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.
|
Dave Coull
|
Referendum and ElectionApart from a casual visitor or anybody new to this forum, most folk reading this will know that I regard a referendum on independence for Scotland as being a matter of democratic self-determination, regardless of which way the people of Scotland vote in that referendum. I was in favour of such a referendum being held without delay when Jack McConnell was First Minister, and I continued to be in favour of this when Alex Salmond became First Minister. The present Scottish government says it now intends to put legislation for a referendum before Holyrood. If I have understood their intentions correctly, the timetable would be for this legislation to be put to the parliament sometime in January, then subsequently debated, and voted on, and, if the legislation is passed (by no means certain, but by no means impossible either) then there would be the referendum campaign, with "pro-" and "anti-" campaigns, and the actual referendum taking place in November. If I have misunderstood the projected timetable in any way, it would be helpful if somebody would point this out. For now, I'm working on the assumption this is the projected timetable.
In a referendum, the voters just answer a question. In doing so, they don't elect any politician, and they don't support any political party. A general election is a very different matter, and a Westminster general election (not one for Holyrood) is coming up. If I understand it correctly (and again, if I haven't, it would be helpful for somebody to point this out) there has to be one by June 2010. The consensus appears to be that early May 2010 is most likely, to coincide with the English local council elections. But in actual fact, under the weird and antiquated Westminster rules, the prime minister could call an election anytime. However, an election this side of Christmas seems unlikely. In practice we're probably talking about the Spring of next year.
Members of political parties will of course get quite excited over the election. At present, it looks like the Tories will win quite decisively in England, but with scarcely any Scottish representation. However, as the Labour Party does appear to be beginning to put up more of a fight, there could be the possibility of a "hung" parliament, in which no party has an overall majority. The chances are still that the Tories will be the largest single party.
But regardless of how that Westminster general election turns out, the holding of a non-party-political referendum in Scotland is a separate matter, and should proceed as planned. I know I have linked these two things together in the heading of this topic, but only because they will be connected in the minds of many politicians. What I am actually saying is that the the two things are separate, and that, since the election is not the referendum, it makes no difference if this party gets more MPs than that party etc. The referendum should proceed regardless.
|
landg
|
yes, there will be an election for our UK governement.
no, there will not be referendum on indepedence as it will not be passed.
|
Mctosh45
|
landg,
Big mistake by the unionist parties in denying the Scottish electorate their say on Scotland's constitutional/political future via a referendum, don't you think? 
Especially considering when asked, consistently 70/80% say they want one.
Also consider the Scottish Parliamentary elections' in 2011, Unionist parties may pay(and rightly) a heavy price for their undemocratic stance  
|
Dave Coull
|
Re: Referendum and Election | landg wrote: | | there will not be referendum on indepedence as it will not be passed. |
A pointless assertion to make, unless you can produce anything to back it up, and, so far, you have always failed to do so. Sure, you might turn out to be right; but, on the other hand, you might turn out to be wrong. Like I said | Quote: | | The present Scottish government says it now intends to put legislation for a referendum before Holyrood |
and, given that an actual vote on the issue by MSPs now looks like a virtual certainty, it remains to be seen how MSPs will vote when the time comes. Yes, the Tories are maintaining their opposition to a referendum IN PRINCIPLE - but even they have several dissidents in their ranks on this issue. The Labour Party are apparently not opposed to a referendum in principle, but are saying "this is not the right time" - a strange position to take, given that Gordon Brown apparently thinks it a good time for a referendum on changing the voting system for Westminster. It remains to be seen what the Labour MSPs will do when legislation is put to the vote in three or four months' time. They have said they "will not support" a referendum, but note that does NOT rule out the possibility of abstention. As for the Lib Dems, they are officially "reviewing" their options, and I don't think even THEY know today what they will do in a few months' time. Like I have said, my concern is with what happens | Quote: | | IF the legislation is passed |
- an eventuality which, like I also said, is | Quote: | | by no means certain, but by no means impossible either |
and my point is that REGARDLESS of how a party political election for Westminster turns out, the holding of a non-party-political referendum in Scotland is a completely separate matter, and should proceed on that basis.
|
landg
|
even in the unlikely event on a vote on independence it will be a big FAT NO. this is evidenced by 60-70% of the scottish voters voting for pro-union parties.
there is no great appetite for independence.
|
Stevie
|
| landg wrote: | yes, there will be an election for our UK governement.
no, there will not be referendum on indepedence as it will not be passed. |
I don't consider it to be so much 'our' as foisted upon...
It's remarkable that you have such a clear cloudless crystal ball, when one makes such statements one can have egg on the face.
|
Aventinian
|
| Mctosh45 wrote: | Big mistake by the unionist parties in denying the Scottish electorate their say on Scotland's constitutional/political future via a referendum, don't you think?
Especially considering when asked, consistently 70/80% say they want one. |
Nope. 70-odd percent may say they want one in a poll - as indeed they would say on a huge number of issues - that doesn't mean it is of any concern to them whatsoever, it is just a mild preference.
| Quote: | | Also consider the Scottish Parliamentary elections' in 2011, Unionist parties may pay(and rightly) a heavy price for their undemocratic stance |
Quite the contrary, I suspect. The SNP will make a big thing about it at the Scottish Parliamentary elections and in doing so make their least popular policy the central part of their manifesto. They'll be the ones paying a price, for their own obsessions.
|
Holebender
|
If 70+% say they want a referendum, how can it be the SNP's least popular policy? Their other policies must be very popular indeed!
|
Reluctant Hero
|
Wonder if there will be any further information about the referendum announced at the SNP Party conference this week?
|
Shagpile
|
| landg wrote: | even in the unlikely event on a vote on independence it will be a big FAT NO. this is evidenced by 60-70% of the scottish voters voting for pro-union parties.
there is no great appetite for independence. |
Cool...... you're in favour of a referendum then!!!!! Magic, another enlightened unionist  all we have to do now is win round Aventinian and it's a done deal. 
|
Dave Coull
|
| landg wrote: | | even in the unlikely event on a vote on independence it will be a big FAT NO. |
Maybe, maybe not. I'm betting not; while you, despite expressing meaningless bravado, have declined to place a real bet. | landg wrote: | | this is evidenced by 60-70% of the scottish voters voting for pro-union parties |
Even if true, that is pretty unreliable "evidence". People vote for political parties for all sorts of reasons which have got absolutely nothing to do with Union or Independence. For instance, some vote because Winston Churchill won the Second World War and he was a Tory (well, some of the time, anyway). Some vote because they think there should be no such thing as compassionate release of terminally ill prisoners (even though all of the political parties actually agree on this). Or because they think Gordon Brown is an economics genius. (There must be some.) Or because they don't like the look of Alex Salmond's smirking mug. Or because they think Ian Gray is sexy. Oh, okay, maybe not that last one. But you get the point. Folk vote for politicians, and for political parties, for all sorts of reasons, and sometimes for some very odd reasons, and they vote for them EVEN THOUGH THEY DISAGREE WITH THEM about some other things. Besides, it's an established fact that there are SOME Labour voters who favour independence (and who would presumably want a Labour government running an independent Scotland), it's an established fact that there are SOME LibDem voters who favour independence (and who would presumably want a LibDem government running an independent Scotland), it's even an established fact that there are SOME Tory voters who favour independence (and who would presumably want a Tory government running an independent Scotland). We could argue about "how many" of each of these categories there are, but what's the point? I am happy to wait and see how many. (Of course, there might also be some SNP voters who would get cold feet and vote AGAINST independence: again, I am happy to wait and see.)
Therefore, no, political party voting is not a good indicator of how a non-party-political referendum will go.
|
Holebender
|
http://news.scotsman.com/latestne...dum-will-be-main-issue.5730019.jp
|
Dave Coull
|
The Scotsman newspaper today has a story with the headline "Referendum will be main issue at 2011 election, says Salmond" - but if you read the story beneath that headline, it turns out Salmond actually said something significantly different from what the headline claims. | Quote: | | the First Minister made clear that even IF his referendum bill was not passed at Holyrood early next year, it would be brought back centre stage in the 2011 campaign |
Note that these are the words, not of Alex Salmond, but of Gerri Peev, a reporter for the Scotsman, yet that reporter has to include a very big "if" which rather undermines the assertion in the headline inserted by the Scotsman editorial staff. The actual quote from Salmond in the article indicates the FM thinks there is quite a good chance the referendum legislation might be passed. | Quote: | | "Although there is stated opposition and currently a stated majority against the referendum bill, there is no doubt that there is the possibility that the situation will change," he said |
and the few months until the Scottish Parliament actually votes on the referendum legislation could be plenty of time for the more thoughtful individual MSPs to consider their situation, plenty of time for the LibDems to review their position some more, and might even be enough time for a sixth leader of Labour MSPs to emerge.
|
Ultra
|
| Dave Coull wrote: | | Note that these are the words, not of Alex Salmond, but of Gerri Peev, a reporter for the Scotsman |
Really?
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news...-of-next-election-86908-21745787/
That will be that pesky unionist media mis-qutoing Salmond again....
|
Dave Coull
|
| I wrote: | | Note that these are the words, not of Alex Salmond, but of Gerri Peev, a reporter for the Scotsman |
| Ultra wrote: | | that pesky unionist media mis-quoting Salmond again |
Wrong. I didn't mention anything about "misquoting". As I clearly explained, it's a case of the words they actually quoted him as saying not matching up with the headline the editorial staff chose to use.
|
Ultra
|
| Dave Coull wrote: | | I wrote: | | Note that these are the words, not of Alex Salmond, but of Gerri Peev, a reporter for the Scotsman |
| Ultra wrote: | | that pesky unionist media mis-quoting Salmond again |
Wrong. I didn't mention anything about "misquoting". As I clearly explained, it's a case of the words they actually quoted him as saying not matching up with the headline the editorial staff chose to use. |
So why does the article not match the headline of the article?
In both articles Salmond is stating that the independence referendum debate will be a main issue in the next elections. I don't disagree with that and that is what the headline in the Scotman article says. Same with the Daily Record article.
|
Holebender
|
There is a conditional statement (the use of the "if" word) which is not in the headlines.
|
Dave Coull
|
The Daily Record's story is more accurate than the one in the Scotsman. | Quote: | | The First Minister said he still hoped Labour, the Tories and Lib Dems would drop their opposition to a nationwide poll. |
| Quote: | | "There are indications that opposition to the referendum is weakening and I'm hopeful the parliament will pass the legislation" |
|
Ultra
|
| Holebender wrote: | | There is a conditional statement (the use of the "if" word) which is not in the headlines. |
Why? Won't the parties still be talking about the referendum IF it takes place come the Holyrood elections?
Sounds like Salmond will just keep presenting the referendum bill each new Parliamentary session until he eventually does get it through.
|
Dave Coull
|
| Ultra wrote: | | In both articles Salmond is stating that the independence referendum debate will be a main issue in the next elections. |
WRONG.
The Daily Record article says no such thing.
I suggest you read the Record headline again. If you see the word "referendum" there, I suggest you consult your optician.
|
Holebender
|
Guess what? It's a central policy of the SNP so it is bound to feature in any SNP manifesto until such time as a party conference changes the policy. Political parties have a habit of producing manifestos which reflect their policies.
If Scotland's voters return enough SNP MSPs to form an administration they can hardly be surprised if that administration makes strenuous efforts to get its manifesto pledges through parliament.
Indeed, I imagine the parties will be talking about the referendum if it takes place before the election, but in an entirely different way; there will be no point in arguing for or against holding one, or even for or against the result, as those things will have been decided. The only thing left to discuss will be how best to put the will of the electorate into action.
|
Dave Coull
|
| Ultra wrote: | | Won't the parties still be talking about the referendum IF it takes place come the Holyrood elections? |
The present debate is about WHETHER there should be a referendum. Clearly IF the legislation is passed, and the referendum goes ahead in 2010, then, at the 2011 Scottish Parliament election, nobody will be talking about WHETHER to hold a referendum. They'll be talking about the consequences of the referendum result, but that's a very different matter.
|
Ultra
|
| Holebender wrote: | Guess what? It's a central policy of the SNP so it is bound to feature in any SNP manifesto until such time as a party conference changes the policy. Political parties have a habit of producing manifestos which reflect their policies.
If Scotland's voters return enough SNP MSPs to form an administration they can hardly be surprised if that administration makes strenuous efforts to get its manifesto pledges through parliament.
Indeed, I imagine the parties will be talking about the referendum if it takes place before the election, but in an entirely different way; there will be no point in arguing for or against holding one, or even for or against the result, as those things will have been decided. The only thing left to discuss will be how best to put the will of the electorate into action. |
Yes indeed.
Much better to have a discussion on the merits of the article itself than spending too much time digesting the headline.
I don't know why the political parties in Scotland don't just decide to let the voters decide one way or another. All this referendum will it won't it happen is rather tiresome. Chances are more of a de-stabilizing effect than the vote would be itself.
|
Ultra
|
| Dave Coull wrote: | | Ultra wrote: | | Won't the parties still be talking about the referendum IF it takes place come the Holyrood elections? |
The present debate is about WHETHER there should be a referendum. Clearly IF the legislation is passed, and the referendum goes ahead in 2010, then, at the 2011 Scottish Parliament election, nobody will be talking about WHETHER to hold a referendum. They'll be talking about the consequences of the referendum result, but that's a very different matter. |
Is this a long winded way of saying the parties would still be taking about the referendum then? 
|
Aventinian
|
| Holebender wrote: | | If 70+% say they want a referendum, how can it be the SNP's least popular policy? Their other policies must be very popular indeed! |
Independence is their least popular policy. As for statistics like that, as I said above they're completely deceptive. Someone may have a mild preference for such a thing rather than a raving obsession as most on this forum have, yet it seems the latter assume that the former are somehow in their camp. They are not.
Referendums are generally popular, but generally there's little to lose by not having one.
Anyway, considering the articles posted from today's papers, the SNP seem to playing right into Labour's hands.
|
Alasdair
|
| Aventinian wrote: | | Anyway, considering the articles posted from today's papers, the SNP seem to playing right into Labour's hands. |
But that would be to suggest that, other than screaming nonsense, Labour have some kind of strategy. As to their hands, aren't they being sold off as the asset stripping moves up a gear?
|
Dave Coull
|
| Ultra wrote: | | Is this a long winded way of saying the parties would still be taking about the referendum |
No. There might be discussion of how efforts to put the intention of the people, as expressed through a non-party-political referendum six months earlier, into practice, are proceeding, and there might be discussion about how these efforts might be improved. However, as Holebender says, | Quote: | | there will be no point in arguing for or against holding one, or even for or against the result, as those things will have been decided. |
And since Alex Salmond said | Quote: | | There are indications that opposition to the referendum is weakening and I'm hopeful the parliament will pass the legislation |
he is clearly thinking there's a good chance the legislation will pass and we really will have a referendum in 2010. That being so, the Daily Record's headline | Quote: | | Alex Salmond vows to put INDEPENDENCE DEBATE at heart of next election |
would be accurate whether it refers to a referendum, or whether it refers to debating the progress of negotiations on independence. However, unlike the Daily Record headline, the Scotsman headline | Quote: | | REFERENDUM will be main issue at 2011 election, says Salmond |
is inaccurate.
|
Alasdair
|
| Dave Coull wrote: | And since Alex Salmond said | Quote: | | There are indications that opposition to the referendum is weakening and I'm hopeful the parliament will pass the legislation |
he is clearly thinking there's a good chance the legislation will pass and we really will have a referendum in 2010. |
I'd guess he's hoping the lib dem position will change following their one day summit on the issue at the end of the month, I don't think he should hold his breath though.
|
Dave Coull
|
I wrote | Quote: | since Alex Salmond said | Quote: | | There are indications that opposition to the referendum is weakening and I'm hopeful the parliament will pass the legislation |
he is clearly thinking there's a good chance the legislation will pass and we really will have a referendum in 2010. |
| Alasdair wrote: | | I'd guess he's hoping the lib dem position will change following their one day summit on the issue at the end of the month |
I remember Maggie Thatcher saying " U TURN if you like - but I won't! " - shortly before she did, in fact, perform a U-turn. I know that even the most intransigent of politicians can be persuaded to change, if not their minds, then at least their positions, and Scott Tavish shouldn't be as difficult to persuade as Maggie was. Still, I don't know Alex Salmond, but I doubt very much if his "indications that opposition to the referendum is weakening" are based solely on a one day LibDem "summit" this month. For myself I would say that, with three months to go until the vote in parliament on the referendum legislation, that is more than enough time for the LibDems to review their position, and then review the position their review came up with. I would also point out that there are two other significant groupings of "unionist" MSPs. It is well known that even the Tories have their dissidents on the subject of a referendum, and, as for the Labour Party, as one of their greatest leaders said, "A week is a long time in politics", so three months is an eternity. I don't believe even the Labour MSPs themselves know for certain what they will do when it comes to a vote in three months' time. But they have not ruled out abstention. My own view, as I have stated often enough, is that there ought to be a free vote, without any wielding of whips to enforce the party line. I think if enough people make enough of a public issue of a free vote, then we will get one, and I think that, if there was a genuinely free vote, the referendum would be passed.
|
landg
|
a central policy that the brilliant alex salmond may or may act upon or may or may not speak about.
how cool is that?
|
Holebender
|
| landg wrote: | | a central policy that the brilliant alex salmond may or may act upon or may or may not speak about. |
How incoherent is that?
Is there any chance of you locating the shift key on your keyboard any time soon?
|
landg
|
| Holebender wrote: | | landg wrote: | | a central policy that the brilliant alex salmond may or may act upon or may or may not speak about. |
Is there any chance of you locating the shift key on your keyboard any time soon? |
no.
it's a f***ing internet forum not some piece of academia or well constructed novel. get over it.
a central policy that the brilliant alex salmond may or may NOT act upon or may or may not speak about.
there i've added the NOT to help you understand better.
|
Holebender
|
There's certainly no chance of a well constructed novel, or even argument, out of you, is there?
|
landg
|
| Holebender wrote: | | There's certainly no chance of a well constructed novel, or even argument, out of you, is there? |
oh my.
more likely than mr. salmond saying the r word.
|
Dave Coull
|
| Holebender wrote: | | no chance of a well constructed novel, or even argument, out of you |
| landg wrote: | | more likely than mr. salmond saying the r word. |
Referendum? He has been saying that word so much, the unionist parties are complaining they are sick of hearing it from him. Do you inhabit some other Earth-type-planet in some parallel universe where this is not the case? That would make a good story, pity you can't write about it. For the reason given by Holebender.
|
landg
|
| Dave Coull wrote: | | Holebender wrote: | | no chance of a well constructed novel, or even argument, out of you |
| landg wrote: | | more likely than mr. salmond saying the r word. |
Referendum? He has been saying that word so much, the unionist parties are complaining they are sick of hearing it from him. Do you inhabit some other Earth-type-planet in some parallel universe where this is not the case? That would make a good story, pity you can't write about it. For the reason given by Holebender. |
you really need to read more threads on here.
|
Stevie
|
| landg wrote: | a central policy that the brilliant alex salmond may or may act upon or may or may not speak about.
how cool is that? |
And of course, you are brilliant.
This may or may be the case or may or may not be the case.
If we all write like this, then argument, discourse and general mayhem will quickly come to a close.
He may be onto something...
|
landg
|
| Stevie wrote: | | landg wrote: | a central policy that the brilliant alex salmond may or may act upon or may or may not speak about.
how cool is that? |
And of course, you are brilliant.
This may or may be the case or may or may not be the case.
If we all write like this, then argument, discourse and general mayhem will quickly come to a close.
He may be onto something... |
yep, i'm an snp spin dr.
|
Stevie
|
And of course, he feels he simply must reply...
It is fun having landg to play with!
|
|
|
|