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.
 

Donate to our new server appeal.


       Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Forum Index -> Scottish News, Life and Society
Dave Coull

REFERENDUM ? BRING IT ON................

Scotsman, 16th February

REFERENDUM ? BRING  IT  ON,  SAYS  ASHDOWN

By David Maddox
Scottish Political Correspondent

THE Unionist parties in Scotland should back a referendum on independence to finish off the SNP as a political force once and for all, former Liberal Democrat leader Paddy Ashdown has claimed.

Lord Ashdown told The Scotsman that he believes his own party has got its tactics wrong in Scotland in dealing with the Nationalists. And he said that Wendy Alexander was on the right lines when she challenged First Minister Alex Salmond to "bring it on" and hold a referendum on independence.

Lord Ashdown spoke ahead of the Scottish Legal Awards next month, which he will be presenting. The former Liberal Democrat leader still believes that devolution has "killed off" attempts to break up the UK, but has argued that his own and other pro-Union parties should be more willing to take on the SNP head to head.

"This is where I do disagree with my colleagues," he said. "I don't want to criticise their tactics following the (Holyrood] election (in 2007], but let's put it like this: I would not have ruled out a referendum and I think it would have been a good time to hold it.

"The fact is that there has never been a majority for independence in Scotland. If a referendum was held, then the SNP would lose and would be finished.

"They are just playing a long game in the hope that they can persuade people to support independence by showing that they can govern competently."

He added: "In that sense, Wendy Alexander was right last year, although the circumstances when she made her argument were quite a mess."

A spokesman for the Scottish Liberal Democrats said: "Paddy Ashdown is entitled to his own views on this matter, but the Scottish party has made its position on this clear.

"At this time, people should not be focusing on an independence referendum, but rather on the recession and supporting the economy and protecting people's jobs."

Lord Ashdown is also due to publish his autobiography in April, where he intends to give his side of the inside story on the negotiations that took place behind the scenes in Westminster to push devolution through.

In it, he has claimed he stayed on as leader of the Liberal Democrats until 1999 to make sure Tony Blair saw through devolution.

"It seemed clear to me that Tony Blair was not committed to the devolution project," he said. "It is true to say that he felt some debt to the memory of John Smith (the former Labour leader] who, of course, was very committed to devolution. But I felt that Tony Blair's heart was never in it… In fact, I suspect he saw it as an irritant."
Dave Coull

Re: REFERENDUM ? BRING IT ON................

I welcome the fact that Paddy Ashdown has come round to agreeing there should be a referendum on independence for Scotland, and I welcome the fact that he says "bring it on". The sooner the better, I say. However, I think he is wrong about the likely result of such a referendum.
Quote:
there has never been a majority for independence in Scotland.
That is merely Paddy Ashdown's opinion, that's all. Nobody can say whether or not there is, or ever has been, a majority for independence, for the simple reason that there has never been a referendum. A referendum is the ONLY way of establishing whether or not there is a majority.
Quote:
If a referendum was held, then the SNP would lose and would be finished
I can see several things wrong with that statement. I think it shows a lack of understanding of Scottish reality on Ashdown's part.

(1) It is a mistake to assume that either the pro-independence campaign or the pro-independence vote in a referendum will be identical to the SNP. In actual fact, when we finally do get our referendum, there is every likelihood of quite a broadly-based pro-independence campaign.  That broadly-based message will in fact get across to the voters that they are voting for a principle; and the balance will be tipped by the significant number of people who will vote for independence, who would NOT have voted for the SNP.

(2) I think by far the most likely outcome of a referendum will be a decisive majority for independence. A less likely scenario, in my opinion, would be a NARROW victory for independence. And the least likely scenario of all, in my opinion, would be a narrow defeat for independence. If the United Kingdom survived by the skin of its teeth, it's nonsense to suggest this would "finish" either the SNP or the campaign for independence in general. Ashdown's scenario of "finishing" the SNP only applies if independence is MASSIVELY  defeated. And that is a pipe dream on Paddy's part. There is not the remotest chance of it happening.
Aventinian

The thing is, a three option referendum with the Lib Dems on board, and it would inevitably fail.

So I suppose the question is what this failure would bring about. A collapse of the SNP? I don't think so - they'll have to drop their independence commitment for the foreseeable future, and simply become a centre-left alternative to Labour. The real Nats won't desert them, and if anything it will make their pro-union voters more comfortable with them. It'll be embarrassing, sure, but I don't think it'll be deadly.

Equally, the holding of a referendum will create a precedent - a dry run for the future. Another referendum could well be held in the lifetime of Alex Salmond and his ministerial colleagues on the same grounds. I imagine that's the assumption Salmond is working on: if he fails, he probably gets a concession of more powers to the Scottish Parliament as well as a clear signal that he might be able to try again in the future.

There's really nothing for the SNP to lose here. Which is why I am, of course, against it: supporters of the Union should have realised from the creation of the Scottish Parliament that playing into the hands of people with unpleasant opinions only ever encourages them rather than destroying them.

Dave Coull wrote:
Ashdown's scenario of "finishing" the SNP only applies if independence is MASSIVELY  defeated. And that is a pipe dream on Paddy's part. There is not the remotest chance of it happening.


Except in the last poll given a three-option question, support for Scottish independence was 19%. I'd say that's pretty decisive.
Lord Pitsligo

Aventinian wrote:

There's really nothing for the SNP to lose here. Which is why I am, of course, against it: supporters of the Union should have realised from the creation of the Scottish Parliament that playing into the hands of people with unpleasant opinions only ever encourages them rather than destroying them.


Thinking its ok to refuse the will of the people because you disagree with their choice is possibly one of the most unpleasant opinions of all
Holebender

Aventinian wrote:
There's really nothing for the SNP to lose here. Which is why I am, of course, against it: supporters of the Union should have realised from the creation of the Scottish Parliament that playing into the hands of people with unpleasant opinions only ever encourages them rather than destroying them.

As you have specifically named the SNP in your paragraph about people with "unpleasant opinions" you'd better explain yourself. Tell us about these unpleasant opinions, and provide verifiable sources to back up your claims.
Lord Pitsligo

Holebender wrote:
Aventinian wrote:
There's really nothing for the SNP to lose here. Which is why I am, of course, against it: supporters of the Union should have realised from the creation of the Scottish Parliament that playing into the hands of people with unpleasant opinions only ever encourages them rather than destroying them.

As you have specifically named the SNP in your paragraph about people with "unpleasant opinions" you'd better explain yourself. Tell us about these unpleasant opinions, and provide verifiable sources to back up your claims.


He means opinions that are different to his. Shocked
Dave Coull

I have consistently been in favour of having a referendum without delay. In my view, delay sends out the wrong message. For who shall prepare himself for battle if the trumpet sound an uncertain note?  Having said that, I will, of course, welcome a referendum when we finally do get one, even if it   is  after some delay. And I think there are sound reasons for being positive about the likely result.

I think it was Chicmac who published some research, quite some time ago now, on referendums in general, not just in Scotland, and not even just in the UK if I remember correctly. If I remember correctly, Chic showed that there was a general tendency for people to be slightly, but nevertheless distinctly, more "radical" in referendums than they would be in other ways of gauging opinion. Also if I remember correctly, Chic speculated that this could be because of the "special" nature of a referendum, as compared, for instance, to a general election. Am I right about this, Chic, or have I got you confused with somebody else? Anyway, I do distinctly remember reading some research to that effect. And it makes sense to me.

In the lead up to the referendum on creating a Scottish Parliament, there were various opinion polls purporting to show that it would be "touch and go", that some regions would be hostile, or even that  it would be defeated overall. As it turned out, the victory for setting up a Scottish parliament was quite comfortable, and every region of the country voted in favour. Which, as it happens, is exactly what I personally had expected and predicted. Having proved myself a more accurate tipster than the "pessimistic" opinion polls back then, I see no reason why I should take them too seriously now.

In my view, the act of actually CALLING a referendum on independence will result in an immediate boost in support for independence. Not because a large number of people will  really have changed their minds, but simply because, for people who were, in their hearts, in favour of independence anyway, but who had felt it was probably a lost cause, actually calling the referendum will make it seem much more real and possible.

Yes, I do realise that, from YOUR point of view, Av, that is a reason for NOT calling a referendum.

The act of actually calling a referendum would in itself boost support for independence, and so would a NON - PARTY - POLITICAL campaign for a pro-independence vote in that referendum. There is sure to be at least six weeks between the referendum being called and the referendum being held, and what happens during that six+ weeks could be very significant. Of course the SNP will be campaigning for a pro-independence vote, but it is essential that there should also be a "pro-" campaign which is NOT under the control of the SNP. Such a campaign can, by its very non-party nature, reach voters who would never dream of supporting the SNP. I reckon if there is a highly visible NON-SNP campaign for a "pro-" vote, this could have the potential to reach anything from twelve to twenty four percent of the voters who won't vote SNP but who CAN be persuaded to vote for independence. And that would make all the difference between  "touch-and-go" and "settled will".

And so far as I'm concerned, the actual referendum is the ONLY poll that matters. I remain supremely confident of the outcome, and willing to place a bet on it with any Unionist who is confident the result will go the opposite way. But I don't expect any Unionist to take that bet, because, in their hearts, they have a sinking feeling I just might be right.
Dave Coull

Re: REFERENDUM ? BRING IT ON................

Quote:
Lord Ashdown is also due to publish his autobiography in April, where he intends to give his side of the inside story on the negotiations that took place behind the scenes in Westminster to push devolution through.

In it, he has claimed he stayed on as leader of the Liberal Democrats until 1999 to make sure Tony Blair saw through devolution.

"It seemed clear to me that Tony Blair was not committed to the devolution project," he said. "It is true to say that he felt some debt to the memory of John Smith (the former Labour leader] who, of course, was very committed to devolution. But I felt that Tony Blair's heart was never in it… In fact, I suspect he saw it as an irritant."
Well of course it was obvious that Blair never wanted a Scottish Parliament. But there had been a significant cross-party and non-party movement for a Scottish Parliament building up steam ever since many people in Scotland demonstrated against the 1992 election result as un-democratic. There was a Vigil, a permanent demonstration, in Edinburgh, which would only go away when there WAS a Scottish Parliament. For Labour leader John Smith, devolution was "unfinished business", and he committed the Labour Party to supporting a parliament. Smith, who had a dodgy ticker, had taken to climbing Scottish mountains (literally) and when he died of a heart attack he was buried on IONA , for goodness sake, in the burial ground reserved for Scottish kings and saints.  The relatively unknown Tony Blair, succeeding this Labour saint, found himself hemmed in, unable to go back on Smith's promise. He tried to place obstacles in the way of devolution, and, when that didn't work, he decided to make the best of a bad job, and pretend it was all HIS idea. A total lie, which set a pattern of lies for the future.

It's probably true that Paddy Ashdown was more committed to devolution than Blair was. However, if he is saying in his autobiography that it was him that pushed Blair into going ahead, I think he is exaggerating his own role. I think the big credit for pushing the project goes to those valiant souls who took part in that 24-hours-a-day, 365-days-a-year, Vigil in Edinburgh, in all sorts of weathers; and also to us part-time troops who took part in some demonstrations, lobbied MPs, etc etc. True, the demonstrations had kinda quietened down a bit  -  but only BECAUSE it looked like the politicians would go ahead with a Scottish Parliament. Blair would have faced a VERY different situation if he had dropped Smith's commitment. His time as prime minister would have been brief and stormy. And not thanks to Paddy Ashdown.
Aventinian

Lord Pitsligo wrote:
Thinking its ok to refuse the will of the people because you disagree with their choice is possibly one of the most unpleasant opinions of all


Yet I've already said that is not why I disagree with an independence referendum...

Holebender wrote:
As you have specifically named the SNP in your paragraph about people with "unpleasant opinions" you'd better explain yourself. Tell us about these unpleasant opinions, and provide verifiable sources to back up your claims.


Nationalism is unpleasant and indeed morally repugnant to me.

Lord Pitsligo wrote:
He means opinions that are different to his. Shocked


I suppose it's an order of magnitude issue, but fundamentally yes. I find national socialism repugnant and offensive; however I can disagree with things like moderate socialism without thinking remotely the same thing about it.
Aventinian

Re: REFERENDUM ? BRING IT ON................

Dave Coull wrote:
"It seemed clear to me that Tony Blair was not committed to the devolution project," he said. "It is true to say that he felt some debt to the memory of John Smith (the former Labour leader] who, of course, was very committed to devolution. But I felt that Tony Blair's heart was never in it… In fact, I suspect he saw it as an irritant."
Well of course it was obvious that Blair never wanted a Scottish Parliament. But there had been a significant cross-party and non-party movement for a Scottish Parliament building up steam ever since many people in Scotland demonstrated against the 1992 election result as un-democratic. There was a Vigil, a permanent demonstration, in Edinburgh, which would only go away when there WAS a Scottish Parliament. For Labour leader John Smith, devolution was "unfinished business", and he committed the Labour Party to supporting a parliament. Smith, who had a dodgy ticker, had taken to climbing Scottish mountains (literally) and when he died of a heart attack he was buried on IONA , for goodness sake, in the burial ground reserved for Scottish kings and saints.  The relatively unknown Tony Blair, succeeding this Labour saint, found himself hemmed in, unable to go back on Smith's promise. He tried to place obstacles in the way of devolution, and, when that didn't work, he decided to make the best of a bad job, and pretend it was all HIS idea. A total lie, which set a pattern of lies for the future. [/quote]

I'd say quite the opposite: Blair never so much as took an interest in devolution. He certainly didn't claim it as his idea: he barely acknowledged it. It was the work of other figures within the party, most notably Dewar.

It was an irritant to him: he no doubt saw it as a difficulty in implementing the policies of the party that were important to him. But I don't think he actively opposed its creation. If he really did, he could have made it a lot weaker than it became.

Dave Coull wrote:
because, in their hearts, they have a sinking feeling I just might be right.


Er, no. I am a Unionist who doesn't remotely have that feeling. I think you're entirely deluded.
Dave Coull

Re: REFERENDUM ? BRING IT ON................

Aventinian wrote:
Blair never so much as took an interest in devolution
It is true that Blair never campaigned for a Scottish Parliament. It is true he never took any interest in the devolution project as such, it was just something John Smith had landed him with that he couldn't get out of. HOWEVER, given that was so, he decided to behave as if Scotland would be getting a parliament thanks to him. On the day the referendum result was announced, he came to Edinburgh to receive the applause of a grateful populace. Or, at least, that's how it looked on the television news. The "populace" consisted entirely of Labour Party members, officials, and employees, who had been alerted that the Leader was coming to town and wanted them to turn out and wave flags and cheer for the television cameras.
Lord Pitsligo

Aventinian wrote:

I suppose it's an order of magnitude issue, but fundamentally yes. I find national socialism repugnant and offensive; however I can disagree with things like moderate socialism without thinking remotely the same thing about it.


You'd make a good totalitarian dictator, at least you would if you did anything other than talk  Very Happy
Holebender

Aventinian wrote:
Nationalism is unpleasant and indeed morally repugnant to me.

Lord Pitsligo wrote:
He means opinions that are different to his. Shocked


I suppose it's an order of magnitude issue, but fundamentally yes. I find national socialism repugnant and offensive; however I can disagree with things like moderate socialism without thinking remotely the same thing about it.

A truly pathetic attempt to tar the SNP with the Nazi brush. It really is beneath you Aventinian, and exposes you as a rather delusional figure who should be pitied rather than ridiculed. Just for you; it's a good thing the SNP is not a socialist party then, isn't it?
Aventinian

Lord Pitsligo wrote:
You'd make a good totalitarian dictator, at least you would if you did anything other than talk  Very Happy


There's nothing remotely totalitarian about saying that I will have no associations, offer no support and advocate no platform is given to those with extremist and unpleasant views.

Holebender wrote:
A truly pathetic attempt to tar the SNP with the Nazi brush. It really is beneath you Aventinian, and exposes you as a rather delusional figure who should be pitied rather than ridiculed. Just for you; it's a good thing the SNP is not a socialist party then, isn't it?


Absolute rubbish. I'd as happily 'tar them' then with the revolutionary communist brush, despite them being completely opposed ideologies. Why? Because I am not suggesting a relation between the SNP and the Nazis (although, of course, several Nationalist movements in the British Isles did have collaborationist tendencies) but rather because I am pointing out that they are both morally repugnant views to me and beyond the realms of acceptability in a civilised society.

Are you seriously suggesting that you'd happily give political ground to fascists or other extremists in the name of compromise? Because that's obviously a hell of a lot worse than all the childish insults you can muster.
Holebender

For example?
agentmancuso

Aventinian wrote:
I am pointing out that they are both morally repugnant views to me and beyond the realms of acceptability in a civilised society.
That's a quite fantastical view of the SNP.

Quote:
Are you seriously suggesting that you'd happily give political ground to fascists or other extremists in the name of compromise?

It's conceivable that, in some circumstances, compromising with such people would be the best way to diffuse their dangerous potential.
Lord Pitsligo

Aventinian wrote:
Lord Pitsligo wrote:
You'd make a good totalitarian dictator, at least you would if you did anything other than talk  Very Happy


There's nothing remotely totalitarian about saying that I will have no associations, offer no support and advocate no platform is given to those with extremist and unpleasant views.


Using that argument & dismissing as "extremist and unpleasant" a political movement which you don't like is very totalitarian. Almost worthy of new labour in fact.
Stevie

AVENTINIAN, I find your view of nationalism as being exemplary of the Brainwashed Brit Brigade(no offense intended).  

Ordinarily I wouldn't comment but using the SNP symbol is a direct attack on a group of individuals with your typical your left wing mantra about nationalism(inferring we're Nazis is tired and everybody knows it).

But you are every bit as nationalistic as any true Scot, ONLY, you support the British model of national identity.  Thus, you are a nationalist...

Not a very good one since your concept of  nationhood is to support the fractionated British state in its current manifestation.  Not a real nation but a made up country.

If you had been brought up in an independent Scotland you would think it perfectly normal that Scotland exist as a country; as it is you think it perfectly normal that the current British state is normal.  

You need more imagination, really you do(your opinions were taught to you by your Labour supporting Modern Studies teacher at high school).  I wonder if you've ever truly had an original thought.  

Yes, nationalism can be evil, repugnant but so can socialism, conservatism, communism, liberalism... .  Depends on the people and the circumstances.

Scots who don't have their own country need to affirm their national identity and doing thus is NOT venturing into fascism.  Stop fighting us and join us.

I wonder, do you love Scotland?


OOPS! THANKS HOLEBENDER
Holebender

It's usually a good idea to indicate who you are addressing. As things stand, the comment above mine appears to be directed at everyone here.
Stevie

Dear Holebender(odd name)  how do I quote someone so that I don't mess up another reply.
Holebender

Look in the top right corner of any post and you'll see a quote button. Otherwise, just give a name (odd or otherwise).
Dave Coull

BRAVEHAND wrote:
Dear Holebender(odd name)
look at the picture beside Holebender's messages. That's an oil rig. For drilling holes to get oil. And depending on the exact geological situation of the oil, you might have to "bend" the drill hole a bit. The person who does this would be a holebender, wouldn't he?
Holebender

Och, don't spoil my fun Dave.

Besides, no rig ever looked like my picture. I actually found it on a newspaper website and it tickled me so I appropriated it for my avatar.
Alasdair

Dave Coull wrote:
BRAVEHAND wrote:
Dear Holebender(odd name)
look at the picture beside Holebender's messages. That's an oil rig. For drilling holes to get oil. And depending on the exact geological situation of the oil, you might have to "bend" the drill hole a bit. The person who does this would be a holebender, wouldn't he?


That's a relief ... I thought it was something entirely different!! Razz
Stevie

Quote:
I appropriated it for my avatar.


Dear holebender, how do I add an avatar?
azzuri

BRAVEHAND wrote:
Quote:
I appropriated it for my avatar.


Dear holebender, how do I add an avatar?


Go into the 'profile' section at the top of the page, and there is a bit at the bottom of the page to upload a pic. Please make sure this is no larger than 100x100 pixels.

Here to help... Smile
Scott2006

An Irish take on a Scottish independence/multi-option referendum in the UK press.

The comment by JamesCameron has to be seen to be believed...
it puts me in mind of Braveheart that used to comment on the Herald website.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment.../snp-scottish-referendum-politics
Holebender

James Cameron's comment has been deleted. Any chance you can give us the gist of it?
Scott2006

JamesCameron

Quote:
Well, you are at least correct in the assumption that the SNP is a national socialist party of the 1930's variety. However, it lacks some of the essentials which gained the German version the levers of power. For example, Hitler was incredibly fortunate to have Hjalmar Schacht (probably the outstanding European central banker of the 20th century) as his finance minister. I do not believe Fred Goodwin is as bad as ZANU Labour would have us believe, but he is certainly no Schacht. Also Germany was full of unemployed people who wanted to work. Scotland is full of unemployed people who have not worked in generations and have no intention of working, EVER. This small problem does not seem to come up on the radar of Wee Eck when he demands freedom from English subsidies and hand-outs. I suspect that though the Celtic hordes are institutionally lazy, they are not entirely stupid and that the Union will hold.
Holebender

I figured it was something like that, based on the very measured replies.

That dustmite person has a lot of good points.
agentmancuso

Moridura has some better ones.

       Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Forum Index -> Scottish News, Life and Society
Page 1 of 1
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