| 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. |
| Economist |
Senior Labour MSP signals shift on independence referendumhttp://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/news/display.var.1824671.0.0.phpThat would be a three question referendum no doubt, especially given the 2007 Scottish Election Survey's key finding that:
http://www.scottishelectionstudy.org.uk/keyfindings.htm |
||||
| Aventinian |
You must be really fucked if you have Labour MSPs supporting a referendum now. | ||||
| Maol.Chaluim |
Why's that? | ||||
| SLG |
Ok, so if there is a three question referendum, the 'more powers' option is pretty likely to win. This will probably be the next step and is looking like happening eventually with or without Labour. It makes political sense for them to now back a three question referendum so that they can then claim some credit for backing a successful outcome of 'more powers'.
Obviously the definition of 'more powers' will be a problem. They will work for a Union coalition backing for as weak a set of 'more powers' as possible. This would probably set the independence movement back another 10 years. The Tories should be easy enough to get on side. That would leave the Lib Dems having to choose between their Unionist friends and their supposed desire to fully implement the recommendations of the Steel Commission. |
||||
| kevin04 |
I agree with SLG regarding the 3 question referendum.
The positive thing is without the SNP winning this election, Scotland would not even be asking this question "more powers?" we would be pondering along as usual with Labour & Libs doing as little as they had in 4years. For me as a Nationalist, It's progress and even especially when Labour MSPs are coming out backing the referendum proposals itīs progress as well. |
||||
| carol |
for me as a nationalist supporter it's appalling to think that we could be facing a multi option referendum 
regards Carol |
||||
| Economist |
The Unionist parties are too sh!t scared to have simple, easy 2 question referendum that would settle the issue, for the long term at least. The above evidence quoted by the Scottish election study 2007, is enough reason for them to put that idea to bed.
More options shifts the argument more onto the independence ground. I'd even argue that it makes independence even more likely. It will also accelerate the disintegration of the United Kingdom. Which is only a good thing. |
||||
| carol |
After May's fiasco, the simpler the referendum the better, Independence yes or no, a multi option referendum I think would confuse the electorate. regards Carol |
||||
| will live from Glasgow |
im not entirely convinced that the Scottish Parliament has used all the powers it actually has yet, when they have then it might be worth putting a "more powers" option in any referendum. | ||||
| Economist |
Well, it is a deliberately deceptive tactic, I'd agree. But that seems to be way that mainstream Unionism sustains itself in Scotland. It does nothing to settle the issue, either. But given those findings from the recent Election Survey (the one that was quoted in the press with independence at 23% - when support is round about 50% - on their own findings - when the two option question is asked.) You could also imagine the reaction from Unionists, if a Nationalist coalition decided to have a multi option referendum, with two of the three options geared to independence, for example.
That spectacularly misses the point. It's not a question of the Scottish Parliament and Government having to use all the powers allocated to it, before "Mother Parliament" in London altruistically awards it more. It isn't some kind of test, where if you pass the first level, you move to the next. That is not what governance is about - anywhere in the world. It is about being responsible. There is absolutely no excuse for having a Parliament in Scotland which is not responsible for raising the revenue it spends. That is just one example. |
||||
| Aventinian |
How stupid do you think the electorate are? For the record, I think the Nats would lose a two-option referendum by a large margin. However I am still attracted to the three-option one. If you're going to consult the electorate, might as well do it properly. That said, I don't believe in any referendum at all. |
||||
| Economist |
Well it depends, on a variety of factors. I think a two option referendum would yield a close result - whatever the outcome (indeed the evidence over the long term horizon - as well as the recent evidence above suggests this to be the case) I think on the issue of independence we've probably won the academic argument on the issue, but that doesn't necessarily translate into votes in the ballot box - which is why getting the argument out, is important to do in the near future. Neither does it necessarily mean that people change their minds or are convinced. Indeed I think the argument against independence is still primarily economic - the main barrier to people voting yes. It is still "Scotland can't" instead of "Scotland shouldn't" when it comes to most peoples' reasons for not supporting independence. I am yet to hear, apart from a small minority a great deal of warmth for the Union in Scotland. I just don't see it anywhere. Therefore if we cede economic control to Scotland (as seems to be increasingly likely to happen) - the main barrier to independence is breached. As a result the three option referedum, that would no doubt yield high support for financial independence. My own preference would be a two option referendum, as that settles the issue, but I am happy to go with a three option referendum, if that is what comes about. It only augments the issue, shifts the territory towards independence. Then of course there is an argument that there should be a pan-UK referendum on the issue of independence for the Home Nations. In that, Scottish independence would probably be guaranteed, whenever the referendum was held. |
||||
| carol |
some are pretty clueless where elections are concerned, nothing to do with them being stupid
|
||||
| Maol.Chaluim |
I'm not so sure...
...and that's partly why. The "more powers" option we see in the opinion polls hasn't been defined yet, and in the event of a three-option referendum, whatever it does mean could well fall short of what many of those currently opting for "more powers" envisage. There's no chance of the reccommendations of the Steel Commission being implemented. |
||||
| Aventinian |
Being able to choose between three choices instead of two is not really a matter of elections. Don't get me wrong, I despise the British public. I think they're largely contemptible, ill-mannered, ignorant creatures that - in the main - I want nothing to do with. But I at least credit them between being able to discern the difference between two options presented to them and three. |
||||
| William_Cleland |
Too much is maybe being made over what was probably just a case of an unemploy(ed/able) ex-MSP from the Labour party finding a good way to grab a headline to try to remind the world that he is still alive. Must have been pretty humiliating for him to lose despite the fact that Campbell Martin standing as an Independent split the SNP vote. What was Andy Kerr supposed to say in these circumstances, "I think my former colleague has lost the plot a bit on that one" or something like that?  Politics doesn't work like that. "Discuss it" is simply a polite way to dodge having a high profile public disagreement over policy.
|
||||
| carol |
and what planet do you come from Av ......... Simple Independence yes of no 
|
||||
| Holebender |
While I prefer a two-option referendum, I'm reasonably sanguine about a multi-option plebiscite too, and here's why; every option will have to be clearly defined and there has to be a mechanism for deciding which option has won. No constitutional vote of this sort can go ahead with a fuzzy option like "more powers", nor can such major changes be contemplated without a clear winner emerging after the vote. Therefore, each option is going to have to be specified completely (status quo, powers x,y, and z, or full independence) and a method of deciding which option has majority support will have to be included. First past the post will be completely inadequate for something as major as this so there will have to be a run-off between the two leading options, or a single transferable vote will be needed. Either way I am confident that Scotland will progress towards independence and I believe will actually opt for it once each of the options is clearly defined.
Having said that, I agree with William Cleland's comment above. Labour won't go for it. |
||||
| Aventinian |
Er, this one. Which may or may not have something to do with my desire not to twist the public's opinions to fit into my own narrow agenda. At least I am not a democrat and fundamentally admit that. |
||||