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.
|
Avatar
|
Next year article by Iain Macwhirter | Quote: | Next year, the SNP take Holyrood … and Gordon Brown goes crackers
By Iain Macwhirter
LOOKING BACK on 2007, it seems amazing that no-one seriously expected the SNP to win the May Scottish election, least of all the Nationalists themselves. But the return of the SNP as the largest party in May rocked Holyrood and Westminster. The new prime minister, Gordon Brown, reacted with uncharacteristic panic and the UK press demanded to know why no-one had seen it coming. But the signs were there, if anyone had cared to look.
Labour MSPs had been hoisting storm warnings, insisting that there was a groundswell of anti-Labour feeling spreading through the constituencies. But most commentators thought that was just the usual exercise in lowering expectations. The truth was that the SNP itself didn't appear to believe that it was on the eve of a historic breakthrough. Indeed, many MSPs thought that the opinion polls were exaggerated and fully expected most of the Labour vote to return to fold.
But throughout 2006, opinion polls had indicated that there was something stirring in the undergrowth of Scottish politics. The Dunfermline and West Fife by-election, where Labour lost an 11,000 majority to the Liberal Democrats in the future prime minister Gordon Brown's home constituency, should have been warning enough. The mood was increasingly "anyone but Labour".
continued...
But what no-one expected was that Brown's entry to Number 10 would actually make Labour's situation worse in Scotland. Dramatically worse. The reaction in the UK press to Tony Blair's resignation early in 2007 was hardly unexpected, but the virulence with which sections of the London media attacked Brown for his national origins sickened many Scots.
Labour MPs in Westminster were initially relieved that there was no leadership election following Blair's decision to go, which was apparently taken during his controversial stay in Bee Gee Robin Gibb's mansion in Florida. Time to go. It had become clear to the PM that there was no-one in the Labour Cabinet prepared to challenge Brown for the leadership, apart from the home secretary, John Reid, who had zero chance of success. That the education secretary, Alan Johnson, was the only possibility merely underlined the paucity of talent.
Exploiting a New Year lull in the fighting in Iraq following the execution of Saddam Hussein and the breakthrough in Northern Ireland over devolution, the PM saw his chance and took it. He announced that Gordon Brown would be taking over the helm of government while he tidied his desk in time for his formal departure in May. This gave the chancellor his "hundred days" in which to set out his stall before entering Number 10. But it also gave the press a chance to discredit Brown before he took office.
Editorials raged that this was "a constitutional travesty". "Where else," thundered The Times, "but in the most squalid dictatorship would the leader of the nation be chosen by a back-room cabal? This is a negation of democracy."
The Daily Telegraph went further. "The fact that the future prime minister sits for a Scottish constituency, over which English MPs exercise no influence, makes Gordon Brown unfit to lead any legitimate government in England." The Sun took its own characteristic slant. "Send him home! England will not be ruled by the Scots." Opinion polls in April suggested most English voters agreed.
So did many Labour MPs. Former welfare minister Frank Field led a deputation of 100 Labour MPs and candidates to Tony Blair urging him not to leave office until there was a resolution to the West Lothian Question. "It is simply untenable for the prime minister to hand over, without any democratic election, the leadership of the country to a politician who, for all his personal qualities, is profoundly unacceptable to English opinion."
Brown launched a high-profile tour of England, addressing countless town hall meetings, telling Middle England how much he loved the flag and how his favourite sporting moment was that goal by Gazza against Scotland. His announcement in The Daily Mail that he felt "more English than Scottish" appalled many Scottish voters.
But when he promised to review the Barnett Formula and curb the voting rights of Scottish MPs in Westminster, the balloon really went up. The truth was that very few people in England really understood the West Lothian Question, still less the obscure formula under which increases in Scottish public spending are calculated.
But the UK press was suddenly filled with stories about the iniquities of a system which "robbed England to pay Scotland". About how Scottish Labour MPs held a "veto over English laws" by virtue of their voting rights in Westminster on issues which are devolved to Scotland. Blogs went red hot, with denunciations of the "Scottish Raj" and the "greedy jocks" who were bleeding England white.
This was Alex Salmond's moment, and he seized it. Realising that the outpouring of English resentment was a unique opportunity for the SNP, the Nationalist leader started his own tour of English towns, arguing that a new constitutional settlement was indeed essential for Britain. Many commentators in Scotland thought he had completely lost his marbles. Why wasn't the leader of the SNP back in Scotland, campaigning for his party in the Scottish elections, instead of traipsing round England, persuading people who have no vote?
But Salmond was shrewdly exploiting the increasing anglicisation of the Scottish media. Much of the Scottish press is now dominated by Scottish editions of London papers and Salmond had calculated that he would gain better projection by campaigning in England than in Scotland. The London media became obsessed with this extraordinary double act Brown and Salmond - "the two Scots fighting for the soul of England". The Murdoch Press gave Salmond acres of coverage, as the "only Scot who will tell it like it is - that Scots have too much say in England".
Salmond's line was that Scotland was indeed over-dependent on England, and should have no say in English affairs in Westminster. The SNP had for many years voluntarily abstained from voting on English legislation in Westminster. Salmond didn't accept that England subsidised Scotland, but he argued that the present arrangements, under which Scotland gets around 15% more per head in public spending than the UK average, was "discredited and out of date". Salmond called instead for the Scottish parliament to be given powers over taxation so that "Scotland will only spend what she earns".
The UK press took up this fiscal autonomy and ran with it. An issue which had been of marginal interest in the Scottish media for years, suddenly became the dominant issue in the UK, leading the BBC's Six O'clock News day after day. Gordon Brown argued in vain that, in reality, the Barnett Formula had actually narrowed the gap in relative spending between Scotland and England since Labour came to office. He was hoisted by his own fiscal petard.
Similarly, in agreeing to restrict the voting rights of Scottish MPs in Westminster, the prime minister played into SNP hands. The sight of Scots being denied the right to vote on the new generation of nuclear power stations, for example, because the first ones were planned for England, incensed many Scots.
The Conservative leader, David Cameron, took full advantage of the situation to argue that Labour no longer had a mandate to govern in England. He based this on the fact that the Conservatives had won a majority of votes in England at the last general election. Conservative ministers, he argued, should be given joint responsibility in devolved ministries, such as health and education, on the grounds that the government no longer had legitimacy on devolved areas. This was pure fantasy, of course, but it played very well in the English right-wing press, who saw an opportunity to use the Scottish Question to drive Labour from office.
The Scottish elections fell at the height of this extraordinary ferment in UK constitutional politics. The election campaign turned into a referendum on the Union rather than the election of a devolved government in Holyrood. The timing could not have been more apposite, coming on the 300th anniversary of the 1707 Treaty of Union.
UK Labour ministers came north again to warn of the dangers of Scotland going it alone. "Divorce," they insisted, "is an expensive business," as they urged Scots not to endanger the "Union dividend". But against the clamour of the English media demanding Scotland be punished for fiscal indolence, and interfering in English law-making, they had a difficult job arguing that the Union was still a harmonious one. And the Union dividend seemed particularly questionable now that the Barnett system was being scrapped by the new prime minister.
Even so, it was a profound shock when the SNP emerged with a slim majority of four seats over Labour in May's Holyrood elections. A combination of the Iraq war, the lacklustre performance of the Labour-led Scottish Executive, and an increasing frustration with the Union conspired to break Labour's hold on Scotland. Widespread abstentionism by Labour voters and tactical voting to the Liberal Democrats did the rest.
Sections of the UK press pronounced that the Scots had voted to go it alone, and demanded that Scottish MPs should retreat from Westminster voluntarily. "At last, England will be free again," crowed The Sun. Alex Salmond - perhaps carried away by the London press dubbing him the "New Wallace" - announced he intended to form a "provisional government" for an independent Scotland and announced that his first act as first minister would be a bill to hold a referendum on independence.
But everyone had seemingly forgotten the electoral system. The SNP didn't have an outright majority. The Liberal Democrats, now the third party in Scotland with only eight fewer seats than Labour, refused to join with the SNP unless it dropped its commitment to holding a referendum on independence. The 10 Green MSPs said that the SNP couldn't be trusted on the environment.
Labour, under its new leader, Tom McCabe, invited the Scottish LibDems and the Greens to help form a minority administration, to "save the UK". Talks began as the Nationalists complained that they were being locked out of power by a "unionist cabal" and that, as the biggest party, the SNP had a "moral claim" to lead any Holyrood administration. But there is nothing in the Holyrood rules that says the largest party has to form a government.
In the end, the "unionist alliance" collapsed as the Greens refused to abandon their commitment to independence, and Labour refused LibDem demands for their leader, Nicol Stephen, to be made first minister. For weeks, Scotland was without government, and there began to be serious questions about the stability of the Scottish Executive. Labour ministers remained in power in a caretaker capacity, but without any constitutional authority so to do. Then Gordon Brown had his "moment of madness".
No-one quite knows why the prime minister decided to call a referendum on the constitution. There was certainly no demand for one in Scotland. It seems that Brown felt that the only way to resolve the matter would be to pre-empt the Nationalists and hold a referendum on independence, but not at a time of Alex Salmond's choosing.
With the Scottish coalition in disarray, Brown hoped that Scots would see the folly of following the Nationalists and deliver a crushing rejection of independence. But the bill in Westminster created a furious reaction in Scotland, where people argued that the prime minister was treating Scots with contempt by holding an "opportunistic plebiscite" during a period of electoral instability. The move pushed the LibDems into a coalition with the SNP, and created a constitutional confrontation between Holyrood and Westminster.
As this extraordinary year drew to a close, the SNP and the LibDems put together a programme for an essentially federalist settlement under which Scotland would get substantial tax raising powers; a greater share of oil revenues; and powers over issues such as immigration, nuclear power and broadcasting. At present, opinion polls suggest that this is the option which will win most support in the forthcoming referendum. But in truth, no-one really knows what will happen in 2008.
The union survived its 300th birthday, but only just. |
http://www.sundayherald.com/oped/...nd_gordon_brown_goes_crackers.php
It doesn't seem that far fetched, although I cant see Alex Salmond going around campaigning in England or the Greens going into a coalition with Labour/Lib Dems instead of the SNP.
|
Economist
|
Pretty decent, I can see a lot of that happening. I think the UK media are going to have more than just a passing interest in these elections in May...
BTW Alex Salmond campaigning in England may not be that much of a bad idea. He's already been kind of at it:
http://news.independent.co.uk/people/profiles/article2134908.ece
and he does have a pretty big UK profile (so would get a lot of exposure in Scotland as well as the rest of the UK). I'd suggest more folk in England could recognise him, as opposed to Jack McConnell, Nicol Stephen, Annabel Goldie or all the other talentless urchins in the Scottish Parliament.
|
Aventinian
|
If the SNP are to have any sense, they probably would end up taking a federalist line. They've certainly considered it, I don't doubt.
They won't get any loyalty from the Greens or the Socialists, so it's probably the case that the Lib Dems are their only potential friends. Equally, drop the commitment to independence and in absence of another popular and solidly Nationalist party, they'll pick up far more votes with few being lost.
|
Mctosh45
|
The S.N.P. Are a pro independence party and if they become the single biggest party in May, their best sticking to their guns on a referendum as they would have the moral authority/mandate.
Any coalition partner (Libdems)will have to recognise this and would be foolish not to accommodate them on this issue and risk the ire of the Scottish electorate in future elections.
After all it's a referendum demonstrably and consistently supported by the majority of said electorate. Also it would show up the coalition partner as running scared if they refused said referendum. 
|
Economist
|
| Aventinian wrote: | If the SNP are to have any sense, they probably would end up taking a federalist line. They've certainly considered it, I don't doubt.
They won't get any loyalty from the Greens or the Socialists, so it's probably the case that the Lib Dems are their only potential friends. Equally, drop the commitment to independence and in absence of another popular and solidly Nationalist party, they'll pick up far more votes with few being lost. |
On the issue of independence, they'll get a great deal of loyalty from the Socialists and Greens, who both support Scottish independence (haven't the Greens and SNP been in talks about supporting a coalition?). At this time, with independence being so high up the agenda, and the fact most people in Scotland and England want rid of the Union, it would be absolute madness to drop a commitment to independence, at this time, when the probability of losing a referendum on independence is quite slim.
If people in Scotland are so excited by the prospect of a federation with the rest of the UK, why aren't they voting for the LibDems in extravagent numbers (given that federalism is one of their policies)?
|
IF Convenor
|
If the SNP drops the commitment to independence it ceases to exist. Even Aventinian can see that!
|
Dave Coull
|
Iain McWhirter wrote about a referendum on independence " There was certainly no demand for one in Scotland ". That is, quite simply, untrue. While opinion polls have shown that around fifty four percent of Scots would vote for independence in a referendum, polls have ALSO consistently shown, over a period of several years, a far higher percentage , between seventy and eighty percent, in favour of HOLDING
a referendum on independence, regardless of how people would vote
in that referendum. It was because of this consistently high support
for HOLDING a referendum that Independence First, the single-issue, non-party-political campaign for a referendum on independence for Scotland, was formed in February 2005. Then on the 26th of June 2006, we delivered our demand for a referendum on independence to the British government, through Gordon Brown's colleague Douglas Alexander,
the Secretary of State for Scotland, who was told that our letter
was addressed "through you, to all of your colleagues" (that is, his Government colleagues), and he was asked to bring this to his colleagues attention, which we have to assume he did. On the same day, 26/6/06, we delivered this same demand to First Minister Jack McConnell, again, "bring this to the attention of all of your colleagues" , so both Labour
and Liberal Democrat members of the Executive know about our demand. We also launched an electronic petition to the Scottish parliament asking them to ensure that steps were taken to meet this popular demand. Then on 30th September, our campaign organised a march through Edinburgh
to a rally at the Scottish parliament, where representatives of the SNP,
Green Party, SSP, and Solidarity all spoke in favour of our demand, as
did Independent MSPs and others. We are currently planning for more demonstrations in support of our demand throughout 2007, both before AND after the Scottish elections in May. I am pretty sure that Gordon Brown will be well aware of all this, even if Iain MacWhirter isn't.
|
Aventinian
|
| IF Convenor wrote: | | If the SNP drops the commitment to independence it ceases to exist. Even Aventinian can see that! |
I certainly don't think so. If it became federalist, I think it'd get on quite alright. Anyway, we're not suggesting they drop the commitment, just that they pass up on it for the duration of a parliament in order to form an Executive. Because otherwise, they simply won't.
Either way, they won't get a referendum, so why not?
| Mctosh45 wrote: | | Any coalition partner (Libdems)will have to recognise this and would be foolish not to accommodate them on this issue and risk the ire of the Scottish electorate in future elections. |
The only ire the Lib Dems would risk is from breaking a solid promise made before the election: that they would not go into coalition with the Nats. The difference is that they can honour this after the election, the SNP cannot honour its policy of a referendum because it will not control that many seats.
|
Aventinian
|
| Economist wrote: | | On the issue of independence, they'll get a great deal of loyalty from the Socialists and Greens, who both support Scottish independence (haven't the Greens and SNP been in talks about supporting a coalition?). |
That's not how I see if whenever you have a Green and an SNP politician fighting it out on Newsnight. They actually seem very hostile to one-another.
As for the Socialists, I doubt they'll ever get into bed with anybody.
| Quote: | | At this time, with independence being so high up the agenda, and the fact most people in Scotland and England want rid of the Union, it would be absolute madness to drop a commitment to independence, at this time, when the probability of losing a referendum on independence is quite slim. |
I don't think this is quite getting through: there is literally no possibility of a referendum bill going through the Scottish Parliament after 2007. The SNP must know that, and to be honest I think they do. The Lib Dems will not fold on that point: they'd rather be back in with Labour or even just go it alone.
| Quote: | | If people in Scotland are so excited by the prospect of a federation with the rest of the UK, why aren't they voting for the LibDems in extravagent numbers (given that federalism is one of their policies)? |
I didn't say they were, I suggested it as a sensible and realistic compromise the SNP would be wise to consider.
|
azzuri
|
| Aventinian wrote: | | Economist wrote: | | On the issue of independence, they'll get a great deal of loyalty from the Socialists and Greens, who both support Scottish independence (haven't the Greens and SNP been in talks about supporting a coalition?). |
That's not how I see if whenever you have a Green and an SNP politician fighting it out on Newsnight. They actually seem very hostile to one-another.
As for the Socialists, I doubt they'll ever get into bed with anybody.
| Quote: | | At this time, with independence being so high up the agenda, and the fact most people in Scotland and England want rid of the Union, it would be absolute madness to drop a commitment to independence, at this time, when the probability of losing a referendum on independence is quite slim. |
I don't think this is quite getting through: there is literally no possibility of a referendum bill going through the Scottish Parliament after 2007. The SNP must know that, and to be honest I think they do. The Lib Dems will not fold on that point: they'd rather be back in with Labour or even just go it alone.
| Quote: | | If people in Scotland are so excited by the prospect of a federation with the rest of the UK, why aren't they voting for the LibDems in extravagent numbers (given that federalism is one of their policies)? |
I didn't say they were, I suggested it as a sensible and realistic compromise the SNP would be wise to consider. |
Why exactly would they be wise to consider a policy which contradicts the entire reason for the party to exist? The whole brand of the party lies in Independence. The message of Independence and the SNP are intertwined, therefore to compromise only weakens the SNP as people no longer understand what their main aim is, the 'brand' of the party so to speak. This will only weaken the SNP and the Independence movement in the long run, of that there is no doubt.
I would rather a stronger SNP in opposition sticking to their principles and shouting down an ever-weakened 'executive' of liars and hypocrites, than a compromised SNP diluting the Independence message and therefore discrediting it.
|
Dave Coull
|
Aventinian wrote (about the SNP and a referendum)
> we're not suggesting they drop the commitment, just that
> they pass up on it for the duration of a parliament in order
> to form an Executive.
In other words, that they put the perks of being in government
before their principles. The trouble is, your suggestion that they
"would get on quite alright", if they did this, ignores the existence
of Independence First, the single-issue, non-party-political,
campaign for a referendum on independence for Scotland.
Our campaign will be holding demonstrations and keeping
up the pressure for our demand and generally making
life difficult for politicians who think they can ignore us.
> there is literally no possibility of a referendum bill
> going through the Scottish Parliament after 2007.
History is littered with things that actually happened which
some source-of-wisdom-until-they-were-proved-wrong
said could not happen.
> The Lib Dems will not fold on that point
You talk as if the Lib Dems were united on a matter of principle.
They are not. They will be coming under increasing pressure
from our campaign that to resist the non-party-political demand
for a referendum is neither liberal nor democratic. Some
are already showing signs of coming round to agreeing
with this, and we have scarcely even begun to
put on the pressure. Just a small minority of
Lib-Dems, at present, it's true, but that will
change.
Azzuri wrote
> The message of Independence and the SNP are intertwined,
> therefore to compromise only weakens the SNP as
> people no longer understand what their main aim is,
> the 'brand' of the party so to speak.
The histories of several countries, in several continents,
suggest that politicians and parties who compromise
on their goal of national independence tend to be superseded
by other politicians and/or other parties presenting
themselves (whether honestly or not) as being more
firmly committed to independence. Certainly, once
such countries become independent, their history
books tend not to be kind to those who were
prepared to compromise the aim of independence.
> This will only weaken the SNP and the Independence
> movement in the long run, of that there is no doubt.
In the long run the Independence movement will succeed,
even if the SNP should be weakened. Any SNP politician
who might be thinking of compromising over a referendum
on independence had better ask themselves this
question : do I really want to be part of a government
facing growing extra-parliamentary opposition,
AND a possible investigation by the U.N.
for resisting demands for a democratic
referendum on self-determination?
> I would rather a stronger SNP in opposition sticking to
> their principles and shouting down an ever-weakened
> 'executive' of liars and hypocrites, than a compromised
> SNP diluting the Independence message
This is not only the more principled position, it is also,
even in the medium-term, never mind the long-term,
more practical politics than Aventinian's fantasy.
|
IF Convenor
|
| Aventinian wrote: | | IF Convenor wrote: | | If the SNP drops the commitment to independence it ceases to exist. Even Aventinian can see that! |
I certainly don't think so. If it became federalist, I think it'd get on quite alright. Anyway, we're not suggesting they drop the commitment, just that they pass up on it for the duration of a parliament in order to form an Executive. Because otherwise, they simply won't.
Either way, they won't get a referendum, so why not?
| Mctosh45 wrote: | | Any coalition partner (Libdems)will have to recognise this and would be foolish not to accommodate them on this issue and risk the ire of the Scottish electorate in future elections. |
The only ire the Lib Dems would risk is from breaking a solid promise made before the election: that they would not go into coalition with the Nats. The difference is that they can honour this after the election, the SNP cannot honour its policy of a referendum because it will not control that many seats. |
So your logic dictates that the SNP can drop its core policy and see an improvement in its fortunes (even though it would guarantee that every activist who is currently a member would resign in disgust as would the vast majority of all its members) but the Lib Dems would be subjected to ire for breaking a pre-election promise.
Two questions for you Aventinian; who are the "we" you refer to in your post, and how's the weather on your planet?
|
billalba
|
Aventinian - If the SNP decided to go the federalist route..I would then be voting for any political party that went for independence...
|
Aventinian
|
| Dave Coull wrote: | | In other words, that they put the perks of being in government before their principles. |
I don't think government is by any means a matter of 'perks'. If one believes in a political party, then surely one wants its policies to influence government? This is the first and possibly the last chance the SNP may ever have to show the electorate it is competent and to end the Labour hegemony in Scotland.
| Quote: | The trouble is, your suggestion that they
"would get on quite alright", if they did this, ignores the existence
of Independence First, the single-issue, non-party-political,
campaign for a referendum on independence for Scotland.
Our campaign will be holding demonstrations and keeping
up the pressure for our demand and generally making
life difficult for politicians who think they can ignore us. |
I genuinely don't intend to be offensive in this comment, but you have a very high opinion of your group if you really think it's any sort of concern for the SNP.
| Quote: | > there is literally no possibility of a referendum bill
> going through the Scottish Parliament after 2007.
History is littered with things that actually happened which
some source-of-wisdom-until-they-were-proved-wrong
said could not happen. |
So you're sticking all your chips on one number and waiting for the spin...
> The Lib Dems will not fold on that point
| Quote: | that to resist the non-party-political demand
for a referendum is neither liberal nor democratic. |
I think it is very liberal and very democratic - perhaps too much on those fronts. Then again, I seem to be one of the few people in the world outside of my own university who actually has any understanding of what those terms really mean.
| Quote: | The histories of several countries, in several continents,
suggest that politicians and parties who compromise
on their goal of national independence tend to be superseded
by other politicians and/or other parties presenting
themselves (whether honestly or not) as being more
firmly committed to independence. Certainly, once
such countries become independent, their history
books tend not to be kind to those who were
prepared to compromise the aim of independence. |
That's basically an argument for fundamentalism!
| Quote: | AND a possible investigation by the U.N.
for resisting demands for a democratic
referendum on self-determination? |
Point 1: As if. This is Britain, not some tin pot little African country, to use the Yes, Minister technical terminology.
Point 2: There is no international legal basis which demands democracy, and certainly not direct democracy. Or for that matter, secession, nationalism, and so forth.
I mean really...
|
Aventinian
|
Most Liberals aren't particularly committed to their party, they're simply hovering between Labour and the Tories.
There is no other truly Nationalist party aside from the SNP. If they went federalist, at least for a period, I don't think many of their voters would desert them, and they might gain a few. I was watching Newsnight in Alex Salmond's prospective new constituency recently, and people were saying that Scottish independence was the sticking point for them, but otherwise they consider him a decent sort.
Federalism is the middle way.
| billalba wrote: | | Aventinian - If the SNP decided to go the federalist route..I would then be voting for any political party that went for independence... |
And to be honest, I don't think the majority of the SNP's support would do the same. You are, after all, pretty much on the extreme fundamentalist wing of that group. Most people are quite normal and liberal about such things and appreciate a bit of realpolitik. If they think Labour are failing on hospitals, schools etc, then what else are they going to do except support the SNP - federalist or fully independentist.
|
Economist
|
| Aventinian wrote: | Most Liberals aren't particularly committed to their party, they're simply hovering between Labour and the Tories.
There is no other truly Nationalist party aside from the SNP. If they went federalist, at least for a period, I don't think many of their voters would desert them, and they might gain a few. I was watching Newsnight in Alex Salmond's prospective new constituency recently, and people were saying that Scottish independence was the sticking point for them, but otherwise they consider him a decent sort.
Federalism is the middle way.
| billalba wrote: | | Aventinian - If the SNP decided to go the federalist route..I would then be voting for any political party that went for independence... |
And to be honest, I don't think the majority of the SNP's support would do the same. You are, after all, pretty much on the extreme fundamentalist wing of that group. Most people are quite normal and liberal about such things and appreciate a bit of realpolitik. If they think Labour are failing on hospitals, schools etc, then what else are they going to do except support the SNP - federalist or fully independentist. |
I think you are extremely naive Aventinian if you think the core support of the SNP will just take to the SNP ditching their core policy of independence. Certainly, I believe there are different strands of thinking in the party on about the speed of independence, but if the SNP did adopt some kind of federalist pretention, it would just be a stop gap tactic towards independence.
Federalism may be the middle way between where we are now and full independence, but in reality you know, as well as I do, the United Kingdom would never survive the structural upheaval required to construct a Federalist state out of the current unitary one we have now. It would take far less a cut to destroy the United Kingdom with federation than it would in the current state. Given such an unbalanced federation (with a component part 10 times the size of us) why should the good people of England acquiesce to it when it would take so little for them to do everything on their own.
The closest approximation we have to this is Belgium, which reconstituted itself as a federal state in 1993, partly to try and ameliorate separatist tension in Flanders and Wallonia. You won't be surprised to know separatist tension in Belgium only increased after that.
Federalism after all, is an especially poor form of government with different governmental structures trying to control different aspects of peoples' lives with different competencies. In Scotland, we'd be in no better a position than we are now. The first way to cut down on the over governance of Scotland is to get rid of the chain of Westminster round Scotland's neck and work from there.
|
Highlander
|
| Quote: | | The first way to cut down on the over governance of Scotland is to get rid of the chain of Westminster round Scotland's neck and work from there. |
You made a little mistake there. I think you mean Holyrood instead of Westminster.
|
macnumpty
|
Didn't you claim that garye agreed with you when you suggested that he was arguing for the status quo in the Referendum thread? On this thread you're arguing for the clock to be turned back by eight years.
|
Economist
|
| Highlander wrote: | | Quote: | | The first way to cut down on the over governance of Scotland is to get rid of the chain of Westminster round Scotland's neck and work from there. |
You made a little mistake there. I think you mean Holyrood instead of Westminster. |
No, I meant Westminster - the Parliament with decreasing relevance to Scotland.
|
IF Convenor
|
| Aventinian wrote: | | If they think Labour are failing on hospitals, schools etc, then what else are they going to do except support the SNP - federalist or fully independentist. |
So now you have completely undercut your own argument. If you believe the anti-Labour vote has no choice but to support the SNP regardless of whether it is federalist or fully independentist what would be the point of the SNP completely reinventing itself as a federalist party and risking losing its core support? Several people have pointed out what it stands to lose by going federalist, but what does it stand to gain?
|
Highlander
|
| Quote: | | Didn't you claim that garye agreed with you when you suggested that he was arguing for the status quo in the Referendum thread? On this thread you're arguing for the clock to be turned back by eight years. |
Status quo regarding being in the state of U.K., I never asked the question about revoking that daft "parliament" in Edinburgh. For that question I would not stick with the status quo.
|
macnumpty
|
I'm sorry, but how many stati quo are there? As many as you need there to be to suit your arguments?
|
Highlander
|
| Quote: | | I'm sorry, but how many stati quo are there? |
I think you will find that there are many, nearly as many as there are questions.
|
Babygael
|
Hahahahahahhah,erm highlander!! Ye are a fekin disgrace!!
In fact, I shouldn't even associate you with those heros of old !!
ALBA GU BRATH!! End of story!!
|
Aventinian
|
| Economist wrote: | | Highlander wrote: |
You made a little mistake there. I think you mean Holyrood instead of Westminster. |
No, I meant Westminster - the Parliament with decreasing relevance to Scotland. |
I think the relevance of Holyrood has decreased every year since it was formed. And it's certainly a chain around everyone's neck. I believe in reform rather than removal though.
Meanwhile Westminster is where everyone is concentrating: matters like immigration, war and defence, gun law, the EU etc. All very relevant.
|
Babygael
|
You say it so nkcely IF..  
|
Economist
|
| Aventinian wrote: | | Economist wrote: | | Highlander wrote: |
You made a little mistake there. I think you mean Holyrood instead of Westminster. |
No, I meant Westminster - the Parliament with decreasing relevance to Scotland. |
I think the relevance of Holyrood has decreased every year since it was formed. And it's certainly a chain around everyone's neck. I believe in reform rather than removal though.
Meanwhile Westminster is where everyone is concentrating: matters like immigration, war and defence, gun law, the EU etc. All very relevant. |
I hardly think so, Aventinian, given that Holyrood, is actually acquiring more powers behind the scenes. As evidence shows people in Scotland look to the Scottish Parliament to defend their interests now, and not Westminster.
You do realise that I want matters like immigration, defence, foreign affairs, gun law, the EU etc devolved to the Scottish Parliament. There's no good reasons why any of these things cannot be devolved to the Scottish Parliament 
|
Economist
|
| Babygael wrote: | Hahahahahahhah,erm highlander!! Ye are a fekin disgrace!!
In fact, I shouldn't even associate you with those heros of old !!
ALBA GU BRATH!! End of story!! |
He's just a troll.
|
billalba
|
Aventian...I dont think Im on the extreme of anything...why would anyone vote for the SNP if it wasnt about independence...
If independence wasnt on the cards I would be voting labour, tory or greens etc..
Or do you mean that I am on the extreme wing of the independence movement because I want our country to be independent??
|
Aventinian
|
| Economist wrote: | | I hardly think so, Aventinian, given that Holyrood, is actually acquiring more powers behind the scenes. |
Of course it is, being that it is only seven years old. That was predictable, doesn't mean it makes them relevant.
| Quote: | | As evidence shows people in Scotland look to the Scottish Parliament to defend their interests now, and not Westminster. |
Really? Most people I know still seem to approach their MP on matters of concern.
| Quote: | | You do realise that I want matters like immigration, defence, foreign affairs, gun law, the EU etc devolved to the Scottish Parliament. There's no good reasons why any of these things cannot be devolved to the Scottish Parliament |
Well in the context of an independent country, yes. In the context of being part of a wider country, then there are plenty of good reasons why not. Equally things like gun law in England will always impact Scotland - we have a land border.
|
SLG
|
| Aventinian wrote: | | Really? Most people I know still seem to approach their MP on matters of concern. |
Well then their MP should most likely be redirecting them to their MSP or councilor. I would expect more concerns raised in an MPs surgery are those where powers are devolved or for which the council is responsible.
|
Aventinian
|
| SLG wrote: | | Well then their MP should most likely be redirecting them to their MSP or councilor. I would expect more concerns raised in an MPs surgery are those where powers are devolved or for which the council is responsible. |
True, to quote Boris Johnson, the MP's surgery is the clearing house for the woes of the world. Still, there's something that's very relevant to everyday society, even if it is redirected (in fact, I believe they tend to fight the corner of their constituent rather than simply redirect matters, my former MP for example had some words with the local council on my behalf over a planning issue once upon a time).
|
|
|
|