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.
 



       Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Forum Index -> Scottish Politics and Independence
Red Justice

SNP 'open' to referendum options

SNP 'open' to referendum options

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8313035.stm

Mr Salmond said any referendum must have an independence option

Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond has said he would "probably concede" to a third option being added to any independence referendum.

The option would be likely to offer greater powers for Scotland which would fall short of full independence.

But Mr Salmond said this did not mean the SNP was diluting its core aspiration for independence.

He said the outcome of the UK general election could present Scotland with some "pretty stark choices".

Mr Salmond's minority SNP government wants to hold an independence referendum next year, but the proposal is currently opposed by the majority of MSPs.

I am not frightened of another option on the ballot paper so long as that option is defined and meaningful, something people can understand and not some vague proposition

Speaking on the BBC's Andrew Marr programme, Mr Salmond said his preferred option would be for a straight "yes or no" question on Scottish independence.

But he added: "I have also indicated that if it was necessary to obtain the parliamentary majority in the Scottish parliament to have a third defined option on the ballot paper, which could be done by a couple of questions or by preference voting, then I would be prepared to discuss that and probably be prepared to concede it, so long as independence for Scotland is on the ballot paper.

"People must have the opportunity to exercise their right of self determination. I am not frightened of another option on the ballot paper so long as that option is defined and meaningful, something people can understand and not some vague proposition."

Opinion polls suggest that independence is currently backed by a minority of Scots, but Mr Salmond said the outcome of the next general election could dramatically alter the political landscape.

He said that while it was possible the Conservatives would win a majority of Westminster seats, a hung parliament was a "very live possibility".

Submarine fleet

A "Scottish bloc" of 20 or more SNP MSPs could have a "decisive influence" in a hung parliament and "tilt things in Scotland's direction," he predicted.

Mr Salmond also claimed it was clear that both Labour and the Conservatives wanted to make "swingeing" public expenditure cuts in Scotland.

"Therefore, overlying the constitutional debate is going to be a debate about the direction of the economy, the future of public services, the priorities that people have," he said.

The first minister pointed to the £100bn cost of replacing the UK's Trident submarine fleet, and asked whether it would be better to instead concentrate on "things that really matter like the health service and education system".
Holebender

Re: SNP 'open' to referendum options

Alex Salmond wrote:
I am not frightened of another option on the ballot paper so long as that option is defined and meaningful, something people can understand and not some vague proposition.

This is absolutely crucial; any option on the ballot paper must be clearly defined and understood.
Red Justice

The third option must be specific about what greater powers are on offer. I would rather see an independence Yes/No referendum but Salmond will have to concede to try get the Referendum Bill passed.
Alasdair

Red Justice wrote:
The third option must be specific about what greater powers are on offer.


Agreed.  Much of the unionist propoganda surrounding the issue has targetted what they suggest is the SNP's 'ambiguous' preferred question for the referendum.  Yet what could be more ambiguous than something along the lines of:

"Do you wish the Scottish parliament to have more powers?"

The obvious answer for anybody who's pro-independence is 'YES!  All of them please!'  When the reality might be some minor amendment to existing powers.
landg

yes.
no.
more powers for a devolved scotland.

how easy is that.
Reluctant Hero

Salmond's willingness to have a third option coincides with the Lib Dems apparent softening on the issue of a referendum.  Has a deal been done?

It looks increasingly likely that we will get a referendum though.
The Lithgae Jambo

landg wrote:
yes.
no.
more powers for a devolved scotland.

how easy is that.


Now frame the question which offers these options as a response.
Kevin

landg wrote:
yes.
no.
more powers for a devolved scotland.

how easy is that.


I would think it would need to be a bit more in-depth than that.  Simply asserting that a majority would want more powers for the devolved government doesn't actually give any more powers to the devolved government.
Holebender

landg wrote:
yes.
no.
more powers for a devolved scotland.

how easy is that.

Alex Salmond wrote:
I am not frightened of another option on the ballot paper so long as that option is defined and meaningful, something people can understand and not some vague proposition.

I see you completely failed to comprehend the part where he said the third option must be "defined and meaningful" and "not some vague proposition".

Now, how about you define those "more powers" for us so that we can all understand what it is you want us to vote for?
Cruachan

I am personally in favour for a straight yes/no question on independence, (and am happy to accept the Scottish Government's intended wording)   but I have been wondering for a while what outcomes a multi-option referendum might give us..

Let's assume the following as one possible outcome in the consultative Referendum, whether in 2010 or 2011/12:-

45% vote for Independence
35% vote for Calman or Calman Plus
20% vote for No Change

This, and many other permutations, may show a strong call for independence, but a real mess could emerge.

Is the above a ringing endorsement for full negotiations on independence to begin, or would the focus be on a watered down version of Calman?

It may put a fair bit of pressure on a Cameron Government to do something but would give him a happily confused outcome to string out years of discussion and tinkering with the status quo.

or how about this?:-

32% vote for Independence
32% vote for Calman/Calman Plus
36% vote for No Change

what then?  a clear mandate for change or a win for No Change?

of course, the following might be a happier picture:

51% vote for Independence
30% vote for Calman/Calman Plus
19% vote for No Change

I would still be happier with a straight choice of status quo or Independence.
Holebender

If you go back to the first post in this thread you will note that Alex Salmond said
Quote:
I have also indicated that if it was necessary to obtain the parliamentary majority in the Scottish parliament to have a third defined option on the ballot paper, which could be done by a couple of questions or by preference voting, then I would be prepared to discuss that and probably be prepared to concede it, so long as independence for Scotland is on the ballot paper.
In other words the outcome would be decided by either two yes/no questions or some sort of preference voting, which means there will be a clear outcome.

btw, I too prefer a simple yes/no to independence question.
Cruachan

Holebender wrote:
If you go back to the first post in this thread you will note that Alex Salmond said
Quote:
I have also indicated that if it was necessary to obtain the parliamentary majority in the Scottish parliament to have a third defined option on the ballot paper, which could be done by a couple of questions or by preference voting, then I would be prepared to discuss that and probably be prepared to concede it, so long as independence for Scotland is on the ballot paper.
In other words the outcome would be decided by either two yes/no questions or some sort of preference voting, which means there will be a clear outcome.

btw, I too prefer a simple yes/no to independence question.



I fully appreciate the practical politics of this, but can we really go into negotiations on independence based on needing "second preferences"?.  It hardly strengthens the negotiators hand.
Dave Coull

Red Justice wrote:
I would rather see an independence Yes/No referendum
I agree, one way or the other that would at least have the benefit of producing a clear result.
Alex Salmond wrote:
I am not frightened of another option on the ballot paper so long as that option is defined and meaningful
The trouble is, some folk might try to get some very vague "more powers for the Scottish Parliament" option. As I have pointed out before, "more powers" is an expression so vague it can cover dozens of different scenarios, all the way from mere window dressing right up to and including full independence. That being so, "more powers" is not a genuine alternative to independence. It would only be a genuine alternative if it was spelled out in detail exactly what these "more powers" are. This doesn't have to be spelled out on the actual ballot paper, but it does have to be spelled out in writing somewhere, and spelled out three or four months before the actual referendum, to allow proper consideration of what is being proposed.The LibDems, for instance, could publish a pamphlet or booklet spelling out exactly what THEY mean by "more powers". Let's suppose for a minute this pamphlet or booklet is called, let me see now, thinking of a name for a "more powers" pamphlet or booklet, "Holyrood Powerhouse". The 'more powers' option on the referendum ballot paper could then read something like "I support a stronger Scottish Parliament within the United Kingdom, and I want the Scottish Parliament to have all of the powers which are spelled out in the booklet 'Holyrood Powerhouse' ".

THAT would be a genuine choice. Some vague waffle about "more powers" without these powers being spelled out is not a genuine choice.

And if neither the LibDems nor any of the other unionist organisations can get their act together sufficiently to spell out exactly what it is that they want, in writing, in a pamphlet or booklet, in time for a referendum in 2010, then the referendum should proceed as planned, without such an option. Because the absence of such an option would then be THEIR fault.
Aventinian

Re: SNP 'open' to referendum options

This isn't news, he conceded that years ago.

Holebender wrote:
Alex Salmond wrote:
I am not frightened of another option on the ballot paper so long as that option is defined and meaningful, something people can understand and not some vague proposition.

This is absolutely crucial; any option on the ballot paper must be clearly defined and understood.


I assume he'll be taking 'independent' off the ballot then. No? Oh, I see, he's allowed his own vagueries, but no-one else. Fine.

Cruachan wrote:
I am personally in favour for a straight yes/no question on independence, (and am happy to accept the Scottish Government's intended wording)   but I have been wondering for a while what outcomes a multi-option referendum might give us..

Let's assume the following as one possible outcome in the consultative Referendum, whether in 2010 or 2011/12:-

45% vote for Independence
35% vote for Calman or Calman Plus
20% vote for No Change

This, and many other permutations, may show a strong call for independence, but a real mess could emerge.

Is the above a ringing endorsement for full negotiations on independence to begin, or would the focus be on a watered down version of Calman?


Calman, inevitably. In any political situation, the presumption is against change.

If a referendum had to happen, I don't mind multiple options and a lack of a 'clear' outcome. If it is supposed to be representative of the public opinion, then represent it what it should do rather than attempt to push people into two simplistic boxes.

What then happens is, quite properly, a matter for the Scottish and UK Parliaments.
Holebender

Aventinian, the only poster here who does not understand independence and yet he opposes it vehemently. Do you always oppose what you don't understand? Are you simply a Luddite?
Aventinian

Holebender wrote:
Aventinian, the only poster here who does not understand independence and yet he opposes it vehemently. Do you always oppose what you don't understand? Are you simply a Luddite?


post removed
kevin04

If there is

Yes, No, More Powers options on the paper.

It is almost certain that folk will vote for more powers, if so, what happens to the SNP after this? Do they continue to fight for a Yes/No Ref?
Or get on with the Faroese Powers that we will probably have?
Holebender

Aventinian wrote:
Holebender wrote:
Aventinian, the only poster here who does not understand independence and yet he opposes it vehemently. Do you always oppose what you don't understand? Are you simply a Luddite?


post removed

Everything done to/for Scotland by Westminster will be done by Holyrood. Have you got that?

And don't you ever make another anti-English crack to me or I will report you to the moderators and demand your censure. You have absolutely no ground for such a remark and I would really like you to withdraw it. I don't expect an apology as I don't believe you have the grace for such a thing, but the least you can do is withdraw it. I buried my English father this Summer and I don't need imbeciles like you making groundless, distasteful remarks like you have. Prick.
Stevie

Aventinian wrote:
post removed



Since your Brit Nat nationalism is a nationalism you don't oppose then your just playing with definitions to suit yourself.

It's complete nonsense to suggest someone who campaigns for independence for a nation is only doing so to avoid the English from governing them.  You can tell that to the Indians and numerous nation states that broke away from the Brits and their reply is not, 'We just did it to avoid being governed by Englishmen.

Out of simple curiosity, should India still be glued to the Brit government in your view because you oppose nationalism.  

Let's be clear about a definition of nationalism (and certainly the definition that applies to the Scots) : it's a desire within a group of people with a similar cultural, political, historical link to have things done their own way and not in some general arbitrary way that doesn't appeal to their views.  A desire for self determination in a positive way is not the same as the loony goosestepping minions of Orwellian nightmare.

And please don't try and tell me the English aren't overtly annoyingly loud with their public displays of Empire  drivel pride that modern societies laugh at.

You are a nationalist, just a different kind (a Brit Nat in self denial) and one who continually pushes the Brit Nat agenda on this site apparently tirelessly.
Dave Coull

In the old East Germany, in the days before the Berlin Wall came down, there were elections in which it was possible to vote for the Christlich-Demokratische Union Deutschlands (Christian Democratic Union of Germany, CDU), the Demokratische Bauernpartei Deutschlands (Democratic Farmers' Party of Germany, DBD), the Liberal-Demokratische Partei Deutschlands (Liberal Democratic Party of Germany, LDPD), the Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands (National Democratic Party of Germany, NDPD) or of course the Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands (Socialist Unity Party of Germany, SED). The trouble was, these different parties, although they did have some differences of emphasis, were all, in practice, representatives of the regime. It was not possible to vote  to get rid of the regime.

In order for real choice to exist, the choices have to be mutually exclusive.

The trouble with putting "more powers" on the ballot paper is that it is not mutually exclusive with other "options" on offer. "More powers" is an expression so vague it could cover dozens of different scenarios. It is not mutually exclusive with mere window dressing, because largely cosmetic changes could be dressed up as "more powers".  On the other hand, it is not mutually exclusive with independence either. By definition, an independent Scottish Parliament would be one with a lot more powers than the present set-up.

A referendum with an un-defined "more powers" option would be like an East German election   -  we'll give you the appearance of choice, so long as the established regime wins.

I have suggested a way in which there could be a well-defined "more powers" option on the ballot which is mutually exclusive of both purely cosmetic change and full independence. By spelling out in a pamphlet or booklet, two or three months before the referendum, exactly what changes are proposed, and then referring to that pamphlet or booklet in the referendum option, for example
Quote:
Let's suppose for a minute this pamphlet or booklet is called, let me see now, thinking of a name for a "more powers" pamphlet or booklet, "Holyrood Powerhouse". The 'more powers' option on the referendum ballot paper could then read something like "I support a stronger Scottish Parliament within the United Kingdom, and I want the Scottish Parliament to have all of the powers which are spelled out in the booklet 'Holyrood Powerhouse' ".
Such an option would be clearly exclusive of keeping things more or less as they are, by supporting " ALL of the powers spelled out in............". It would also be clearly exclusive of independence, because, whether folk envisage independence as being within the EU or out of it, whether folk envisage independence as a republic or as having a monarch like Australia and Canada, independence would certainly not be "within the United Kingdom". Therefore, putting such an option on the ballot paper would present the people with a genuine choice.

I honestly can't see any good reason why any sincere advocate of "more powers" should object to this suggestion. The only "more powers" supporters likely to object are those who quite deliberately want to keep things vague, because they don't really favour anything more than purely cosmetic change, and what they would prefer is an East German style vote in which it isn't really possible to go against the established regime.
Red Justice

I agree with Dave that more powers on the ballot paper have to be defined. But I still prefer a straight Yes/No independence referendum. All the campaign organisations for a referendum have fallen silent and left the SNP to get on with their promises of a Referendum Bill.

The problem is the SNP are constitutional nationalists tied to the parliamentary system. With support for an independence referendum being amongst many and probably most Scots, what is required is a campaign that involves political parties, trade unionists, individuals, public figures and more. A mass demand for a referendum that goes beyond the SNP and simply asks for a Yes/No to independence.
Stevie

Damned fine answer!
Red Justice

Thanks Stevie. I do not have all the answers but I do remember the campaign for a Scottish Parly was big with Scotland United taking to the streets in Edinburgh. Also a vigil in place and the potential to effect public opinion. Too much has rested on the SNP alone and that to me is a mistake. Public meetings with speakers from political parties and more should be touring the country.
Dave Coull

Red Justice wrote:
I agree with Dave that more powers on the ballot paper have to be defined. But I still prefer a straight Yes/No independence referendum.
Well, like I said
Quote:
if neither the LibDems nor any of the other unionist organisations can get their act together sufficiently to spell out exactly what it is that they want, in writing, in a pamphlet or booklet, in time for a referendum in 2010, then the referendum should proceed as planned, without such an option. Because the absence of such an option would then be THEIR fault.
Aventinian

Holebender wrote:
Everything done to/for Scotland by Westminster will be done by Holyrood. Have you got that?


That's not a definition of independence now, is it? No, that's simply a statement of how powers will be transferred. We've been over this before if you recall, and I've badgered you about it quite a bit, and you (not to mention everyone else here) failed to provide a plausible answer to a very simple question.

Quote:
And don't you ever make another anti-English crack to me or I will report you to the moderators and demand your censure. You have absolutely no ground for such a remark and I would really like you to withdraw it. I don't expect an apology as I don't believe you have the grace for such a thing, but the least you can do is withdraw it. I buried my English father this Summer and I don't need imbeciles like you making groundless, distasteful remarks like you have. Prick.


post removed

---------------
Stevie wrote:
Since your Brit Nat nationalism is a nationalism you don't oppose then your just playing with definitions to suit yourself.


Except of course that I am not a British nationalist.

Quote:
It's complete nonsense to suggest someone who campaigns for independence for a nation is only doing so to avoid the English from governing them.  You can tell that to the Indians and numerous nation states that broke away from the Brits and their reply is not, 'We just did it to avoid being governed by Englishmen.


In many cases, I rather think they did. However at least the Indians actually campaigned for a certain level of self-government. As the 'in Europe' policy of the SNP shows, it's not the level of self-government they care about, it's who they happen to be tied to that counts.

Quote:
Out of simple curiosity, should India still be glued to the Brit government in your view because you oppose nationalism.  


No, it shouldn't be. India was held as a colony. I oppose imperial relationships between places. The UK would no more have wanted to absorb India than India would have wanted to be absorbed into the UK.

Quote:
Let's be clear about a definition of nationalism (and certainly the definition that applies to the Scots) : it's a desire within a group of people with a similar cultural, political, historical link to have things done their own way and not in some general arbitrary way that doesn't appeal to their views.  A desire for self determination in a positive way is not the same as the loony goosestepping minions of Orwellian nightmare.


All nationalism comes from the same root, and from that root comes a great deal of very horrible things. You may be moderate nationalists, but it does not make you immune from the same moral taint as those who express the more extreme versions of your ideology.
Aventinian

Dave Coull wrote:
A referendum with an un-defined "more powers" option would be like an East German election   -  we'll give you the appearance of choice, so long as the established regime wins.


Quite the contrary, I'm sure if an option of independence is given, 'more powers' - or perhaps 'more powers within the United Kingdom' would be self explanatory.

Again, though, we see referendums in very different ways: I see them as a way of consulting the public; you see them as a way of getting the public to vote for (or against) a specific policy that is already well formulated in your mind.
azzuri

Aventinian wrote:

Quote:
And don't you ever make another anti-English crack to me or I will report you to the moderators and demand your censure. You have absolutely no ground for such a remark and I would really like you to withdraw it. I don't expect an apology as I don't believe you have the grace for such a thing, but the least you can do is withdraw it. I buried my English father this Summer and I don't need imbeciles like you making groundless, distasteful remarks like you have. Prick.

post removed


Seriously, was there any need for this sort of response?
Holebender

Aventinian wrote:

I'm afraid the shoe rather often fits on this forum.


I've warned you. Provide evidence for that defamatory statement or withdraw it and apologise. Now.
Holebender

The online Cambridge Dictionary provides the following definition:
Quote:
Definition
independence noun
/ˌɪn.dɪˈpen.dənt s/ n [U]
•
freedom from being governed or ruled by another country
Mexico gained its independence from Spain in l821.

For those who have extreme difficulty distinguishing the difference due to some mental deficiency, the "other country" in Scotland's case is the UK.
Aventinian

Holebender wrote:
For those who have extreme difficulty distinguishing the difference due to some mental deficiency, the "other country" in Scotland's case is the UK.


The UK isn't another country. Mexico, the example given, was never part of Spain.

Holebender wrote:
Aventinian wrote:

I'm afraid the shoe rather often fits on this forum.


I've warned you. Provide evidence for that defamatory statement or withdraw it and apologise. Now.


How about you look at mairead's signature for a start. There's certainly been a lot worse on here. Indeed, at least one person on this forum has a criminal conviction for racially harassing English people.

I'm certainly not going to apologise. Nor indeed am I going to go around substantiating every single comment I make.
Holebender

Listen... you have accused me of anti-English posts and I have asked you to back those claims. Now you try to deflect your guilt by pointing to another poster's signature.

Pay very careful attention I am not Mairead, nor am I connected in any way with her, nor am I responsible for anything she posts. Have you got that?

Justify your claims that I make anti-English posts or withdraw them and apologise or I will be asking for your membership to be suspended because of your defamation.
Dave Coull

Aventinian wrote:
one person on this forum has a criminal conviction for racially harassing English people
Even if that is true, it certainly wasn't Holebender. Indeed, in his previous incarnation as "Independence First Convenor", Holebender sponsored a motion to expell somebody at whom such an accusation had been levelled
Holebender wrote:
Listen... you have accused me of anti-English posts and I have asked you to back those claims. Now you try to deflect your guilt by pointing to another poster's signature.
Yes, Aventinian is rather careless with such accusations.
Holebender wrote:
Pay very careful attention I am not Mairead, nor am I connected in any way with her, nor am I responsible for anything she posts. Have you got that?
Holebender wrote:
Justify your claims that I make anti-English posts or withdraw them and apologise or I will be asking for your membership to be suspended because of your defamation.
If Aventinian doesn't withdraw and apologise, and if you do go ahead with such a request, then I think the moderators would have little option but to act upon your request. They can't risk the Our Scotland forum as such being accused of defamation. Mind you, you would be on firmer ground if you were in the habit of using your own name. If Aventinian was defaming a person using their own name, even if you identifying who "Aventinian" is was proving a wee bit tricky, there would be no such difficulty over identifying the website broadcasting the defamation.
Stevie

Stevie wrote:
Since your Brit Nat nationalism is a nationalism you don't oppose then your just playing with definitions to suit yourself.


Aventinian wrote:

Except of course that I am not a British nationalist.
All nationalism comes from the same root, and from that root comes a great deal of very horrible things. You may be moderate nationalists, but it does not make you immune from the same moral taint as those who express the more extreme versions of your ideology.


You've probably noticed by now that I don't enter into to-and-fro detail debates BUT you support the 'status quo'(which is the Brit Nat way of saying I like being British) therefore you choose the British nation state in preference to a Scottish nation state, therefore you are a British nationalist by choice / default whichever you choose and you defend this state vociferously.

You are playing with words or (pardon my choiceof words ) fooling yourself.

As far as comparing us to even moderate Nazis... not true and unpleasant and you're being disingenuous.

It's possible to love something without basing it on hatred for something else.  You seem to love the idea of Britain and this is not based on a hatred for Scotland or France or Australia etc.

I understand your 'anti-English' criticism (although others don't) but it's very out-of-date and not where anyone is at in this day and age.

When I was a kid, people said anti-English slurs (in fact in Scotland the word English was often immediately followed by b*****s) but this was due to historical frustration, not race hatred (we're the same caucasian race and it doesn't even make sense to mention racism).  Now, it's time to put away childish things and develop a nation not based on negativity but on a positive set of principles for the future.

Why don't you join us?
Kevin

I don't see why Scottish independence would have anything to do with hating the English.  It simply makes sense to have a government closer to the people and more susceptible to what the Scottish people want, as opposed to a centralized bigger government in London making important decisions for Scotland.  A more decentralized government is a good thing.
Alasdair

Kevin wrote:
I don't see why Scottish independence would have anything to do with hating the English.  It simply makes sense to have a government closer to the people and more susceptible to what the Scottish people want, as opposed to a centralized bigger government in London making important decisions for Scotland.  A more decentralized government is a good thing.


Bingo!

Regrettabely there are those who are unable to seperate these issues in their minds.  It's like saying every Brit Nat is a member of the BNP and supports it's unsavoury agenda ... nonsense obviously.

Unfortunately Av, has a block on the issue ... it's something I tend to try and rise above seeing as he makes some other rather good points and is otherwise fairly sensible.

I do think that his comments in relation to HB though were bang out of order.
Fidget

That's what the point of Devolution was. A Government able to make the spending decisions over issues closer to home than Westminster.
Holebender

A government which is given its pocket money on the whim of another government. As we have seen in the last couple of years, if those governments are of different political hues and the one with the purse is particularly petty there can be all sorts of needless problems. It is no way to run an administration.

At the very least, a government needs to be able to control its own revenue stream.
Fidget

Scotland wanted to make decisions on how it spent its money, on home turf. It got it in the form of its Government. Moaning about that?
Stevie

Alasdair wrote:
It's like saying every Brit Nat is a member of the BNP and supports it's unsavoury agenda ... nonsense obviously.


Precisely my point some time back Alasdair when I pointed out that Av is a Brit Nat.
Alasdair

Stevie wrote:
Alasdair wrote:
It's like saying every Brit Nat is a member of the BNP and supports it's unsavoury agenda ... nonsense obviously.


Precisely my point some time back Alasdair when I pointed out that Av is a Brit Nat.


Except I'm not saying that Av is a Brit Nat, in fact it's something I believe he has expressly denied.  If I've read him right I believe that he's far more interested in international or supranational co-operation and international development on the basis of developing wider cross border agreement and security for all ... although it's certainly not my place to speak for him.

Perhaps I'm mistaken, maybe he could enlighten us all as to which -ism we can apply, are you an ardent supporter of supranationalism Av?
magister ludi

Red Justice wrote:

The problem is the SNP are constitutional nationalists tied to the parliamentary system.


True, Red, but that hasn't always been the case.......an earlier generation of nationalists wanted a referendum/plebiscite on the independence question, but were consistantly told by the unionists ( of all colours) that it had to be done through the constitutional processes of parliamentary elections and winning seats in parliament ( westminster).  That was more or less the position until the constitutional convention and the "devolution" alternative emerged as an option to be put to the people through a referendum.  I won't need to remind anyone that the use of the referendum is not something that British parliament has ever been keen to
use ( I have my own reservations about it's use, but that's perhaps best left for another time).  My point is that the SNP were not, and probably still aren't instinctively "constitutional" in that sense, but that is was something they adopted and articulated in response to the No Referendum On Independence brigade who also insisted on the SNP winning a majority of seats in Scotland not just having a majority of the vote.

I still think it ironic that having taken the "you have to go through the westminster system" approach the Unionists collectively ( but Labour in particular) took fright at the prospect of just such an approach resulting in an SNP majority (albeit as a protest/anti labour rather than a pro independence vote) and, being in danger of being hoist by their own petard, introduced ( or in the case of labour, re-introduced) a devolution/home rule policy to be settled by a referendum ( with the appropriate safe-guards of the 40% rule and the dead mans vote of course).  Funny old thing politics.
Holebender

Fidget wrote:
Scotland wanted to make decisions on how it spent its money, on home turf. It got it in the form of its Government. Moaning about that?

Of course I'm moaning about it; the choice on offer was a Hobson's choice and can not be considered the true will of the majority.
Fidget

The true will of the majority said "yep, let's have devolution". As unpalatable as that might to you.
Red Justice

Now all we need is a referendum on independence unless the unionists don't want it. What are they scared off?
Fidget

Has there been any official demand for one from the scottish government? It seems to harp on about being a minority government so can't have a referendum.  Sounds a bit lame when it hasn't stopped it making other demands of westminster.  So why not that?
Red Justice

The people clearly have demonstrated in opinion polls they want a referendum on independence and 80% of the Lib Dems

http://www.snptacticalvoting.com/...f-lib-dems-want-independence.html
Dave Coull

Fidget wrote:
Has there been any official demand for one from the scottish government?
You seem to be under the illusion this is something the Scottish government should ask the British government for. It isn't, so they don't need to "demand" one. What they need to do is to get the majority of Members of the Scottish Parliament to vote for a referendum. The Scottish Government has stated that is exactly what they plan to do. It is expected that the referendum legislation will be put before the Parliament in January, there will then be discussion on the proposed legislation, which will be voted on in the early Spring, and, assuming the legislation is passed, there will then be plenty of time for the "pro-" and "anti-" campaigns to put their cases, before the actual referendum in the Autumn. At no point in this process is the consent of the British government required. The British government would only come into the process AFTERWARDS , if the referendum supports independence, and negotiations with the British government on the details of independence then take place.
Holebender

Fidget wrote:
The true will of the majority said "yep, let's have devolution". As unpalatable as that might to you.

As I said, a Hobson's choice. When offered a choice between half a loaf and none almost everyone will choose the half loaf. That does not mean that most people wouldn't actually prefer a whole loaf.

It is disingenuous to say the particular form of devolution Scotland has was the will of the people when no other options were explored or offered. That not only includes the devolution or independence choice, but also the manner in which Scotland's finances are organised. No choices were offered, it was a take it or leave it deal. Most people decided the deal on offer was better than what went before it, and that's as much as can be said about the present form of devolution being the popular favourite.
Fidget

Which kinda suggests that there's nothing stopping the SNP just going for a referendum right now if it's nothing to do with anybody except the people of scotland. Oh, wait! It needs the green light first.
Fidget

Holebender wrote:
Fidget wrote:
The true will of the majority said "yep, let's have devolution". As unpalatable as that might to you.

As I said, a Hobson's choice. When offered a choice between half a loaf and none almost everyone will choose the half loaf. That does not mean that most people wouldn't actually prefer a whole loaf.

It is disingenuous to say the particular form of devolution Scotland has was the will of the people when no other options were explored or offered. That not only includes the devolution or independence choice, but also the manner in which Scotland's finances are organised. No choices were offered, it was a take it or leave it deal. Most people decided the deal on offer was better than what went before it, and that's as much as can be said about the present form of devolution being the popular favourite.


What did you vote, as a matter of interest? Yes to devolution, or nope - it's all or nothing?
Holebender

I voted yes-yes because it was all that was on offer. Which exactly illustrates what I was saying; my vote did not reflect my true preference, only what I considered to be the better of the choices available. On the basis that I was not alone in my preferences, you cannot say that the votes cast in the 1997 referendum indicate the genuine wishes of Scotland's population.
Stevie

Good point.
Dave Coull

Fidget wrote:
It seems to harp on about being a minority government so can't have a referendum.
That is simply untrue. Of course the Scottish Government is a minority government, but they have NOT said that makes it impossible to hold a referendum. What they have said is that they intend to put the legislation for a referendum before the Scottish Parliament. There have been claims by opponents of a referendum that the legislation is bound to be defeated. That's not what I say, and it's not what Alex Salmond has said either. It remains to be seen which way the vote will go.
Fidget wrote:
Sounds a bit lame
It would sound a bit lame if what you're saying was true, but it isn't.
Fidget wrote:
it hasn't stopped it making other demands of westminster.  So why not that?
(1) Because asking Westminster to organise a referendum would in itself be handing some of the powers of the Scottish Parliament back to Westminster and as such would be a backward step; (2) Because it would give opponents of a referendum a perfect excuse for indefinite delay while MPs at Westminster brought in questions of what happens in England, in Wales, and in Northern Ireland; (3) Because, if Westminster did, after years of delay, come up with a referendum, it would be a referendum organised by Westminster and on Westminster's terms.

Putting legislation before the Scottish Parliament is the right course of action. Putting a request to Westminster would be "lame".
Fidget

Holebender wrote:
I voted yes-yes because it was all that was on offer. Which exactly illustrates what I was saying; my vote did not reflect my true preference, only what I considered to be the better of the choices available. On the basis that I was not alone in my preferences, you cannot say that the votes cast in the 1997 referendum indicate the genuine wishes of Scotland's population.


and you cannot say otherwise.
Fidget

Dave Coull wrote:
Fidget wrote:
It seems to harp on about being a minority government so can't have a referendum.
That is simply untrue. Of course the Scottish Government is a minority government, but they have NOT said that makes it impossible to hold a referendum. What they have said is that they intend to put the legislation for a referendum before the Scottish Parliament. There have been claims by opponents of a referendum that the legislation is bound to be defeated. That's not what I say, and it's not what Alex Salmond has said either. It remains to be seen which way the vote will go.
Fidget wrote:
Sounds a bit lame
It would sound a bit lame if what you're saying was true, but it isn't.
Fidget wrote:
it hasn't stopped it making other demands of westminster.  So why not that?
(1) Because asking Westminster to organise a referendum would in itself be handing some of the powers of the Scottish Parliament back to Westminster and as such would be a backward step; (2) Because it would give opponents of a referendum a perfect excuse for indefinite delay while MPs at Westminster brought in questions of what happens in England, in Wales, and in Northern Ireland; (3) Because, if Westminster did, after years of delay, come up with a referendum, it would be a referendum organised by Westminster and on Westminster's terms.

Putting legislation before the Scottish Parliament is the right course of action. Putting a request to Westminster would be "lame".


I didn't say Westminster should organise it, I said the demand to have it should be forthcoming from the Scottish Government, which is isn't.  Funny how the very same Government wasn't shy in asking for a 20 year or something advance on Capital grants from Westminster. Where's its mouth on a referendum?
Dave Coull

Fidget wrote:
I didn't say Westminster should organise it, I said the demand to have it should be forthcoming from the Scottish Government, which is isn't.
If by "demand" you mean they should be asking Westminster's permission, then no, they shouldn't. That really would be "lame". And OF COURSE as soon as you involve Westminster, they would end up running things. Myself and others on this forum (Holebender, for example) have been demanding a referendum for nearly five years now. I'm glad to say it's looking like we could finally get what we've been demanding, through legislation put to the Scottish Parliament by the Scottish Government.
Fidget

As I said, the Scottish Gov aren't shy in demanding, and since independence is the closest thing to its heart.. don't you think it's a bit odd that the drums aren't banging louder? It's almost 2010 - the year they said they'd likely be having a referendum but it's all a bit quiet.
Holebender

Fidget wrote:
Holebender wrote:
I voted yes-yes because it was all that was on offer. Which exactly illustrates what I was saying; my vote did not reflect my true preference, only what I considered to be the better of the choices available. On the basis that I was not alone in my preferences, you cannot say that the votes cast in the 1997 referendum indicate the genuine wishes of Scotland's population.


and you cannot say otherwise.


Oh but I can. I have given you the example of my own votes in that referendum; the way I voted was based on the choices available and did not reflect my true wishes. Working on the basis that I am far from a unique example it is fair to extrapolate my personal experience (thanks for asking that question) to the population at large and draw the conclusion that the 1997 vote does not reflect the genuine will of the voters.
Holebender

Fidget wrote:
As I said, the Scottish Gov aren't shy in demanding, and since independence is the closest thing to its heart.. don't you think it's a bit odd that the drums aren't banging louder? It's almost 2010 - the year they said they'd likely be having a referendum but it's all a bit quiet.

That is simply not true.
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk...ent/or-09/sor0903-02.htm#Col19208
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/About/.../summary-of-bills/referendum-bill
http://news.scotsman.com/latestne...dence-Salmond-sets-out.5614676.jp
http://www.snp.org/node/15776
http://www.snp.org/node/15623

There are hundreds more, but I can't be bothered to search for them. You must be the only person in Scotland who hasn't heard government ministers' plans for a referendum bill. Maybe you are somewhere where news from Scotland isn't normally available?
Fidget

oh I know about the plans for a referendum bill next year.. which isn't quite the same as having a referendum next year, like they said. Forgive my cynicism surrounding this matter's fruition.
Holebender

You know about it? Does that mean you weren't telling the truth when you said "it's all a bit quiet"?
Fidget

Well it is a bit quiet. The only time I really hear about it at the moment is on here.
Holebender

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman....Russell-Give-Scots-the.5764209.jp
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article6888316.ece
http://www.johnogroat-journal.co....stakes_are_high_for_Scotland.html
http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/1452838?UserKey=#
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/8313035.stm
http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/1444987/?UserKey=

All published within the past week!
Fidget

that's all about bickering. Where is the referendum? Where's the eurphoria heralding 2010 and the referendum on Scottish independence?
Holebender

Every one of those articles is about the referendum. Did you bother to look at any of the links? Just try the first one; it is an article written by Mike Russell MSP for tomorrow's Scotland on Sunday, and it is only about the referendum. If you haven't heard much about it you've been going around with your eyes, ears, and mind closed.
Fidget

yes... 'about' being the operative word. Bit differerent from 'having'.
Dave Coull

Fidget wrote:
I know about the plans for a referendum bill next year.. which isn't quite the same as having a referendum next year
No, it isn't quite the same. The reason it isn't quite the same is because the legislation has to be passed by the Scottish Parliament, and neither the Labour Party nor the LibDems nor the Tories want a referendum. HOWEVER , them not wanting a referendum is not quite the same thing as them actually voting against one. They know that would be a very unpopular move and could cost some of their MSPs their seats. Some Labour MSPs , and some LibDem MSPs, maybe even a couple of Tory MSPs, are going to agonise over being forced by the party whips to vote against consulting the people through a democratic referendum on self-determination. They would much rather the legislation is not put before them in the first place. But it will be, and they will then have to decide whether to vote against, or vote for, or abstain, or produce a sick note from their doctor or from their mum on that day. The truth is, nobody knows what is going to happen when the legislation is put to the vote. The Labour Party have said that they "won't support" a referendum, but note that "won't support" is not the same thing as "will vote against"   -   it could mean abstention, and abstention could mean the bill is passed. As for the LibDems, not even they know what they are going to do in three months' time. The only thing we can say for certain is that legislation for a referendum will be presented to the Scottish Parliament. I think that legislation stands a pretty good chance of passing. If it passes, then there will be a NON-PARTY-POLITICAL campaign for a pro-independence vote in the referendum. We know that many people who don't vote for the SNP dislike some of that party's OTHER policies, or they don't like the look of Alex Salmond's smug face, but this won't be about electing any political party, or any politician, it will just be about answering a question about a single issue. We know that some folk who don't vote SNP, and don't vote for any of the smaller pro-independence parties (the Greens, SSP, Solidarity) either, are, nevertheless, in favour of independence. There are Labour voters who are pro-independence   -   I have met some of them. There are Liberal Democrats who are pro-independence. There are even some Tories who are pro-independence. If the referendum campaign is fought on a non-party-political basis, then it can deliver a decisive vote for independence.
Fidget

Does all that mean that the SNP aren't having a referendum on independence next year?

yes or no will suffice.
Holebender

It means the SNP will introduce a bill for a referendum next year. It will be up to the members of the Scottish Parliament whether or not that bill is passed. That's how parliamentary democracies work.
Dave Coull

Fidget wrote:
Does all that mean that the SNP aren't having a referendum on independence next year?

yes or no will suffice.
Both "yes" and "no" would be misleading answers. If you want the truth expressed in a single word, that word would have to be "maybe"    -    because yes, the SNP want a referendum next year, but nobody knows for sure whether the legislation will be passed by the Scottish Parliament or not. Personally, I think there is a very good chance that the legislation will pass, and that we will have a referendum next year. But I can't be sure. Nobody can be sure.
Red Justice

The right to choose Scottish Freedom
The article in Scotland On Sunday by Mike Russell is most welcome he writes: It is no longer tenable for any democratic party in Scotland to stand in the way of that right to choose and as time goes by, the confused signals from other parties indicate that they, too, realise there cannot be an indefinite delay in allowing the people to have their say.

The latest example of that is the internal debate within the Scottish Liberal Democrats, who have now convened a special session at their autumn conference next week to debate the party's stance on a referendum That has come about, seemingly, because of deep disquiet in Lib Dem ranks, especially at the grass-roots level, about the position taken by the party leadership in standing against a vote of the people. It is, indeed, passing strange that a party whose very name proclaims its democratic credentials and which ordinarily favours referenda on a range of issues should have thus far proved so resolutely opposed to a referendum on Scotland's future.

As Scottish Republican Socialists we should back the wishes of two-thirds of the Scottish people to be allowed a referendum on independence. Russell also goes on to say "The London parties would do well to heed the words of Irish home rule campaigner Charles Stewart Parnell, whose observation that no-one "has the right to fix the boundary of the march of a nation" prefaced the Scottish Government's first white paper on the constitution in August 2007.

It is clear the people of Scotland want to have a choice on their future, and we intend to give them the chance to seize the benefits that only independence can bring."

Scottish Republican Socialists most welcome the SNP initiative but should warn that attempts to get the Referendum Bill passed in Holyrood could mean accepting a third option on the ballot paper of more fiscal powers from Calman Commission. Most people including the SNP leader Alex Salmond would be more comfortable with a straight choice Yes/No referendum on independence.

And here lies the dilemma of constitutional nationalism that fights as a minority government in parliament.

What is clear is the next general election to Westminster could mean the Tories find themselves without all out victory but instead a hung parliament while unlikely to have any representation in Scotland.

Interesting times certainly lie ahead in the Scottish and London parliaments in 2010. but as a true republican socialist I will not put my faith in parliamentary politics but remain true to revolutionary politics to effect real change and thus a Workers Republic.
Larry

Scottish Republican Socialist Newsletter
http://dawnofliberation.blogspot.com/
Holebender

So... how much change has your revolutionary politics delivered so far?
Aventinian

Holebender wrote:
I voted yes-yes because it was all that was on offer. Which exactly illustrates what I was saying; my vote did not reflect my true preference, only what I considered to be the better of the choices available. On the basis that I was not alone in my preferences, you cannot say that the votes cast in the 1997 referendum indicate the genuine wishes of Scotland's population.


Neither will any referendum, poll or survey that collects quantitative information.

Unfortunately, it's rather impractical to ask a few million people to write a wee essay on how they'd like to be governed and post it off to St Andrew's House. Although I suppose that's rather close to what the Calman Commission did, albeit without an expectation of a response on such a scale.
mac

It really depends on how it's phrased, tbh

sorry, AV, but what I mean is that being asked would you like haggis and chips for your tea? is different from being asked do you like haggis?

been handed half a bootlle of red wine and am not making any...

Embarassed

i dont feel well - please help Sad
Aventinian

Red Justice wrote:
The article in Scotland On Sunday by Mike Russell is most welcome he writes: It is no longer tenable for any democratic party in Scotland to stand in the way of that right to choose and as time goes by, the confused signals from other parties indicate that they, too, realise there cannot be an indefinite delay in allowing the people to have their say.


I stand against it, at the very least until the Scottish Parliament has a nationalist majority who can then petition the Parliament of the United Kingdom for such a referendum. But I also accept that, for whatever reason, the Lib Dems, Labour and the Conservatives seem unwilling to state that.

They should. It is the only way to cure the 'uncertainty' which vexes them so.

Quote:
It is, indeed, passing strange that a party whose very name proclaims its democratic credentials and which ordinarily favours referenda on a range of issues should have thus far proved so resolutely opposed to a referendum on Scotland's future.


Secession is rarely if ever democratic; what the SNP suggests is fundamentally counter-democratic.

Quote:
Russell also goes on to say "The London parties would do well to heed the words of Irish home rule campaigner Charles Stewart Parnell, whose observation that no-one "has the right to fix the boundary of the march of a nation" prefaced the Scottish Government's first white paper on the constitution in August 2007.


Yes, 'the march' of nationalism sure did Ireland a lot of good...

The state has that right, as the guardian of individual liberties, to deny those who seek to violate them from doing so. Nationalist politics are, as I've said before, a fundamental threat to liberalism.

Quote:
What is clear is the next general election to Westminster could mean the Tories find themselves without all out victory but instead a hung parliament while unlikely to have any representation in Scotland.


It's not remotely likely that they will be without representation in Scotland: indeed, all polls have shown they will gain seats, albeit modestly. Moreover, the chance of a hung parliament is ever decreasing - and if the SNP really believe that the two major parties will trust them with any sort of agreement or authority, then they are very, very mistaken.

       Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Forum Index -> Scottish Politics and Independence
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