| 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. |
| azzuri |
Salmond reeled in by Westminster...Salmond reeled in by WestminsterJIM SILLARS see - http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/opinion.cfm?id=1015282006 HE'S no fool that Brian Monteith. His idea of Unionist parties sponsoring a referendum on independence, to gazump Alex Salmond's one, could prove a crippling blow to the SNP. There's Unionist logic in denying Salmond, if he becomes First Minister, the chance to pick the date of a referendum some time in the four years following next year's Scottish election. What Monteith seems to have in mind is a referendum early in the next parliament - which he assumes the SNP would lose, especially if there are three choices - independence, devolution, or doing away with the Scottish Parliament altogether. Whether Jack McConnell, Annabel Goldie and Nicol Stephen, the three Unionist party leaders, adopt the idea as their united policy, there is yet a another major obstacle facing the Salmond plan - one the SNP leader should take seriously before giving the referendum idea too much importance. The Westminster Act setting up the Scottish Parliament kept powers over the constitution in London. It is doubtful if Alex Salmond as First Minister could legally spend Scottish Executive money on holding a referendum on independence, because that is about the constitution. He would be acting outwith the powers of the parliament, "ultra vires" in legal jargon. Any public body acting ultra vires can be challenged in the courts; and it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that a group, such as the Tories, could get a court order prohibiting Salmond from holding his referendum. The same prohibition would, by the way, apply to a Monteith referendum. For the SNP to be stopped that way would cause an uproar. Salmond could complain bitterly that he had put his promise before the Scottish people, had got elected, and was therefore entitled politically - whatever the small print said about Westminster keeping the constitution to itself - to hold his referendum. The SNP might calculate that they would gain from such an outrageous snub to Scottish democracy. But what if clever Unionist minds like Monteith's got together and moved a resolution in the Scottish Parliament asking Westminster, using its powers over the constitution, to hold the referendum and silence Salmond's complaints? It would be a political coup for Westminster to comply with that request because it, not Salmond, would set the question. You can bet its question would not use the word "independence". No, they're not daft down there. It would ask if we wanted to "break up" the United Kingdom or "completely separate Scotland from England and Wales", and it would issue a White Paper containing solemn warnings about the dangers to pensions, jobs and taxes if we vote for separatism. Alex Salmond thinks his promise of a referendum in four or five years from now will get the SNP votes from people who don't like Labour, but who also don't want independence. He might just get those votes on that sneaky basis, but he could end up gifting Westminster the opportunity of using its power over him. |
||||||||||||||
| Avatar |
I think thats interesting that even if the SNP won the next election with every single seat - and won all the Scottish seats in the next westminster election, it would still be impossible to have a legal referendum on Scottish independence without have a majority of English MPs voting for it in the Commons - says alot for our so called democracy... | ||||||||||||||
| SLG |
Holyrood shouldn't have a problem holding the referendum as it is a consultative referendum and not actually acting on a reserved matter.
The rest of the article is correct, if the Unionist had any sense, they would be trying to get Westminster to organise a referendum. They have already done the research on what wording would be the most effective for the Unionist side and they could include multiple questions further splitting the vote. Can't see it happening though, although maybe if the SNP do become the biggest party in May, they'll start to think about their strategy. |
||||||||||||||
| IF Convenor |
In a referendum with more than two options no one option can win, so what's the point? You have to have a mechanism for deciding the outcome, so you have to say either a plurality (most votes as in first past the post) wins or you have some sort of a run-off between the two highest scoring options. Either there'd be a second ballot or there'd be a STV-type vote in the initial referendum. In any of those scenarios I am confident that independence would come out on top. The only reasistic way of stopping it is to rig the question and I, for one, would have plenty to say about that. | ||||||||||||||
| SLG |
Well you might well have a lot to say about it, as would I. But if they do it subtly enough then I doubt we would get much support. | ||||||||||||||
| Maol.Chaluim |
The Electoral Commission has a set of guidelines on referendum questions, to (supposedly) ensure balanced questions:
http://www.electoralcommission.or...emplates/search/document.cfm/6664 |
||||||||||||||
| Mik |
That mean they can dribble pish oot both sides o' thur gubs atra same time ?? <gg> |
||||||||||||||
| Cado |
How do you square this with Monteiths earlier call for all scots tories to vote SNP?
Monteith seems to be a one man party on a mission. |
||||||||||||||
| SLG |
Cheers for that MC, I still think there is enough leeway for a certain amount of manipulation though. If Monteith is planning on standing next year, it might explain why he is going for the high profile. I think he's also been suggesting that you can vote SNP even if you don't favour Independence. |
||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
Actually, it says that democracy is pretty well enforced. There is nothing democratic about a popular right to secede. If there was, then there would be no long-standing states left in the world. I don't think any unitary state would allow parts of it to break away without condition. Even America, the model of federalism, has denied this right. |
||||||||||||||
| SLG |
No, there would be no multinational states in the world. The world would break down into areas that contained people who want to be governed together. |
||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
The problem is that there is no definition of nation that is an acceptable bar. You can see from Irish nationalism that the habit is to deny self determination within what is seen as a nation. I'm sure there are British nationalists who would deny self-determination to Scotland on the same grounds - and I know without doubt that anyone in a post-independence Scotland who voiced dissent would be quickly shouted down or have their will refused.
Independence should only be granted where a legitimate cause is shown - that is some sort of oppression etc. National self-determination is a joke. What made Israel-Palestine the problem it is now? If the White Paper of 1939 had been carried through, I imagine there would've been a lot less problems. Imagine Rhodesia had been granted 'national self-determination' after the passage of the UDI. It's not stable and it's certainly not democratic to give groups of people 'rights' simply because they decide it is suddenly their God-given right (to paraphrase the 1916 "declaration of the Irish Republic") to have them. In fact, it is inequal and undemocratic. I know you've expressed opinions in general favour of widespread secession, SLG, but I believe the only situation that would create is a secession from reality. |
||||||||||||||
| SLG |
So it is not a strict science, I think we should aim to get as close to it as possible though and treat each case on it's merits.
Scotland has existed as a nation for a long time. I think it is well understood that it is a nation without the complications that you see in Ireland. Ireland is a nation cut in two in recent times - a very different situation. Most of the folk I know from the RoI are content with NI self determination if it means the end of conflict. Most of the conflict seems to come from those within NI or those closely linked to it. I would say the RoI is more open to self-determination for the North than England is to self-determination for Scotland. I'm sure there are some who really believe that Britain is a nation, I'm sure the vast majority recognise that Great Britain was formed of the Union of two nations which still exist within it. I don't think any Unionist political parties have members who would deny Scotland's nationhood.
Rubbish. More scaremongering. How do you know that? Your dissent would be given the credibility it deserves. If your dissent has some basis, I'm sure it will be recognised. Do you really believe that Westminster and 500 English MPs are saving us from ourselves? Just more Scottish cringe IMO.
Why? And where do you draw the line on what is considered oppression. I would say that if a majority of the population want Scotland to be Independent, and that is not granted, then their will is being oppressed.
I'm not talking about a UDI. I'm talking about a Scottish Parliament negotiating Independence with the UK parliament. There will be no UDI, there will be an amicable parting of ways. The problem in Israel/Palestinian territories is a case of disputed land - that doesn't apply to Scotland As for Rhodesia, you are talking about a UDI without a democratic mandate. That of course is not what I'm suggesting and that is why I support a referendum, even if the SNP commanded a majority in Parliament.
If one day, I said, I want Scotland to be Independent, and the next day, on the whim of a few it became so, you might have a point. Scotland is a nation. It existed as a political state prior to Union and now has a devolved government. The Scottish people were never consulted on joining the Union. At present it is conceivable that there is a majority in favour of Independence. I think it is right that the people are consulted and if they wish, we should begin negotiations on Independence from the UK. And do this with the backing of the UK. There need be no conflict and no-ones rights need to be infringed in this process.
That sentence doesn't really make sense to me. I do believe in widespread secession - where it is desired. I also recognise that many such areas have deep conflicts which make secession very complex and sometimes dangerous. The example of NI that you often refer to is one of the most complex. We should be grateful that we don't have those problems in Scotland and our secession will be a peaceful and smooth one. |
||||||||||||||
| Avatar |
"Actually, it says that democracy is pretty well enforced. There is nothing democratic about a popular right to secede. If there was, then there would be no long-standing states left in the world."
Of thats democratic, are you arguing that following the majority opinion of a people is undemocratic? Sure we could get in to the whole debate about what is a nation or nationality - but its not really relevant is it? Scotland is a nation - its a piece of land filled with scottish people. Imo the whole "what is a nation?" idea was created by Communist and Socialist academics who are trying to undermine what alot of people consider to be a big part of their social identity, simply so more people will define themselves by class instead and then they can have their world revolution. |
||||||||||||||
| SF102 |
Well i for one would vote for you to be independant . . . .give ya one less thing to moan about  Seriously tho i personally can't see why you can't have it . .. . . I know why you haven't as yet and thats because the people in power will kill to hold on to it  You only have to look at any dictator of the last 2000 years to see that fact.
|
||||||||||||||
| SLG |
That's the main reason why we're not independent to date SF102, people like Brown want the power associated with a country of 55 million with a seat on the UN security council, not a country of 5 million and little international influence. The Scottish parliament is starting to change that though, even Labour, Lib Dem and Tories in Holyrood will want more power and will never be in charge at Westminster. | ||||||||||||||