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
|
SNP rethink on independencehttp://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=384692007
| Quote: | THE SNP is preparing to shelve its commitment to independence for at least four years after the Holyrood election, Scotland on Sunday can reveal.
The rethink was revealed by the party's leading donor Sir Tom Farmer, who has given the party £100,000 to fight the upcoming election.
In an exclusive interview, Sir Tom said that if SNP leader Alex Salmond won in May, the Nationalists would "park" all plans for separation until it had proved its ability to govern. His claim was confirmed last night by several senior SNP figures.
In comments which diverge from the party's official line, Farmer predicted a referendum on independence could be delayed to well beyond the next Holyrood election in 2011.
It seems almost certain no single party will have an outright majority following May's poll. Farmer's comments have triggered renewed speculation that Salmond will ditch the current policy of an independence referendum as the price for becoming First Minister in a coalition government.
The Lib Dems - whose support the SNP will almost certainly need to form a government - have said they would refuse to support any such referendum, effectively ruling out a coalition between the two.
But SNP insiders last night suggested Salmond could hold back on the referendum, suggesting that a pact which would propel Salmond into Bute House for a four-year term is on.
Farmer told Scotland on Sunday: "We all know that the SNP is for independence. If they decide that they want to hold a referendum then they are not going to have the referendum before they have managed to prove that they can make some drastic changes. That could be longer than four years."
He added: "The important thing is who is going to run the country for the next four years. If they do a very good job, of course, they will be returned for another four years and then people will be getting to take a view on many things."
He added: "I think that we have got carried away with the whole thing about one party considering independence and the negative side of independence - as if it was going to happen overnight. No matter what happens, it would be a long, long time coming off."
He went on: "I think without doubt if you vote for the SNP you are showing that you have a strong feeling that you consider living in an independent environment. But I think also people should be under no illusions that it won't happen within the next five years."
One well-placed SNP source said: "Tom Farmer is absolutely right on this. We have got to prove ourselves to the electorate before we go for a referendum."
The source added: "What we have got to do is show people that we are competent and then move matters forward through getting more powers at the Parliament and then at a later junction saying: OK, let's now look at going that little bit more."
According to the source, the SNP leadership would not find sustained opposition from their 'fundamentalist' wing, who are traditionally opposed to any watering down of the party's commitments.
The source added: "The membership of the SNP want to win. The rank and file is much less radical than is thought."
Another well-placed insider not close to Salmond added: "The troops want to be told by Alex what to do and if he says they couldn't get a referendum as part of a deal then they will accept that."
SNP sources also point out that the party is set to undergo a major transformation after May's election when dozens of activists are likely to be elected councillors following changes to the electoral system.
They point out that is likely to dampen the 'fundamentalist' wing of the party, which would be opposed to any delay in the independence commitment. "Instead of thinking about utopia, they will be thinking about the state of the local park," said one.
Meanwhile, in his Scotland on Sunday interview, Farmer said he had been dismayed by what he called the "negative" campaign tactics of the Labour party. Labour is expected to step up its attacks on independence this week, insisting that a vote for the SNP is a vote to split up the UK with immediate effect.
He also hit back at claims that Scotland would be unable to afford to pay its own way. "I don't accept the idea that we won't be able to afford things on our own. That is negative politics," he said. "People keep saying that national companies will leave [if Scotland became independent]. Why? What attracts companies is people and the ability of people to have a can-do attitude."
He added: "Why should it be the case that the Royal Bank of Scotland and Scottish Widows and Scottish and Newcastle and the John Wood group are all going to leave? That isn't correct. What we would have is some excitement in the country. I don't accept the idea that we won't be able to afford things on our own."
Farmer said he believed that rather than being about independence, the current election campaign should be about issues such as education, health, employment and security.
He went on: "We've had eight years of devolution. I think most people didn't think it would be like this. We anticipated that there would be drastic changes, that the government would be lean and mean.
"There have been some improvements and there have been some changes but that happens every generation. I don't think that what we have got is what people expected."
An SNP spokesman said: "Sir Tom is absolutely right that the SNP do need to prove ourselves in government and that is exactly what we will do and we will be setting out some of our specific policy proposals at our conference next week.
"The position is clear that this is compatible with holding a referendum on independence within the four-year term." |
So not a rethink, really, but perhaps a sensible way forward for the SNP? Given the fact Labour has abandoned trying to convince the electorate of why to vote for Labour, and going on the anti SNP/independence attack, it will certainly further ruin Labour's campaign and show that it is the SNP that are really calling the shots. Maybe it will perhaps sway undecided voters who maybe support independence but are apprehensive. After all the referendum is only probably likely to be delayed by 1 or 2 years.
Or could the SNP be accused once again of flip-flopping on the issue? Or maybe it would be better for them to stick to their guns, let the Tories support a LibDem/Labour minority Executive and watch with glee when the Unionists go into self-destruct mode, after the 2009/2010 Westminster General election, when it almost certain there will be a new party in power there.
|
azzuri
|
You are joking?
This is absolutely crazy if you ask me. Why in god's name would you 'park' your main policy. 'Governing' devolution won't change anything major and all it will prove is how toothless the Scottish Parliament really is. If the SNP decide to go for this then they will lose my vote along with that of many many others. I'm off to write an email.
|
Niall
|
A chairadean mhath.
Typical 'North British Person' pro unionist propaganda as usual. News must be pretty scarce on the ground nowadays when stories like this one appear. This paper has told so many lies in the past that no one believes anything it prints anymore. There is an old Gaidhlig saying: "Cha criedear an firinn o bheul nam breug" "Truth is not believed from a lying mouth..."
Does the drop in circulation figures not warn the owners that there is something seriously wrong with this paper?
Airson Alba
Niall.
|
Jimbo
|
This is crap. They've based a story on what Farmer thinks, not on stated fact from from SNP HQ. It's in the same vein as last weeks story about Salmond having a dual role at Westminster and Holyrood, unnamed sources and speculation. They've printed a story without checking with the organ grinder. Typical of this unionist rag, making news out of no news.
|
SouthernJock
|
Ive seen this story in the Scotland on Sunday
written by Eddie Barnes
Frankly, its a load of cobblers. Its a non story, its something that Eddie Barnes has made up and should be seen as such
The same writer also wrote a piec in the same edition, obviously a slow news day!
Extoling that 2 out of 3 companies in Scotland were against independence , quoting the likes of Wendy Alexander
Im afraid Eddie Barnes has either lost it, or is now being paid full time by Labour to write crap
Smacks a bit of what went on in the US Presedential elections for Nixon and the dirty tricks they used, including unfounded stories and slur, made up by a bunch of college types, the end result there was watergate.
Funnily enough London Labour has been having visits from the US by campaign specialists
|
October1974
|
this article by Alex Bell is a bit of an antidote to the so called journalism in the Scotsman/SOS
http://www.allmediascotland.com/a..._playing_politics_soil_journalism
|
darkside
|
Today the Scotland on Sunday ran a front page headline on an "SNP change of Heart" and "Rethink on Independence".
This story, created around snippets taken out of context from an interview with Sir Tom Farmer and "suggestions" from unnamed "SNP insiders" is just another false rumour deliberately put out into circulation by the Unionist media.
Last night and today the SNP put out a loud and clear statement to the media asserting that the referendum on independence will go out towards the end of the SNP's first term of Government as planned.
(Regardless of Liberal "Democrat" hostility to principles of self-determination!)
This is the full text of the SNP Press release:
"Sir Tom is absolutely right that the SNP do need to prove ourselves in
government and that is exactly what we will do. We will be setting out a
range of positive policy proposals at our conference next week to take
Scotland forward.
"The position is clear that this is compatible with holding a referendum on
independence within the 4-year term.
"That policy is clear and unchanged. We will prove ourselves in government
and deliver a referendum within the 4-year term."
|
Aventinian
|
| Jimbo wrote: | | This is crap. They've based a story on what Farmer thinks, not on stated fact from from SNP HQ. It's in the same vein as last weeks story about Salmond having a dual role at Westminster and Holyrood, unnamed sources and speculation. They've printed a story without checking with the organ grinder. Typical of this unionist rag, making news out of no news. |
Senior SNP figures agreed with Farmer. Now you can deny that these people exist, but I doubt a broadsheet newspaper would lie so blatently. You could also argue that they have no idea what they're talking about, but of course you have nothing to support that view. Of course, they'll never admit it publicly - it'd be electoral suicide. But we all remember how quickly SNP opinions can change. "If drafted, I will defer..." and all that.
Realistically, the SNP are seizing what they can from this election. They can't get power any other way and there's not a chance of them seeing Scottish independence as a result of the 2007 events.
Of course, most of you chaps won't particularly like it, but still - is it better to never be in power, or to stick religiously to your unrealistic principles.
|
azzuri
|
It's better to stick to your principles.
Getting elected for getting elected's sake alone is the reason the UK is in such a mess with the likes of the New Labour experiment, and David Cameron seems to be trying the same thing with the Tories.
Welcome to the centre ground folks....
|
Lothian Sky
|
The SNP has absolutely bugger all to lose by staying in opposition for another 4 years with Cameron creeing up in the polls in England. This is just typical of the mince written by SoS. "unmaned party figures said_______________" insert lie here. It's all BS of course.
|
Anthropos
|
Firstly a word about sources - all serious political journalists use unnamed inside sources within all political parties, and all political parties have plenty of people who brief journalists anonymously. Cultivating these sorts of contacts is central to any political journalist who is serious about his trade. To suggest that Barnes has simply fictionalised these comments is delusional.
My second point follows on from this, the so called fundamentalist wing on the SNP always feared that devolution was a unionist trap which would snare the SNP because under PR it was going to be very difficult for any one party to win an overall majority, and indeed that is the case – the SNP may well be the biggest party after the May election, but they will almost certainly not have an overall majority. Therefore they will have to deal with someone in order to govern.
That may mean shelving an independence referendum; it would not be the first time. In first Scottish elections in 1998 the achievement of independence was placed 10th in its list of manifesto objectives. Salmond is a gradualist and his strategy has been to advance slowly with independence arriving incrementally. They envisage the parliament acquiring more powers until we come to the point at which the last step to independence seems a small one. In light of this the story is perfectly credible.
|
Gung-ho
|
Firstly any SNP led executive will hold a referendum on Scottish independence will it be just after the election will it be two/three years down the line. That will be up to those within the SNP who will hold it at the time they feel we can win the bloody thing. Their is no point in holding a referendum if you start of in a weak or losing position. Nope we wait to strike when the time is right. That could be within 100 days of taking office or it could be after another monumental blunder by Labour at Westminster. It could also be after England has returned a Tory Government. The main thing is it will be held by the SNP under any other major political party in Scotland it will not be held and that is a fact.
|
Corby Boy
|
The gradualist approach is definitely the way to go in Scotland. The timing now is that independence is the favoured constitutional position, however the level of majority in the polls is not at landslide scales - yet! Having a bad result in a referendum on independence would knock things back even further than biding time for when the conditions are ripe for one. As history has shown over the last 50 or so years, the demand for greater autonomy has paid dividends already - would have been unthinkable pre- or even post WWII. when the union was seemingly rock solid. At the end of the day devolution came about because of the demand for self rule, independence will come about when the majority (by a long way) realise that devolution is falling short of what Scotland needs and independence is the only credible option. That's the time for a referendum. Lets face it we will never go back to how things were pre-devolution, Holyrood's powers will only ever get stronger - the step then is a short hop to independence rather than a huge scary (according to unionists) leap.
Evolution as opposed to revolution. Lets face it the Scots are not revolutionists, which is always the bloody route to wherever a political force wishes to go (see Ireland, which has taken 80 years to recover from its revolution and Russia which is still in a state).
|
Aventinian
|
| Gung-ho wrote: | | That will be up to those within the SNP who will hold it at the time they feel we can win the bloody thing. Their is no point in holding a referendum if you start of in a weak or losing position. |
I didn't realise the holding of referendums was to be considered a party political matter.
Even in the unlikely event that the SNP do get into coalition government, you'll still be paired up with a Unionist party. You have a commitment to a referendum, if they give you it they'll want it held at the most inconvenient time.
And I think the SNP might just put up with that. It'd save them face, even if they lost.
| azzuri wrote: | It's better to stick to your principles.
Getting elected for getting elected's sake alone is the reason the UK is in such a mess with the likes of the New Labour experiment, and David Cameron seems to be trying the same thing with the Tories.
Welcome to the centre ground folks.... |
Well if the SNP think Scotland's in such a state, surely they have a moral duty to put their pride on the line and help out its people?
|
Economist
|
The whole story does seem to be a crock of sh!t with the Scotsman, seeming to correct its Sunday story.
| Quote: | | Alex Salmond says his party's policy is unwavering and unchanging: he will deliver a referendum within the next four-year term of the Scottish Parliament. |
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=393072007
| Quote: | Why SNP and Lib Dems may yet come to a coalition deal at Holyrood
THE SNP is adamant there will be a referendum on independence within the next four-year term of the parliament; the Liberal Democrats are equally adamant there will be no referendum.
So that's clear then - there cannot possibly be an SNP-Liberal Democrat coalition after the Holyrood election on 3 May.
Well, not quite.
What the leaders of both parties realise is that the rules of politics in Scotland changed the moment the Scottish Parliament was created.
This is because of the new proportional representation system used in elections. It has all but prevented any single party from getting an overall majority of seats, and coalitions have to be formed to create workable governments.
What this means as far as each party's approach is concerned is simple: argue one position as vociferously as possible until polling day, then be prepared to find some compromise, if needed, afterwards.
The Liberal Democrats were the first to work this out. They tried with increasing desperation not to get hemmed in to anything non-negotiable before the 1999 elections, knowing they would have to compromise with Labour as soon as the election was over.
Then, towards the end of the campaign, the Liberal Democrat leadership slipped up and labelled its policy on the abolition of tuition fees as "non negotiable".
Labour was committed to the retention of tuition fees but, even then, when there appeared to be no room for manoeuvre, a deal was done.
A review commission was established and upfront tuition fees were abolished, only to be replaced with another payment, a graduate endowment, for students to pay after they leave university.
The Liberal Democrats have tried not to be hamstrung by any other non-negotiable policies ever since.
It is true that Nicol Stephen, the Liberal Democrats' Scottish leader, has stressed that he will not accept an independence referendum unless there is a majority in the parliament for it - an unlikely scenario.
But in the same interview with The Scotsman in which Mr Stephen made clear his total opposition to an independence referendum, he stressed that nothing was "non-negotiable".
So there is a little wriggle room there - not much, but a little.
And what of the nationalists? Alex Salmond says his party's policy is unwavering and unchanging: he will deliver a referendum within the next four-year term of the Scottish Parliament.
But, once again, there is a grey area here.
It is entirely possible that the SNP will form a coalition with the Liberal Democrats, with neither party being the largest party in the parliament.
The SNP could get 40 seats to Labour's 42, with the Liberal Democrats on 26. The Liberal Democrats have a lot in common with the SNP and it may be more attractive for them to form a new sort of government with a party on the way up rather than prop up a Labour Party clearly on the way down.
After all, an SNP-Lib Dem coalition could introduce a local income tax instead of the council tax and it could prevent any new nuclear power stations from being built in Scotland.
However, whenever Mr Salmond has been asked whether his policy on a referendum would still be non negotiable if the SNP was in coalition, but not the largest party in the parliament, he has refused to answer.
Last night, his spokesman continued to be evasive on this issue.
He said: "We are envisaging victory. No party would speculate other than on the basis of success and we have no reason to anticipate anything other than success."
That may well be true, but it was most definitely not an answer to the question.
What all this proves is that both parties want to do the same thing: approach the election with the strongest possible lines on policy, but still leave themselves room to negotiate afterwards.
It is a tricky balance to strike, as both Mr Salmond and Mr Stephen are finding out.
Salmond vows to cut Executive down to size
THE Scottish National Party promised yesterday to trim the size of government in Scotland if elected at the Holyrood elections in May.
Alex Salmond, the party's leader, published plans to reduce the number of Executive departments from nine to six. The number of ministers would drop from 18 to 16, excluding law officers.
It is the latest in a series of keynote policy announcements the SNP is making in the build-up to its spring conference in Glasgow this weekend.
"Scotland needs the leadership and ambition that can only be provided by a government and team of ministers that put our nation first," Mr Salmond said.
He said that within the first 100 days of an SNP government, he would deliver a "smaller, better-focused ministerial team". It would operate in "more powerful and effective departments" to ensure policy priorities were delivered.
Under the Nationalists' promised overhaul, departments outside the First Minister's would be led by new cabinet secretaries.
Departments would be set up to encompass the First Minister's portfolio, as well as finance and sustainable growth, health and wellbeing, education and skills, rural affairs and justice.
There would be two deputy first ministers, not one as present. One would look after external relations and the other would deal with the parliament and public sector reform.
Mr Salmond said: "Savings from these changes will be redirected from the administration of government into frontline public services in health, community safety and early-years education." |
|
|
|
|