incompetent government anywhere?
 Yes.  It's predecessor Laughing

My recollections tally with HoleBender's on the other bit though
landg

Stevie wrote:


A I said, the SNP only has to win once. Maybe not today, maybe not in 2011, maybe not in 10 or 15 years but they will win eventually.

.


FRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
Stevie

Ah landg, your Freedom 'joke' again.

Do you have a second joke?
landg

Stevie wrote:
Ah landg, your Freedom 'joke' again.

Do you have a second joke?



goes to dig out braveheart video.
back soon.
Stevie

Ah, you forgot to add 'Freedom'.
Dave Coull

Braveheart wrote:
the SNP said it would "legislate for a referendum within 100 days of coming to power".
No, they didn't.
I wish they had.
I was in favour of a swift referendum. I was actively and publicly campaigning for a "Referendum NOW". I had been campaigning for a swift referendum when Jack McConnell and his Labour/LibDem executive were in office, and, as soon as the SNP came to power in 2007, myself and three of my friends went to the Scottish Parliament and lobbied MSPs in favour of this demand.
http://kennysheerin.blogspot.com/...ew-with-independentista-dave.html
I would most certainly remember if the SNP had given any such commitment.
They didn't.
You just made that up.
landg

YEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRGggggggggHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

WOLLLLLLLLLLLLIIIIIIIIIIISSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
Stevie

He's a Brit Nat Dave, they make things up.
Dave Coull

I wrote
Quote:
That's what Alex Salmond said. He WANTS an independence referendum in 2010. Because that's what he wants, he plans to put legislation for a referendum before the Scottish Parliament.
Fidget wrote:
2010 was his year for having a referendum
Actually, what he said was "within the lifetime of this parliament". Since the Scottish Parliament was elected in 2007 for 4 years, that meant by 2011. But yes, he has more recently indicated he wants a referendum in the Autumn of 2010.
Fidget wrote:
not legislating about it
WRONG. Legislating in January 2010 for a referendum to be held in November 2010 would be within what Salmond promised. Personally, I would have liked to have a referendum much earlier. But I recognise that, so far, Alex Salmond has stuck to what he said about a referendum.
Fidget wrote:
people, yourself included, are all now talking about legislation on a referendum on Scottish Indepedence in 2010 and completely dissing the SNP having a rerendum in 2010. Sounds sneaky to me.
Like I said, I was in favour of having a referendum much sooner, but that's not what the SNP promised. Salmond has promised to put legislation for a referendum to the parliament. If that legislation is passed, there will be a referendum in 2010. In general, I don't trust politicians, but, so far, at least, Salmond hasn't done anything sneaky regarding a referendum.
Fidget

I've just quoted you something from the SNP's own website, and still you refuse to believe it.  2010 was what Salmond has his electorate believe, he hasn't delivered, and now we've folk like you denying that 2010 was what he lead people to believe.
Stevie

Discussing the precision of the presentation date of the referendum bill before parliament is quite riveting stuff.

Agree to disagree and move on with your lives.
Fidget

This is important. And it is important for a good reason. The backers of Salmond simply cannot see past the man and when he is caught out they all start making excuses for him - such as this "legislation of independence by 2010" nonsense.
Stevie

Salmond is the brightest politician in the British isles.

Note well, politician not saint.

Why should the SNP see past him.  His errors are nothing, and nothing at all compared to Labour's financial mess and the Tory party line geniuses who will screw up evey bit as badly as Brown (the right always do).
Ultra

Stevie wrote:
Salmond is the brightest politician in the British isles.

Note well, politician not saint.

Why should the SNP see past him.  His errors are nothing, and nothing at all compared to Labour's financial mess and the Tory party line geniuses who will screw up evey bit as badly as Brown (the right always do).


Salmond would never be in the position of being the UK PM to get to any sort of level of decision making compared to Brown.

Did Salmond not give up the leadership only to return when the SNP popularity waned? That suggests it's a one man party and people are attracted to the personality not the policies. Not that they have many successful policies to begin with.
Fidget

Stevie wrote:
Salmond is the brightest politician in the British isles.

Note well, politician not saint.

Why should the SNP see past him.  His errors are nothing, and nothing at all compared to Labour's financial mess and the Tory party line geniuses who will screw up evey bit as badly as Brown (the right always do).


Are we talking about the same Salmond who decided not to be SNP leader anymore.. trotted off to London.. then changed his mind again and decided he did want to be the leader of the SNP...and trotted back to Scotland?
Stevie

You and the Brits in general hate him because of his evident political success for the SNP in Scotland.
Fidget

Spoken like a man unable to address the real points.
Stevie

There's nothing to address.
Ultra

Stevie wrote:
You and the Brits in general hate him because of his evident political success for the SNP in Scotland.


I don't hate Salmond. I don't see him being a political success by any stretch of the imagination.

A success means you win crucial votes in the Scottish Parliament and you make a difference. He has achieved very little in 2 years and the SNP will slip back into obscurity once he steps down.
Fidget

Stevie wrote:
There's nothing to address.


I don't doubt your sincerity with that either, but it is a startling example of how hypnotised people like youself are when it comes to all things Salmond.

       Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Forum Index -> Scottish Politics and Independence Page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3
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