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
Dave Coull

Some Reasons Why It'll Happen

Okay, it's a crap heading, but there's a lot of good points in this article.

Towards devolution

Despite wishful thinking from some areas, there's good reason to believe a referendum on Scottish independence will take place

by  Mike Small

The Guardian
Tuesday 1 September 2009 17.30 BST
       
The SNP has begun its attempt to break up Great Britain by bringing forward a bill for a referendum on independence. The first minister, Alex Salmond, is due to outline plans to MSPs on Thursday for the next parliamentary session, in which the bill will be formally announced. A spokesman said that a vote on the bill would "place the issue of Scotland's future – and the powers we need to succeed as a nation – at the heart of political and public debate".

Various wishful scenarios declare that the proposed referendum "will never happen", that the "celestial peace of the British Union" will go unperturbed, that the SNP hasn't the majority, or, perhaps less credibly, that the Scottish government is acting beyond its legal remit. But there is good political reason to think that the referendum will happen and its result is by no means certain.

First, there's that annoying problem of democracy. Iain Gray will need to face-up on Thursday and present a coherent response. All of the opposition parties in Scotland share the difficult prospect of opposing the people's right to have their say. Let's be clear, there are many more people who want a poll on independence than want independence itself or who would vote for the SNP. Support for a referendum on independence is vast, ranging from between 60% and 80% of the Scottish public in recent opinion polls.

At its heart the referendum offers the prospect of power to change beyond constitutional paternalism. As one wag put it when firearms legislation was being proposed at Holyrood, "with devolution you get to ban air-rifles, with independence you can cancel Trident". Democracy for Scotland through referenda is both means and ends. Then there's the Cameron-effect. The Tories may be riding high in the opinion polls in England but in Scotland they are flat-lining worse than Kevin Bacon and Keifer Sutherland ever did. In the immediate future, Scottish politics will at least be more interesting than Westminster. Brown may have consigned himself to political oblivion, but in Stirling and Dundee it's not Brown v Cameron, it's Cameron v Salmond, and the Cameronians are not half as clever as they think they are.

Polls have shown if a Cameron Tory cabinet forms support for independence jumps 25% . Even at its poorest ratings for a year (a YouGov poll shows support for independence at only 28%) the "Cameron Effect" could easily be a stepping stone to another Yes vote. The problem for Unionist politicians rubbing their hands in glee at this post-Megrahi nadir, is that the survey also showed a seven-point SNP lead over Labour in the first-past-the-post constituency vote and a four-point lead in the poll for list MSPs. People may think MacAskill wrong but they don't doubt his integrity.

In a cruel paradox for Labour a referendum offers a way out from Tory public spending cuts, and it's as campaign allies that Labour will be playing up the threat of the Tories' plans.

The third and most compelling reason that may yet swing the issue is the collapse in credibility of Westminster and politics in general. Groups like Vote for a Change are mushrooming and likely to reinforce the idea of a failed political class mired in corruption, back-handers and moat-expenses. Holyrood is not immune from petty dishonesty, but it isn't swamped with the same association of base venality that dogs Westminster. For many its not a gigantic leap to suggest that it's the British state itself that needs disbanding. From Tomlinson to Peace Camp, from the surveillance culture to ID cards the prospect of an authoritarian state is an anathema to most Scots.

The unionist coalition may well play the fear card that was the tried and tested political tactic to oppose first devolution itself, and then a nationalist administration. The Megrahi decision will be portrayed as botched foreign policy, the financial meltdown as a sort of 21st century Darien, and the incoming Tories will no doubt try and portray David Cameron as a sort of Bambi in Tails.

The very institutions that could hold Britain together as an idea have been picked apart, privatised, sold off or dismantled by two decades of neo-liberal politicians who can hardly now appeal to the NHS, the Post Office or a common media voice as indicators of a common future, never mind a shared past. If you place so little value in these institutions then don't rely on them to tell your political story.

The Megrahi case has sent many English commentators into a sort of spasm of resentment, anger and confusion, Fraser Nelson perhaps taking the prize for wilful stupidity. This sort of coverage is hardly a revelation but come the referendum the combination of the sort of harsh surveillance state established under Blair-Brown with a return to reckless unashamed Tory sado-monetarism may be too much for a nation with a ready alternative.

Conventional wisdom is that the Megrahi case has sent independence off-track, shattering confidence in self-determination just as the banking collapse was supposed to. This didn't happen and next year's referendum might just confirm the inevitable.
William_Cleland

Short on actual reasons in a 2010 context, in my opinion. SNP 47, Greens 2 and Margo 1 totals 50 Yes. If Labour vote against (and the reason Wendy Alexander had to go was to ensure they would) that's 46 No so it would need either the Tories or the Lib Dems to vote yes or for them both to abstain to get the legislation passed.  There is no chance of them doing that, in my opinion, because it would appear to many of their voters both north and south of the border that they are aiding and abetting the SNP in the break up of the UK. For the Tories in particular that could be electoral suicide. The numbers are also not close enough at this point for a few opposition MSPs staying at home through illness or visiting Outer Mongolia to make a difference if the Tories and Lib Dems groups are voting No.

I think the article actually provides the reasons why the Yes and No numbers might shift significantly at Holyrood after the 2011 and 2015 elections when/if David Cameron is the prime minister. I often post about the energy crisis that is likely to hit the UK by about 2015. If I were an SNP activist that's the sort of date I would have in mind for going all the way because that might turn out to be one of the rare points in history where conditions are actually ripe for radical action rather than muddling along in a business as usual sort of way. A 2010 referendum would be premature from an SNP standpoint so I do strongly believe that the last thing Alex Salmond wants right now is a referendum next year.
Dave Coull

Re: Some Reasons Why It'll Happen

Mike Small, writing in The Guardian, wrote
Quote:
As one wag put it when firearms legislation was being proposed at Holyrood, "with devolution you get to ban air-rifles, with independence you can cancel Trident".
The person who said that, whoever it was, may have been a "wag" in Mike Small's view, but, while it may have been put it in a jokey sort of way, that is, nevertheless,  a VERY big difference.

However, in his article, immediately following that important point about whether the Scottish Parliament has jurisdiction over air rifles or the authority to ban weapons of mass destruction from Scottish soil and Scottish lochs, Mike Small wrote
Quote:
Democracy for Scotland through referenda is both means and ends.
For some of us, aye, it is. For some of us, the holding of a referendum is a victory in itself, it is both means and end. But only if people are presented with a clear, unambiguous choice. No Lib-Dem tartan-wrapped-fudge amendments are acceptable, the choice really is as stark as expressed by that anonymous "wag".
Rinty

I believe that it will happen through compromise.  The SNP will be forced to accept an amendment of a third choice to get the bill through, and, as I said elsewhere, a lot of bold talk will be used to cover the fact that all sides would accept this result as better than losing.
Holebender

Why should there be a third option? All the opposition parties are agreed on the Calman Commission proposals, aren't they? Therefore the status quo is not on offer by anyone, therefore there are only two options on offer; enhanced devolution a la Calman, or independence.

Unless you are suggesting a compromise is reached which offers more than Calman but less than independence?
Rinty

what I am suggesting is the SNP will not get enough backing for the referendum bill and will accept a compromise amendment from possibly the tories or others adding a third option to the referendum.

the alternative would be to see the SNP defeated in parliament and then forced to watch the combined opposition forcing through Calman, powerless to have an influence.

This could neuter the Government and I belive that deals will be done leading to a 'thrid way' comromise.  All parties will say that they are against it but the consequences of accepting the middle ground are less damaging than the potential of losing a straight yes/no vote.
Dave Coull

Rinty wrote:
I believe that it will happen through compromise.
What possible compromise is there between, on the one hand, having jurisdiction over the sale of air rifles, and, on the other hand, having jurisdiction over whether enough nuclear weapons to destroy the Northern Hemisphere are based a short distance doon the watter from Glasgow?
Rinty wrote:
The SNP will be forced to accept an amendment of a third choice to get the bill
In practical terms, what conceivable "third choice" could there possibly be? NONE of the political parties represented in the Scottish Parliament is in favour of abolishing the Scottish Parliament and returning all powers to Westminster. NONE of the political parties represented in the Scottish Parliament is in favour of continuing with the status quo unchanged. ALL of the opposition parties are in favour of changes proposed by the Calman Commission. Therefore, in practical terms, what is on offer is either Calman-style "enhanced devolution", or independence. There is, in practical terms, no "third choice". Mike Small wrote in the Guardian
Quote:
Democracy for Scotland through referenda is both means and ends.
And yes, for some of us at least, that is true. The holding of a referendum will in itself be a victory for democratic self-determination. But only if people are presented with the only two real choices. Anything less would be fudge for the sake of fudge.
William_Cleland

Given independence was completely off limits in Calman commission terms as the alternative to the so called National Conversation I suspect a two option referendum would be the result of Rinty's scenario (i.e. enhanced devolution package vs status quo) given they do not actually need the SNP to be on board to have a majority for their amendment. Think that's unlikely though as that would mean Gordon Brown conceding that Holyrood gets to set the agenda rather than Westminster.
Rinty

"What possible compromise is there between, on the one hand, having jurisdiction over the sale of air rifles, and, on the other hand, having jurisdiction over whether enough nuclear weapons to destroy the Northern Hemisphere are based a short distance doon the watter from Glasgow?"

Its hard to say, but compromises will be there and that is how we usually arrive at political decisions, especially with a minority government.  I am not advocating a compromise, just predicting one.

"Therefore, in practical terms, what is on offer is either Calman-style "enhanced devolution", or independence. There is, in practical terms, no "third choice". Mike Small wrote in the Guardian"

This isnt necessarily practical, first the details of 'enhanced devolution' would have to be agreed.  I see the referendum, as do many others, as a choice between independence or not.  To an extent we already have the enhanced devolution on the table and no need to have a referendum to implement it, depending how far it goes.

What you are saying is what I am predicting, the straight yes/no referendum disappears because of Calman, leaving a least worst option for independence supporters of at least a step forward in powers for the parliament of the scottish people.  A sweetener for the possibility of a no vote that makes it palatable and more likely.
Holebender

But surely, William & Rinty, the status quo is now off the table because of Calman. Calman is now the basic position so a referendum would be between Calman and something else, something which offers greater powers to the Parliament. If you are saying there will likely be a three option referendum you are saying the three options are Calman, powers beyond Calman but short of independence, or independence.

As the only positions of the Holyrood parties are Calman (Labour, Lib-Dem, Tory) or independence (SNP, Green, independent) who is going to champion this intermediate third option?
Rinty

Calman isnt an option as yet.  There is a simple option of yes or no to independence.  If a 'more powers' option was to be included then that would have to be agreed, not just by some opposition party spokespersons in a press release, but by parliament.

If we move to a referendum that is about Independence versus Calman (or something similar to calman) then, in effect, what I predicted is what we will have.

The bill being forwarded by the SNP is a question of agreeing (or not) the notion of the Scottish Government seeking negotiations to exit the UK.  The alternative vote to that is no.

If the SNP introduce Calman as part of the referendum then that would be a huge compromise as it would severely dent their chances of winning a yes vote.  Many floating voters on this issue would look to the compromise position.

I am not saying that their will be a phusical third option an a ballot paper, I am saying that the 'third way' compromise will win the day in the machinations of minority government making progression.  That compromise could mean a 'third' option of not having a eferendum at all.

The SNP face the possibility of being defeated by the opposition and then being powerless to stop them winning their 'calman' option.  They wont want that to happen.

The best way for the SNP to go about this, in my opinion, is to stand in the 2011 elections clearly stating that, if elected, they will seek independence negotiations.

They wont do that for reasons that are much the same as admitting defeat on the question, so they will make a song and dance about it but accept more powers.
Dave Coull

William_Cleland wrote:
I suspect a two option referendum would be the result of Rinty's scenario (i.e. enhanced devolution package vs status quo)
Since not a single party in the Scottish Parliament is now in favour of the status quo, that would be a totally pointless exercise. The only two options that offer a real choice are independence or Calman-style enhanced devolution. Given that all parties are in favour of Calman-style enhanced devolution, all you have to do to support this choice is vote no to giving the Scottish government authority to negotiate for independence.
Rinty

exactly dave, but this means that having a choice on the table of giving scotland more of a say on more issues will dilute the potential vote for independence, meaning that the SNP will need to be heavily involved in what the 'calman' alternative is.  

Or, they face the situation of losing in parliament than being shut out of the introduction of more powers, leaving them with the task of implementing the parliaments wishes which will amount to the wishes of the unionist opposition.
William_Cleland

Worth noting that according to the BBC it is actually Alex Salmond who has been suggesting a three option referendum:-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/8233788.stm

Mr Salmond has suggested an option to increase the Scottish Parliament's powers, in the wake of the Calman Commission review of devolution, could be included in the referendum.

That's backed up by this story in The Times:-

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article6512703.ece

Alex Salmond yesterday challenged Scotland’s pro-Union parties to put their preferred option for more powers for Holyrood into a multichoice referendum, to be held next year.

With the dust barely settled on the Calman report, Mr Salmond threw down a gauntlet by urging Labour, Conservatives and Liberal Democrats to come to a unanimous view over the report’s proposals and then include it in a nationwide referendum; Scottish voters could then consider it along with the SNP's core independence policy and the devolution status quo.

Also worth noting that a multichoice referendum would include the status quo despite none of the parties supporting that position.
Dave Coull

William_Cleland wrote:
Worth noting that according to the BBC it is actually Alex Salmond who has been suggesting a three option referendum
I read that BBC report, and must point out that, if you think this through logically,
Quote:
Mr Salmond has suggested an option to increase the Scottish Parliament's powers, in the wake of the Calman Commission review of devolution, could be included in the referendum.
is not the same thing as
Quote:
suggesting a three option referendum
William_Cleland wrote:
That's backed up by this story in The Times
I read that as well, and the same thing applies.

I note from that Times report a "Labour spokesman" said
Quote:
Calman does not need a referendum. It is an extension of the devolution process
and while it's true Calman is an extension of the devolution process and doesn't need a referendum if it the ONLY option, it isn't true if there is an independence option. I note also that a "Liberal Democrat spokesman" said
Quote:
As no political party opposes Calman, putting it to a referendum would be a pointless waste of taxpayers’ time and money
which would be true if Calman is the ONLY option presented, but not if independence is an option.

Since none of the political parties are supporting the status quo, that leaves a straight choice between Calman and independence.
William_Cleland

Not much point responding to the above directly because line by line rebuttals are a disrespectful posting style, in my opinion, and are normally engaged in by people with a highly aggressive attitude who are not actually interested in intelligent discussion and a rational exchange of ideas.

I will instead point people towards this interesting snippet in The Times article:-

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article6512703.ece

Sources close to Mr Salmond acknowledged, however, that the First Minister’s offer yesterday was aimed more at the Liberal Democrats than either Labour or the Conservatives, because Tavish Scott, on the day last year that he became the Scottish Lib Dem leader, indicated that he would back a multioption vote.

Mr Scott has, however, since then attempted to go back on that by saying that he would not “allow independence in by the back door” courtesy of such a referendum - a view repeated yesterday by his spokeswoman.

No doubt Tavish Scott was subsequently reminded by the Lib Dem's "federal" leader, Nick Clegg, who is the real leader of the Liberal Democrats and who gets to decide policy on issues currently reserved to Westminster in much the same way the Labour group at Holyrood was brought to heel by Gordon Brown.

It actually makes a lot of sense from the narrow standpoint of Holyrood politics for the opposition parties to "Bring it on!" in 2010. The stumbling block is that it would look like an attempt to help the SNP break up the UK to voters south of the border. The last thing the Westminster leaders want is to have their election campaigns overshadowed by a referendum involving just 10% of the UK electorate that could lead to the end of the British state and to have their political party get the blame for it happening.
Alasdair

William_Cleland wrote:
Not much point responding to the above directly because line by line rebuttals are a disrespectful posting style, in my opinion, and are normally engaged in by people with a highly aggressive attitude who are not actually interested in intelligent discussion and a rational exchange of ideas.


Or, of occassion it's useful to seperate out multiple specific points and deal with them individually ... just saying.
Stevie

Actually, if Alex can prsent the bill after the Tories win the next GE then the picture could ne very interesting.

Good post Dave.
kevin04

The SNP should try to get the Bill through Parli as the way it is. If, as predicted it gets voted down. Surely, this is a major OG for the Unionist Parties? The majority of recent opinion polls have stated that Scots want a say on Independence, and with the Unionists rejecting the Bill. It'll look like they don't trust or want a vote.

Come 2011, Scots Election. What do you guys think?

A Tory Majority will be sitting in Westminister, Labour still licking their wounds from the whipping at the 2010 Elections. SNP win a majority in Holyrood, they pass a Bill for a 2012 Referendum?
Nautilus

Referendum Bill

One of the main planks in the election manifesto of the SNP was the introduction of a Referendum Bill in 2010. Regardless of what the Scottish People think about independence, they would like to be consulted.

If the opposition unionist parties gang up against this, it will not go down well with the Scottish electorate. If it is put to the vote and lost ahead of a UK General Election, you can imagine the consequences for the Tory, Lib Dem and Labour parties up here. All the polls show a majority in favour of a referendum, regardless of its outcome.

I do not think that the opposition parties will risk voting no to a referendum, but I think they will make it conditional. One of the conditions may be that no further referendums on Scottish independence may be held for 25 years.

Why should we be governed by an administration that panders to the needs of 14 constituencies in the Home Counties in order to get elected? Their needs and aspirations are totally different from ours.
Aventinian

Re: Some Reasons Why It'll Happen

Dave Coull wrote:
Mike Small, writing in The Guardian, wrote
Quote:
As one wag put it when firearms legislation was being proposed at Holyrood, "with devolution you get to ban air-rifles, with independence you can cancel Trident".
The person who said that, whoever it was, may have been a "wag" in Mike Small's view, but, while it may have been put it in a jokey sort of way, that is, nevertheless,  a VERY big difference.


Not really. You, as the voter, have the ability to elect a government that will cancel trident already. That is simply not the democratic will of the British people.

Quote:
Mike Small wrote
Quote:
Democracy for Scotland through referenda is both means and ends.
For some of us, aye, it is. For some of us, the holding of a referendum is a victory in itself, it is both means and end. But only if people are presented with a clear, unambiguous choice.


Which are you, if I might ask?

Holebender wrote:
Why should there be a third option? All the opposition parties are agreed on the Calman Commission proposals, aren't they? Therefore the status quo is not on offer by anyone, therefore there are only two options on offer; enhanced devolution a la Calman, or independence.

Unless you are suggesting a compromise is reached which offers more than Calman but less than independence?


No. The majority of MPs in 1997 had conceded the idea of Scottish devolution - however they still had a referendum on that, and had that referendum failed then it would not have happened. Ditto the second question about tax-raising powers. None of the three parties have committed absolutely to a referendum-free implementation of Calman's proposals.

Another issue: since David Cameron has said, rather flippantly if you ask me, that he will not consider any constitutional changes, such as Calman's proposals, in the next Parliament, a referendum may be the only way to bring about those changes before 2015.
Aventinian

Rinty wrote:
what I am suggesting is the SNP will not get enough backing for the referendum bill and will accept a compromise amendment from possibly the tories or others adding a third option to the referendum.

the alternative would be to see the SNP defeated in parliament and then forced to watch the combined opposition forcing through Calman, powerless to have an influence.

This could neuter the Government and I belive that deals will be done leading to a 'thrid way' comromise.  All parties will say that they are against it but the consequences of accepting the middle ground are less damaging than the potential of losing a straight yes/no vote.


I'm inclined to agree. If I was the leader of a Scottish political party, I'd not only have completely ruled out supporting a referendum, but made it clear that my party would be actively voting against. That Labour and the Lib Dems have not done this suggests they believe there is some political capital to be made out of this.

A very dangerous game, and one in which there is room for Salmond to gain regardless of losing a poll vote. I don't think he'll much care if he loses, he'll expect it, but it will allow him to get his message across like never before, and also create a precedent for future referendums on the subject.

Dave Coull wrote:
Since not a single party in the Scottish Parliament is now in favour of the status quo


They will become in favour of it if the Scottish people vote for it. Indeed, Labour and the Tories are probably ideologically opposed to more powers for the Scottish Parliament, but are willing to compromise.

kevin04 wrote:
The SNP should try to get the Bill through Parli as the way it is. If, as predicted it gets voted down. Surely, this is a major OG for the Unionist Parties? The majority of recent opinion polls have stated that Scots want a say on Independence, and with the Unionists rejecting the Bill. It'll look like they don't trust or want a vote.


Actually, a recent poll showed most respondents against a 2010 referendum on Scottish independence (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/scotland/4996066/Alex-Salmonds-independence-referendum-plan-rejected-by-voters.html). Which is unusual, to my mind - people generally like referendums.

Quote:
Come 2011, Scots Election. What do you guys think?


If it is voted down, and the SNP spend their time moaning about that and making it an important issue in their 2011 campaign, then I think they'll be shooting themselves in the foot, electorally speaking.
Dave Coull

Aventinian continues to wrongly refer to dodgy selective exercises run by dubious outfits as "polls".
Aventinian wrote:
a recent poll showed most respondents against a 2010 referendum on Scottish independence
"Recent"?????!!!!! The link you provided for this was a report of a so-called "poll" in a Daily Telegraph of SIX MONTHS AGO! I note from the link provided that they also predicted
Quote:
In June's European elections, Labour is on course to secure the largest vote (36 per cent)
That prediction was wildly wrong. In actual fact, the SNP got around 30percent of the Scottish vote and the Labour Party just over 20percent. To put it another way, the SNP got nearly 50percent more votes than Labour. DESPITE me not voting for them.....
Dave Coull

Re: Some Reasons Why It'll Happen

I wrote:
Mike Small, writing in The Guardian, wrote
Quote:
As one wag put it when firearms legislation was being proposed at Holyrood, "with devolution you get to ban air-rifles, with independence you can cancel Trident".
The person who said that, whoever it was, may have been a "wag" in Mike Small's view, but, while it may have been put it in a jokey sort of way, that is, nevertheless, a VERY big difference.
Aventinian wrote:
You, as the voter, have the ability to elect a government that will cancel trident already. That is simply not the democratic will of the British people.
Trident is based a short distance doon the watter from Glasgow. Trident is not based a short distance down the Thames estuary from London. If it was, no doubt it would be the "democratic will of the British people" to get rid of Trident. Which is one reason why our rulers do NOT base Trident in England. However, Trident is opposed by a majority of the Members of the Scottish Parliament, it is opposed by the Church of Scotland, it is opposed by the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland, it is opposed by the Scottish Episcopal Church, and there is every sign that it is more disliked by the general population here in Scotland than is the case in England. There can be little doubt about the democratic will of the Scottish people to get rid of Trident. The fact that at present the Scottish Parliament has jurisdiction over the sale of air rifles, but not over weapons of mass destruction being based in Scotland, is a powerful symbol of the democratic deficit which can only be addressed by independence.
Dave Coull

Re: Some Reasons Why It'll Happen

Aventinian wrote:
Which are you, if I might ask?
Asking "which are you" must surely mean "which of two alternatives". But it is far from clear to which two alternatives you are referring, in this case. There surely can't be any doubt that I'm in favour of independence?
Dave Coull

Re: Some Reasons Why It'll Happen

Aventinian wrote:
None of the three parties have committed absolutely to a referendum-free implementation of Calman's proposals.
So, when  a Labour spokesman said
Quote:
Calman does not need a referendum. It is an extension of the devolution process
and when a Liberal Democrat spokesman said
Quote:
As no political party opposes Calman, putting it to a referendum would be a pointless waste of taxpayers’ time and money
what they actually meant was, our parties are a bunch of opportunists who have done U-turns before and will probably do so again?
Rinty

Dave, I dont disagree that a no vote would or could be a vote for 'calman.  What I am saying is that the SNP will lose the vote on a referendum and then be forced to see the unionists parties pass their version of Calman.  The picture then is an SNP govt who couldnt deliver on a referendum coupled with the reality of the unionists parties being the ones seen to have given Scotland more 'independence' just as they dlivered devolution.

I think that this could be a tacical disater for salmond ahead of 2011 and that will force some sort of compromise.

When I talk about a 'third' choice I am probably using it too loosely and for different things.  I am not talking specifically about a referendum with three choices, although that could easily be the result.  The SNP would then be seen to be delivering more powers through their bill.  They would also be more likely to be able to negotiate amendments to 'calman' for inclusion in the bill.

I also mean that the third choice could be no referendum, or even some sort of deal where the SNP drop the referendum bill and put forward a 'more powers' bill instead.

But I am only speculating, not supporting, compromise like this.  I hope there is a referendum, I hope its a yes/no choice, I hope we vote yes.

But I think that the best way to do this is for a wider movement, not a specific party, and that the parties who are pro-independence, should stand at elections promising to negotiate a break from the union if elected.

But we are where we are and I think that there are many possibilites, and that the unionist parties are all capable of doing a deal with the SNP away from the front of unity under calman.
Dave Coull

Rinty wrote:
Dave, I dont disagree that a no vote would or could be a vote for 'calman.  What I am saying is that the SNP will lose the vote on a referendum
Which vote are you talking about? Do you mean the vote in the Scottish Parliament? Well, it's a possibility, but, as I understand it, we are talking about a bill which won't even be presented to the parliament until the end of January next year. Allowing time for discussion of the bill, the earliest possible vote in the parliament would be in February. That's four months away, and, like Harold Wilson said, even a week is a long time in politics. Anybody who says, now, that they know for certain what the outcome of a vote next February will be, is making rather a lot of rash assumptions. Or do you mean the vote in the actual referendum?  I remember both the so-called "opinion polls" and the "expert" predictions before the referendum on a Scottish Parliament. It was going to be lost, or, even if it was narrowly won, whole regions of the country would vote against, etc. If you study referendums in general (not just in Scotland), historically speaking, there is a distinct tendency for folk to be a bit more "radical" in their voting than was expected. I say that will be the case with this vote. Oh, I'm not saying this is "inevitable". I'm not saying we can sit back and rely on "historical necessity". It will take a lot of hard work. But we can win a referendum for independence, and by a significant margin.
Rinty wrote:
I think that this could be a tactical disaster for salmond
First you were sounding like a lawyer, insisting that any move to independence can only be with the approval of the UK parliament (tell that to the yanks) now you are sounding like a business-as-usual-politician. The reality is, as anybody with an understanding of radical politics should recognise, that it would be NOT going ahead with a referendum that would be a disaster for Salmond. I'm not saying he is necessarily more principled than you, but I do think he is smart enough to recognise that his best tactic is to stick firmly to the principle of self-determination for the Scottish people.
Rinty wrote:
When I talk about a 'third' choice I am probably using it too loosely and for different things.  I am not talking specifically about a referendum with three choices.........I also mean that the third choice could be no referendum
That's not a "third choice", that is surrender. Again, I'm not necessarily saying Alex is more principled than you, I just think he is smarter than you. Smart enough not to be the leader of the SNP who abandoned the very reason for the party's existence.
Rinty wrote:
I am only speculating, not supporting, compromise
You could have fooled me.
Rinty wrote:
I hope there is a referendum, I hope its a yes/no choice, I hope we vote yes.
You sound like a defeatist. You "hope" it, but, in the meantime, you will go around telling everybody it's not going to happen, and they needn't bother their little heads about making any preparations for a successfull pro-independence campaign in the referendum. Oh ye of little faith......................but with or without the compromisers, and with or without the fainthearts of the Solidarity party, there will be a referendum, it will be on a straightforward choice, and the result will be a decisive vote for independence.
Rinty wrote:
I think that the best way to do this is for a wider movement, not a specific party, and that the parties who are pro-independence, should stand at elections promising to negotiate a break from the union if elected.
Bah! Humbug! Of course the move to independence has to involve a wider movement, not just a specific party, that is obvious, I have been saying this for years. But what YOU are talking about is not a NON-PARTY-POLITICAL move to independence, what you are talking about is a CROSS-party move to independence, with your party getting to play a role alongside the SNP on the platform. Well, quite frankly, on the evidence that you yourself have provided here, I don't think I would trust your party to push hard enough for independence. I'm in favour of a NON-party-political campaign for a positive vote in the referendum. That means we don't have to wait for Solidarity, or any other political party (including the SNP) to take the initiative. Folk who are genuinely enthusiastic about campaigning for a pro-independence vote should take the initiative, without waiting for any political party. The party "leaders" can join in if they like.
Rinty

"Which vote are you talking about? Do you mean the vote in the Scottish Parliament?"

yes

"First you were sounding like a lawyer"

Really|?  Are you sure you are just trying to cfarry on with this theory that all solidarity members are staring to sound like lawyers.  Reading it back I think that I sound like I always do.

"You sound like a defeatist. You "hope" it, but, in the meantime, you will go around telling everybody it's not going to happen, and they needn't bother their little heads about making any preparations for a successfull pro-independence campaign in the referendum."

Thats just a matter of opinion,  personally I think it should be forced ahead with now, but I suspect that those in the parliament might not be as keen as me.  But you are mistaken re a pro-independence campaign.  I think that is a different matter from the vote in parliament to set up a referendum.

"but with or without the compromisers, and with or without the fainthearts of the Solidarity party, there will be a referendum, it will be on a straightforward choice, and the result will be a decisive vote for independence."

Thats sounds scarily like religious and you are making me out to be a heretic.

As I said, I dont speak for Solidarity here, their policy was for a referendum immdeiately and for a full campaign to support a yes ote, but they are not in parliament and I am not putting forward the solidarity position.  

I am disappointed that you are using this as I thought you had supported my tright to argue here as an individual while not hiding my association with Solidarity.

"on the evidence that you yourself have provided here, I don't think I would trust your party to push hard enough for independence"

Thats pathetic, I am just putting my forward my personal opnion of a lonfger term view of how to achieve our sshared goal of independence.

"I'm in favour of a NON-party-political campaign for a positive vote in the referendum."

yes me too.

"That means we don't have to wait for Solidarity, or any other political party (including the SNP) to take the initiative."

Yes, I agree.  It would be stupid to wait for an intiative from Solidarity or any other party.
Rinty

I had already backed out of the other thread on this subject to my membership of Solidarity being a barrier to reasonable debate.  As I am now boxed into the Solidarity-Member restriction in this thread I will back out of it too.

In future, I ask all forum members to allow me the freedom to enjoy this place, as I have for years, as somewhere I can debate freely away from sectarianism.
Dave Coull

Rinty wrote:
personally I think it should be forced ahead with now, but I suspect that those in the parliament might not be as keen as me.
"Referendum now  -  independence  -  yes or no" was my view when Jack McConnell was still first minister, and it continued to be my view when the SNP took over. I haven't changed that view, just recognised that the earliest "those in parliament" are now likely to deliver is 2010.
Rinty wrote:
I am not putting forward the solidarity position.
Okay.
Rinty wrote:
I thought you had supported my right to argue here as an individual while not hiding my association with Solidarity.
I do support your right to argue here. When Amber kept on and on and on at you about Tommy, I opposed that. But you can't say we must never, ever, mention anybody's political affiliations. That would be ridiculous.
Rinty wrote:
In future, I ask all forum members to allow me the freedom to enjoy this place, as I have for years, as somewhere I can debate freely away from sectarianism.
Stop getting in the huff. I'm not a member of any "sect", and I'm not stopping you from debating freely. You have freedom to debate freely here. So do I. Sometimes it will seem relevant to mention your membership of Solidarity. Like, for example, when you wrote
Quote:
the parties who are pro-independence, should stand at elections promising to negotiate a break from the union if elected
it seemed, to me, to be relevant to point out that this was proposed by somebody who is a member of Solidarity. It would be a restriction on MY freedom of expression to say I can't point this out.

It seems to me that some members of political parties (this doesn't just mean you, Rinty, it applies to some SNP folk as well) may be focussing too much on the next UK general election, or the next Scottish Parliament election, rather than on the independence referendum we are supposed to be having next year. I think that would be a mistake. Like Mike Small wrote in the Guardian article at the start of this discussion,
Quote:
there is good political reason to think that the referendum will happen and its result is by no means certain.
I think there is a real possibility that we can in fact have a referendum next year. I think folk who support independence should be focusing on preparing to get the vigorous, non-party-political, campaign for a pro-independence vote off to a flying start when the time comes.
Holebender

Re: Some Reasons Why It'll Happen

Aventinian wrote:
Another issue: since David Cameron has said, rather flippantly if you ask me, that he will not consider any constitutional changes, such as Calman's proposals, in the next Parliament, a referendum may be the only way to bring about those changes before 2015.

What's this? You arguing for a referendum?
Nautilus

Ridding us of Trident.

Can I just correct a statement I made in my post of 3rd of September where I said that victory in 14 constituencies in the South East of England can determine the result of a Westminster General Election. I was quoting Roy Hattersley speaking at the Edinburgh Book Festival when he was proposing PR a la Scottish Parliament. The number of Home County constituencies he quoted was actually 40. Dodgy hearing!

A propos of this, Aventinian wrote on 4th September, ‘You as the voter have the ability to elect a government that will cancel Trident already. That is not the democratic will of the British people.’
I back Dave Coull (4th Sept) in pointing out the ‘democratic deficit’. Our priorities on Trident, fiscal control of the economy, nuclear power, what poorly-armed and poverty stricken country we are going to batter next, etc are totally different from those in the south of England, as they are in many areas in the North of England. The difference here is that WE CAN CHANGE IT.
Rinty

dave, I just dont think my membership of solidarity was in anyway relevant to this debate, nor was tommys court case.

why you brought up tommys legal proceedings, and then threw all members of solidarity into a general description that was of 'fainthearts' who you couldnt trust and who speak like lawyers is beyond me.  No re-reading of the debate can explain it, it sticks out as being irrelevant.

But, as I said, experience tells me that this line of debate isnt good for the forum, the thread or me, so it is best if I sit this one out.  When I am putting forward the solidarity position or discussing solidarity that will be different, but I wont take part in debates where my perceived relationship with a party or an individual is clouding the actual debate.

Its best if just skip this thread.
Aventinian

Re: Some Reasons Why It'll Happen

Dave Coull wrote:
Trident is based a short distance doon the watter from Glasgow. Trident is not based a short distance down the Thames estuary from London. If it was, no doubt it would be the "democratic will of the British people" to get rid of Trident.


I can't say I think that's the case at all. For one, the positioning doesn't matter a single jot - unless you're predicting a nuclear war scenario, in which case I suspect London would already be up the creak without a paddle. Indeed, it creates jobs and has numerous other spill-over benefits.

If you're suggesting opposition to Trident is also based on proximity to it, then I'll call nonsense on that too. Organisations like the CND attract membership from across the country, and demonstrates at Faslane - despite the logistical problems - still contain plenty of people from all corners of Britain.

Either way, "NIMBYism" is not a credible political philosophy. If we were to accept what you are suggesting - that local people (and as far as I'm concerned, your definitions of who constitutes 'local' for these purposes is arbitrary - someone living in Greenock is local to Faslane; you, living in Angus, are not) should have control over what is sited near to them, then we'd never see another water treatment works built again.

Quote:
Which is one reason why our rulers do NOT base Trident in England. However, Trident is opposed by a majority of the Members of the Scottish Parliament, it is opposed by the Church of Scotland, it is opposed by the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland, it is opposed by the Scottish Episcopal Church, and there is every sign that it is more disliked by the general population here in Scotland than is the case in England.


Every sign? What 'signs' exactly?

Moreover, your conclusion ignores all other variables - Scotland has a greater industrial history than Britain more generally, and indeed that is why left wing politics traditionally have more support here. Anti-nuclear beliefs are part and parcel of that.

Quote:
The fact that at present the Scottish Parliament has jurisdiction over the sale of air rifles, but not over weapons of mass destruction being based in Scotland, is a powerful symbol of the democratic deficit


It's not a symptom of anything: there is no credible reason why a legislature with competence over air gun law should be competent over trident. It's a bit like arguing that because local councils fix holes in the road, they should be responsible for policing and counterterrorism in civil aviation: in other words, rubbish.
Aventinian

Re: Some Reasons Why It'll Happen

Dave Coull wrote:
So, when  a Labour spokesman said

what they actually meant was, our parties are a bunch of opportunists who have done U-turns before and will probably do so again?


They have not committed to implementing it.

"Calman does not need a referendum. It is an extension of the devolution process"

That seems a bit bizarre, frankly. The Labour Party have previously asked for specifics relating to levels of devolved power - notably in the second question on the devolution referendum ballot paper.

Holebender wrote:
Aventinian wrote:
Another issue: since David Cameron has said, rather flippantly if you ask me, that he will not consider any constitutional changes, such as Calman's proposals, in the next Parliament, a referendum may be the only way to bring about those changes before 2015.

What's this? You arguing for a referendum?


Nope. I don't particularly want the Calman proposals to be adopted. I agree with some of it, I disagree with others. I completely object to the Scottish Secretary's view that it must be adopted wholesale or not at all: the buck ultimately stops with him, not Sir Kenneth, and he should assess each measure on its merits - he'll be the one responsible for the outcomes.

I was simply pointing out that if one did want Calman to be implemented, then a referendum would be politically useful to that end.
Nautilus

Re: Some Reasons Why It'll Happen

Quote:
For one, the positioning doesn't matter a single jot - unless you're predicting a nuclear war scenario,


Quote:
If you're suggesting opposition to Trident is also based on proximity to it, then I'll call nonsense on that too.


There have been 3 major leaks of radioactivity in the Gareloch since the turn of the century and 40 since 1970. This is a strategic move on the part of the UK Government, done on the basis that anything can be dumped on the Scots. It does not need a nuclear war to knacker the health of a nation.

Quote:
If we were to accept what you are suggesting - that local people (and as far as I'm concerned, your definitions of who constitutes 'local' for these purposes is arbitrary - someone living in Greenock is local to Faslane; you, living in Angus, are not) should have control over what is sited near to them, then we'd never see another water treatment works built again.


You suggested that it need not concern Dave Coull. In other words, he can remain heedless of the plight of his fellow countrymen like me living around the Clyde. To contaminate him with nuclear fall-out in Angus, all it would need is a nuclear meltdown, not war. Our prevailing winds are westerly.

Quote:
Either way, "NIMBYism" is not a credible political philosophy.


On the contrary, Aventinian. NIMBYism is relevant in this case. It’s not a block of flats we are talking about (or even a water treatment plant). The MOD would not have removed all the nuclear submarines from Devonport for nothing. There are votes to be lost down there through loss of employment, but even more votes lost if anyone discovered the extent of the nuclear leaks.

Quote:
Every sign? What 'signs' exactly?


The latest ICM poll for the Guardian on the 7th of July showed 54% of the British population to be against the retention of Trident. I'm willing to bet it's more in Scotland. Do you think Labour will pay any heed to this when they go to the polls? British democracy - tosh!

Quote:
Moreover, your conclusion ignores all other variables - Scotland has a greater industrial history than Britain more generally, and indeed that is why left wing politics traditionally have more support here. Anti-nuclear beliefs are part and parcel of that.


Westminster has ignored these variables (differences) for over a century. That's why we need to ditch them and run our own affairs.

Quote:
It's not a symptom of anything: there is no credible reason why a legislature with competence over air gun law should be competent over trident. It's a bit like arguing that because local councils fix holes in the road, they should be responsible for policing and counterterrorism in civil aviation: in other words, rubbish.


The legislature does not have to have competence on Trident. It only has to get rid of it.

We have had foisted on us up here so far by the London government: Anthrax on Gruinard Island, which was contaminated for 40 years; Dounreay fast-breeder reactor in Caithness which has contaminated the inshore waters and Sandside beach; from 1945 to 1995, dumping of munitions in Beaufort Dyke, the channel between N. Ireland and Scotland, some of which have been washed up in the Clyde – oh, yes, the poll tax too – all experiments on Scotland. Both ourselves and the Irish have to suffer the careless leakage of radioactivity from Sellafield.

Don’t go talking about NIMBYism here. The seat of NIMBYism is in the SE of England.
Aventinian

Re: Some Reasons Why It'll Happen

Nautilus wrote:
There have been 3 major leaks of radioactivity in the Gareloch since the turn of the century and 40 since 1970. This is a strategic move on the part of the UK Government, done on the basis that anything can be dumped on the Scots. It does not need a nuclear war to knacker the health of a nation.


Radiation is everywhere, what matters is the quantities and the exposure. To my knowledge, there has never been a single significant health threat caused by the Trident programme.

As for the health of a nation: I rather think a Glaswegian diet of deep-fried everything and stabbings is rather more responsible for the statistically poor health of Scotland than some submarines in an isolated bit of the Clyde.

Quote:
You suggested that it need not concern Dave Coull. In other words, he can remain heedless of the plight of his fellow countrymen like me living around the Clyde. To contaminate him with nuclear fall-out in Angus, all it would need is a nuclear meltdown, not war. Our prevailing winds are westerly.


And there's no credible chance of such an eventuality occurring. Nuclear power is very safe indeed.

Quote:
The latest ICM poll for the Guardian on the 7th of July showed 54% of the British population to be against the retention of Trident. I'm willing to bet it's more in Scotland. Do you think Labour will pay any heed to this when they go to the polls? British democracy - tosh!


Dave Coull doesn't believe in opinion polls. Moreover, he seems to be under the illusion that Trident is popular in England but not Scotland. I don't find that to be the case at all.

On the other matter, you cannot blame the political system for the people's failure to elect a government that represents them. The British people - and the Scots more than most - have kept the present government in power for over a decade with sizable majorities. They could have voted in other ways. Did they? No.

Quote:
The legislature does not have to have competence on Trident. It only has to get rid of it.

We have had foisted on us up here so far by the London government: Anthrax on Gruinard Island, which was contaminated for 40 years; Dounreay fast-breeder reactor in Caithness which has contaminated the inshore waters and Sandside beach; from 1945 to 1995, dumping of munitions in Beaufort Dyke, the channel between N. Ireland and Scotland, some of which have been washed up in the Clyde – oh, yes, the poll tax too – all experiments on Scotland. Both ourselves and the Irish have to suffer the careless leakage of radioactivity from Sellafield.

Don’t go talking about NIMBYism here. The seat of NIMBYism is in the SE of England.


There is no such thing as 'the London Government' - just the government of the United Kingdom. It does not 'foist' - it is democratically elected.

I think a lot of what you have said is scaremongering. These are not significant problems: a few radiation leaks here and there are immaterial. In other countries, huge swathes of land are contaminated in similar ways.

Considering that nuclear power is far safer now, contending that what has happened in the past should determine what happens in the future seems to me to be a bit off-track.

Poll tax in Scotland was not an experiment - it was used in Scotland earlier simply because the Scottish Office said they could introduce it earlier. I'm not quite sure what the conspiracy theorists believe such an experiment could have demonstrated either.
Dave Coull

Re: Some Reasons Why It'll Happen

Aventinian wrote:
There is no such thing as 'the London Government'
There most certainly is. London is a city of many millions of people whose entire reason for existence is government. Even before it became the capital of the British Empire, even before it became the capital of the United Kingdom, even when it was just the capital of England, London was already the centre of government of the most centralised state in all of Europe, it was already a hugely and corruptly bloated place whose sole reason for existence was government. That being so, it is  perfectly reasonable to refer to "London government".
Aventinian wrote:
seems to be under the illusion that Trident is popular in England
I am under no such illusion. I am very well aware that many people in England oppose Trident. When I lived in Devon, I was a member of East Devon CND, and I took part in several actions organised by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament in England against Trident. On one occasion we went to Westminster to lobby against Trident, another time we travelled by coach up from East Devon to Barrow-in-Furness to protest against Trident. So I am well aware of opposition to Trident in England. My point is simply that Trident would be even more unpopular in England if it was based on the Thames estuary, instead of on the Clyde. The fact that it is not gives an extra dimension to opposition to Trident in Scotland, as does the fact of political parties seeking independence for Scotland which say they oppose Trident.
Holebender

As Aventinian clearly has trouble distinguishing between nuclear power and nuclear weapons I'm having great difficulty taking his opinions seriously.

No change there, then.
voiceofourown

Aventinian wrote:
Quote:
Poll tax in Scotland was not an experiment - it was used in Scotland earlier simply because the Scottish Office said they could introduce it earlier.


Come, come, Ave! That is hilariously disingenuous.
Do you actually think the Scottish Office were not simply told when it was going to be introduced ?
Or perhaps the Scottish Office could see what a hugely popular policy it was going to be and simply couldn't wait to unwrap its lovely, shiny gift to the Scottish public.
Aventinian

voiceofourown wrote:
Aventinian wrote:
Quote:
Poll tax in Scotland was not an experiment - it was used in Scotland earlier simply because the Scottish Office said they could introduce it earlier.


Come, come, Ave! That is hilariously disingenuous.
Do you actually think the Scottish Office were not simply told when it was going to be introduced ?
Or perhaps the Scottish Office could see what a hugely popular policy it was going to be and simply couldn't wait to unwrap its lovely, shiny gift to the Scottish public.


Of course I think it; that's why I said it. Indeed, this fact has been confirmed by significant Scottish figures such as Rifkind, Forsyth and Younger and by the Iron Lady herself in her memoirs.

The rates system and the 1985 revaluation caused a lot of upset in Scotland. The revaluation was carried out earlier in Scotland as a matter of statute, I believe, whereas it was a matter of ministerial prerogative in England. It became a massive political hot potato. So yes, of course the Scottish Office thought a new system would be beneficial.

Nor am I even convinced it was particularly unpopular amongst Conservatives and those of a Tory leaning. Under Thatcher and with a manifesto commitment to the poll tax, the Tories in '87 polled fairly respectably: indeed, I read someone pointing out that if Annabel Goldie could get that many people to vote for her, she'd be First Minister! Then in 1992, after the Poll Tax fiasco, the Conservatives actually made gains in Scotland.

The "experiment" nonsense is, of course, very easily refuted. If it was indeed an "experiment", by what measure was it deemed to have succeeded?
Aventinian

Re: Some Reasons Why It'll Happen

Dave Coull wrote:
There most certainly is. London is a city of many millions of people whose entire reason for existence is government. Even before it became the capital of the British Empire, even before it became the capital of the United Kingdom, even when it was just the capital of England, London was already the centre of government of the most centralised state in all of Europe, it was already a hugely and corruptly bloated place whose sole reason for existence was government. That being so, it is  perfectly reasonable to refer to "London government".


That a lot of people from London work there does not make it the London Government.

Quote:
My point is simply that Trident would be even more unpopular in England if it was based on the Thames estuary, instead of on the Clyde. The fact that it is not gives an extra dimension to opposition to Trident in Scotland, as does the fact of political parties seeking independence for Scotland which say they oppose Trident.


It would be marginally more obvious, and perhaps the surrounding publicity about moving it would create a few more detractors, but I sincerely doubt anyone - save a few whose complaints would be more about planning regulations than risk of harm - would suddenly change from supporting Trident to opposing it just because it was marginally closer to them.

Holebender wrote:
As Aventinian clearly has trouble distinguishing between nuclear power and nuclear weapons I'm having great difficulty taking his opinions seriously.

No change there, then.


The two are, of course, linked; the Vanguard submarines are nuclear-powered. But don't let that get in the way of an ignorant outburst.
voiceofourown

Aventinian wrote:
Quote:
Indeed, this fact has been confirmed by significant Scottish figures such as Rifkind, Forsyth and Younger and by the Iron Lady herself in her memoirs.


Yes, all independent and with no vested interest in spinning that line.
As the hoary old political chestnut goes Ave, Well, they would say that woudn't they.
Holebender

Re: Some Reasons Why It'll Happen

Aventinian wrote:
Holebender wrote:
As Aventinian clearly has trouble distinguishing between nuclear power and nuclear weapons I'm having great difficulty taking his opinions seriously.

No change there, then.


The two are, of course, linked; the Vanguard submarines are nuclear-powered. But don't let that get in the way of an ignorant outburst.

So how many Vanguards are hooked up to the national grid? In what ways are the building of nuclear submarines and nuclear power stations remotely subjected to the same rules and regulations? Indeed, in what way is the MOD subjected to the same regulations as British Energy?

It is you who is the author of the ignorant outburst, not me.
Aventinian

voiceofourown wrote:
Aventinian wrote:
Quote:
Indeed, this fact has been confirmed by significant Scottish figures such as Rifkind, Forsyth and Younger and by the Iron Lady herself in her memoirs.


Yes, all independent and with no vested interest in spinning that line.
As the hoary old political chestnut goes Ave, Well, they would say that woudn't they.


Instead of replying to the rest of the post, or demonstrating how your view could possibly be defended as remotely logical, you've simply gone for accusing people - baselessly - of lying.

I think you lost the argument.

Holebender wrote:
So how many Vanguards are hooked up to the national grid? In what ways are the building of nuclear submarines and nuclear power stations remotely subjected to the same rules and regulations? Indeed, in what way is the MOD subjected to the same regulations as British Energy?


Er, they're not.

Quote:
It is you who is the author of the ignorant outburst, not me.


To paraphrase Mr Voiceofourown, well you would say that wouldn't you!

Now instead of engaging in these silly back and forths, you could perhaps stop turning every post into the same tired insults and actually try to engage those logical faculties which most people are graced with once in a while.
Holebender

Tell me who is not engaging his logical faculties here. You tell us how safe the nuclear power industry is while the discussion is actually about nuclear weapons. You try to justify this by saying the submarines which carry the missiles have on board reactors. When I point out the significant differences in the regulatory regimes to which the military and civil operators of nuclear reactors are subject, you accuse me of posting tired insults and failing to engage my logical faculties. How does the safety or otherwise of civil nuclear reactors have any bearing on the safety or otherwise of nuclear warheads on missiles?

This is all just bluster on your part to try to distract us from your failure to distinguish between a nuclear-armed submarine and a nuclear power station. I think any disinterested reader can see which of us is guilty of ignorance in this matter.
Alasdair

I feel a need to interject here are just point out that the nuclear reactors on the subs are nowhere near as safe as the MOD would have us a believe there have been numerous unreported leaks.  It's something that's relatively well known in the local vicinity, particularly amongst people like me who lived there for any length of time.
Nautilus

Re: Some Reasons Why It'll Happen

Quote:
Radiation is everywhere, what matters is the quantities and the exposure. To my knowledge, there has never been a single significant health threat caused by the Trident programme.


Background radiation is everywhere. We have evolved to survive this level. Any increase in this only needs time and intensity to statistically cause problems in the population.

There has never been any proven health threat caused by the Trident programme. The danger is the leaks from the nuclear powered subs. We eat fish caught in the Clyde estuary, and bathe in its waters. We know that there are radioactive sediments at the bottom of the Gareloch and in the Irish Sea. The danger to health is serious enough to be of concern to the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency.

It has emerged that, unlike privately owned nuclear establishments, the Navy is not obliged to report leaks. So we may not know the true extent of the problem.

Did you know that the by-products of nuclear fission iodine 131, strontium 90, and caesium 137 cause thyroid cancer, bone cancer and leukaemia respectively? Bone marrow cancer itself will result in leukaemia eventually.


Quote:
As for the health of a nation: I rather think a Glaswegian diet of deep-fried everything and stabbings is rather more responsible for the statistically poor health of Scotland than some submarines in an isolated bit of the Clyde.


Don't lower the tone of the discussion. Advice on diet and law and order are devolved issues. The Scottish government can do something about deep fries and stabbing. Trident is a reserved issue - out of our hands for now.

Quote:
And there's no credible chance of such an eventuality occurring. Nuclear power is very safe indeed.

No possibility of a meltdown? What about 3-mile Island and Chernobyl? It only needs a failure of the cooling system or jammed fuel rods to cause a runaway chain reaction. They tell you it’s safe and you believe them. How gullible! Chernobyl, 1000 miles to the SE of us made our lamb unsaleable for years. An accident on our own doorstep would be catastrophic. C Click this link  www.banthebomb.org/newbombs/trident%20 slides #21 onward (The accident on slide 36 happened not 2miles out from my house.)
and, from Rob Edwards,
Failure after failure at home of the Trident fleet

Nuclear power safe? Not in the hands of the MOD.

Quote:
Dave Coull doesn't believe in opinion polls. Moreover, he seems to be under the illusion that Trident is popular in England but not Scotland. I don't find that to be the case at all.

Trident not more unpopular in Scotland? Click on
www.realmofscotland.com/opinion/?id=1
I think you will find that the Scots polled 64% against Trident with Britain as a whole polling only 54%

Quote:
On the other matter, you cannot blame the political system for the people's failure to elect a government that represents them. The British people - and the Scots more than most - have kept the present government in power for over a decade with sizable majorities. They could have voted in other ways. Did they? No.

With only 59 MPs out of 646, I don't think the Scottish electorate had much of a say. Nor did they during the 13 years of Tory rule, when they refused to have even one Scottish Tory MP.

Quote:
There is no such thing as 'the London Government' - just the government of the United Kingdom. It does not 'foist' - it is democratically elected.

Democratically elected by 38% of the population?

Quote:
wI think a lot of what you have said is scaremongering. These are not significant problems: a few radiation leaks here and there are immaterial. In other countries, huge swathes of land are contaminated in similar ays.

I refer you to the above links and in them you will find that much of the 'swathes of contamination' has been caused by accidents involving nuclear submarines.

Quote:
Considering that nuclear power is far safer now, contending that what has happened in the past should determine what happens in the future seems to me to be a bit off-track.

Not in the hands of the MOD. (links, again).

Quote:
Poll tax in Scotland was not an experiment - it was used in Scotland earlier simply because the Scottish Office said they could introduce it earlier. I'm not quite sure what the conspiracy theorists believe such an experiment could have demonstrated either

I think Dave Coull has answered this one.
voiceofourown

Aventinian wrote:
Quote:
Instead of replying to the rest of the post, or demonstrating how your view could possibly be defended as remotely logical, you've simply gone for accusing people - baselessly - of lying.

I think you lost the argument.


Bawlux. I was simply stating the grounds for retaining a healthy degree of incredulity. Unlike your good self, I don't happen to think that 'confirmation' by your rogues gallery of disinterested parties constitutes a nailing of the 'fact' that  the poll tax was implemented earlier here because the Scottish Office could do it earlier.
Aventinian

Holebender wrote:
Tell me who is not engaging his logical faculties here. You tell us how safe the nuclear power industry is while the discussion is actually about nuclear weapons.


No, it was about Trident more broadly. Indeed, the safety concerns surrounding Trident that were mentioned - minor radiation leaks and so forth - were certainly not related to the nuclear warheads they carry. Nuclear weapons aren't just going to blow up by accident and wipe out the Clyde Valley.
Aventinian

Re: Some Reasons Why It'll Happen

Nautilus wrote:
Background radiation is everywhere. We have evolved to survive this level. Any increase in this only needs time and intensity to statistically cause problems in the population.


There is no set level of background radiation: it varies considerably. Famously, of course, the levels in Aberdeen are significantly higher than average due to the granite used in its construction. I've yet to see any three-headed Aberdonians.

Quote:
There has never been any proven health threat caused by the Trident programme. The danger is the leaks from the nuclear powered subs. We eat fish caught in the Clyde estuary, and bathe in its waters.


Speak for yourself! You wouldn't catch me swimming in the Clyde, although radiation levels would be fair low down on my list of possible health concerns.

Quote:
We know that there are radioactive sediments at the bottom of the Gareloch and in the Irish Sea. The danger to health is serious enough to be of concern to the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency.


Something being of concern to someone does not make it a problem.

Quote:
It has emerged that, unlike privately owned nuclear establishments, the Navy is not obliged to report leaks. So we may not know the true extent of the problem.


You and I may not be, but then again what good is that? The Royal Navy certainly will be, and our elected representatives will be if they are interested.

Quote:
Don't lower the tone of the discussion. Advice on diet and law and order are devolved issues. The Scottish government can do something about deep fries and stabbing. Trident is a reserved issue - out of our hands for now.


I wasn't aware you were a member of the Scottish Government. Anyway, advice about diet doesn't seem to be doing the Glaswegians much good.

Quote:
With only 59 MPs out of 646, I don't think the Scottish electorate had much of a say. Nor did they during the 13 years of Tory rule, when they refused to have even one Scottish Tory MP.


That's called 'democracy' - everyone in this country has a roughly equal 'say' in who the government is.

Quote:
Democratically elected by 38% of the population?


Yes.
Nautilus

Ho Aventinian. At least I come up with evidence-based opinion. I don't suppose you even bothered to read the links I supplied.

There's no point in my replying to ill-informed, opinionated and vacant arguments such as you put forward.

Your blind faith in the integrity of the British establishment makes you one of many prime candidates who will roll over in the takeover of this country by a totalitarian regime.
Aventinian

Nautilus wrote:
Ho Aventinian. At least I come up with evidence-based opinion. I don't suppose you even bothered to read the links I supplied.

There's no point in my replying to ill-informed, opinionated and vacant arguments such as you put forward.

Your blind faith in the integrity of the British establishment makes you one of many prime candidates who will roll over in the takeover of this country by a totalitarian regime.


I hardly think providing a broken link to banthebomb.org constitutes an evidence-based opinion. Indeed, I've not contended any of the facts you seem to seek to present in this area.

I do not have blind faith in the State - I am a liberal, and naturally suspicious of governments. I suspect, however, that the 'British' adjective is really what you're expecting me to be suspicious of. I suppose for someone who wants to destroy the state - and indeed there are a few people on here who seem to indulge in very bizarre conspiracy theories a lot of the time - even the biggest liberal falls short.

Firstly, radiation is not some sort of bogeyman as 1970s CNDers presented it. It's an old fashioned and frankly ridiculous viewpoint in the modern age.

Secondly, the state of course has an active interest in preventing radioactive contamination of civilian areas.

Thirdly, of course this is a matter of trust. It cannot be otherwise. That is part of the nature of having a military.
Holebender

Aventinian's faith in Whitehall is rather touching don't you think, dear reader?
Aventinian

Holebender wrote:
Aventinian's faith in Whitehall is rather touching don't you think, dear reader?


I don't have a great deal of faith in the government, I just don't believe ludicrous conspiracy theories which fall apart under the slightest analysis. Unlike yourself.

       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