White Paper referendum question

Dave Coull

Radge Jougal wrote "I'm asking what people think of the actual question that's being proposed".

Since you are the one asking this question, in order that it can be properly discussed, please re-state the precise wording of the question which is being proposed. I don't mean provide a link to it, I don't mean tell folk to do their homework, I mean, please re-state, here, on this forum, under this heading which you have chosen, the question to which you are referring. After all, even if you knew it by heart, and were able to recite it, word for word, without needing to check you had the exact wording, and even if I was able to do the same thing, it stands to reason there are bound to be plenty of other folk who can't do this, and I presume you do want to involve them in the national conversation. I know the SNP government does.

agentmancuso

I'm with you on this one Dave.

Go on Radge, save me the trouble of looking it up.

RadgeJougal

Dave, being a professional full-time agitator, I am sure you will have already done your research.

Everybody, and I mean everybody, should be reading this document for themselves. Particularly if they're campaigning for independence, or want to take part in the so called "national conversation".

But just in case you haven't looked at it yet, it's available free here -

Choosing Scotland's Future @

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2007/08/13103747/0

Dave Coull

Rinty (wearing his moderator's hat) requested "Please start another thread on this, whoever wants to. This thread has been tarnished by personal attacks and it would be better to start afresh".

Radge Jougal then wrote "I'm not asking you what you think of a referendum or what you think of the SNP or even what you think of independence, I'm asking what people think of the actual question that's being proposed and asked in the white paper".

Both myself and Agentmancuso then quite reasonably suggested that it was not sufficient to simply instruct folk to "do their homework", but that Radge Jougal should re-state the actual question he wants discussed "here, on this forum, under this heading which you have chosen".

Radge's response to that is to send a web link which takes you to a long document. That long document may have, buried somewhere in it, the question to which he is referring, but it's not obvious to me, and if it's not obvious to me then there are bound to be many thousands of others to whom it is not obvious.

Radge Jougal also took the opportunity to refer to me as "a professional full-time agitator".

We were asked to stop tarnishing the discussion with personal remarks, but Radge Jougal just can't do this.

The "profession" which I practiced for most of my working life was as a builder, or, more specifically, as a bricklayer. Nowadays, I'm a retired old age pensioner and I don't do _anything_ on a "full time" basis.

This "fresh" discussion has already been "tarnished", by Radge Jougal. And he STILL hasn't done what he was asked to do. He hasn't provided here, on this forum, the exact wording of the question he wants to discuss.

agentmancuso

Here it is:

RadgeJougal

Dave Coull

Radge Jougal wrote "That wasn't actually an insult" - it was an un-called-for personal remark. We were all asked by one of the moderators to conduct this discussion without the personal remarks, and you have specifically been asked in private messages from the moderators to cut this sort of thing out. "I thought you'd find it a compliment" - you thought no such thing. You're not telling the truth. "People should go and find these things for themselves, before they preach to others" - why should they? Because the Government orders them to do so? Because you order them to do so? If people have convictions, they should state their convictions freely and openly, regardless of what anybody else is doing. I believe there should be a referendum on independence "now". Of course it can't literally be right this second, by "now" I mean, without delay. I believe the referendum should be on a simple, straightforward question. Okay, so there is an SNP government. That is no reason why I should stop campaigning for a referendum, now, with a simple, straightforward, question.

Agentmancuso finally did what Radge Jougal ought to have done long ago:

I AGREE that the Scottish Government should negotiate a settlement with
the Government of the United Kingdom so that Scotland becomes an
independent state.

OR

I DO NOT AGREE that the Scottish Government should negotiate a
settlement with the Government of the United Kingdom so that Scotland
becomes an independent state.

Well, it's not the simple, straightforward, independence yes-or-no referendum that some of us have been campaigning for these last few years. But, on the other hand, it is not so bad that it has to be boycotted.

However, on the generous assumption that this "national conversation" really does mean that the government is open to considering constructive suggestions, I would suggest re-wording it to something like

I agree Scotland should become an independent country.

or

I disagree that Scotland should become an independent country.

This takes the implication of support or otherwise for the SNP government out of the question. It also removes the word "state" which itself has some unfortunate implications. Yet this question would give a clear answer on whether or not the majority agree with the _principle_ of independence.

Now, obviously, if we have established decisive support for the principle of independence, it would then be necessary to conduct negotiations on the details of independence. These negotiations would be conducted by representatives of the Scottish Parliament, and, in particular, of the Scottish Government, and these representatives would report back on progress to the Government and the Parliament. That is so obvious it goes without saying, and, since it goes without saying, why complicate the question?

It could be argued that any such referendum could only be "consultative" and not "prescriptive". But, legally speaking, according to the theory of parliamentary sovereignty so emphasised in English law (less so in Scottish law, but we all know which one the establishment will arbitrarily choose to go with) exactly the same thing could be said about ANY referendum in the UK. So, regardless of the wording, the referendum will be seen as "consultative" anyway. However, the important thing to note is that, although in theory a British government could ignore the result of a referendum, no British government has in fact ever done so. Legally speaking, it may be possible. Politically speaking, it is impossible.

RadgeJougal

I thought you were proud of being a protestor. How is that insulting?

Dave Coull

What constitutes an insult? The answer rather depends on who is saying it. If a close friend of mine calls me "you old so-and-so", that is just friendly banter from an old friend. If somebody showing every sign of serious hostility says exactly the same thing, that's a different matter.

The London-based right-wing press at one time loved to use the description "rentamob" to describe any group of protesters of whom they disapproved. If you think about that description for a second, its literal meaning is a mob which can be rented. A group of people who will turn up to protest because they have been paid by some wealthy person or organisation to do so. As soon as you anayse the description, it's obvious nonsense. I have seen mobs, even participated in some, but I've never seen one that was paid . The opposite is more usually true, protesters often suffer loss for their beliefs.

Rinty having pointed out "this thread has been tarnished by personal attacks and it would be better to start afresh", Radge Jougal did start a new thread, but he also took the opportunity to describe me as "a professional full-time agitator", thus "tarnishing" the new thread right from the start.

He now asks "How is that insulting?" - (1) "professional", like "rentamob", implies some kind of payment (2) "full-time" implies an actual job, carried out either for wages or on a voluntary basis out of sheer fanaticism. Neither is even remotely true in my case. And if you didn't intend either of these implications, given your track record on this forum, you have only yourself to blame if you are misinterpreted, nobody else.

"I think the independence movement in general - not just you, Dave - has to grow out of the opposition mode, and realise we've just got a government in which is a hell of a lot less hostile to the idea".

A government which is a hell of a lot less hostile to the idea, yes. But not a government in favour of "referendum now". As I understand it, they are talking about perhaps holding a referendum in 2010. I think such a long delay could be a big mistake, for many reasons. For one thing, it sends out the wrong message, suggesting a lack of confidence in the result. So it is necessary to keep the pressure on. Call a referendum now, before the unionists get the bright idea of holding their referendum, with their loaded question, while the SNP are still dithering.

"If they're offering this, we should read what they say, and try and help it get through" - I have already indicated where I disagree with what the government is offering. I have been consistently campaigning for a referendum with a simple, straightforward question on independence. Although the government has moved some way towards that, it looks like they still have some way to go. However, there is a "national conversation". I have put my suggestion regarding improving the question forward, as part of this national conversation, and I hope my suggestion will be listened to.

As for a "consultative" referendum being covered in the White Paper, that is irrelevant to what we were discussing. My point was that even if a referendum is alleged by some to be merely "consultative", reality is that it would be politically impossible for the British government to ignore a vote in favour of independence. And since that is the case, there is no reason not to go for the simple, straightforward question on independence which myself and others have been advocating. And there is no reason not to do so now .

Aventinian

Dave Coull

Aventinian wrote "A certain devolution referendum springs instantly to mind"

Like I said "although in theory a British government could ignore the result of a referendum, no British government has in fact ever done so". Legislation had been passed that set a certain target for that referendum. The target was not reached. We could argue endlessly about the reasons why, but the fact is, the target wasn't reached. So the planned devolution went into limbo. Note that senior Tories such as Alec Douglas Home (former PM, member of the Privy Council, etc) had criticised the Labour government's plans, and advocated a "no" vote, on the grounds that their devolution didn't go far enough (which of course it didn't). Note also that the Old Royal High School building in Edinburgh had been fitted out with plush seats etc as the venue for a Scottish Assembly, and the incoming Tory government kept that building indefinitely in that condition, with cleaners, caretakers, etc maintaining the condition, waiting for a Scottish Assembly that never actually sat there. The only reason the empty and waiting building did not, in the end, become the venue of the Scottish parliament, was that Donald Dewar considered it had become too much of a "nationalist shibboleth".

Of course attempts might be made to impose all sorts of conditions on the result of a referendum on independence. But times have changed since the days of that devolution referendum. It would now be even more difficult for a British government to ignore a Scottish referendum. One of the obvious differences between then and now is that there exists a Scottish Parliament, and there exists a Scottish Government. These would act as a focus for criticism of any dodgy dealings from the British government in a way that was not possible in the late Seventies. In fact, as has already been shown to a very limited extent over Trident (but of course this would be far bigger), they would act as a focus for international criticism of any such dodgy dealings from the British government.

So, as I suggested, it is less important to consider the legal position, and more important to consider what is politically possible.

agentmancuso

agentmancuso

Dave Coull

Agentmancuso wrote "Aspirational drivel of the purist kind. And utterly meaningless" - I am quite sure both the aspiration and the meaning will be clear to most folk. If I can convince enough people of this, your dismissive attitude will be irrelevant.

Agentmancuso also wrote "There is something charming about the idea of the referendum-obsessives themselves boycotting a referendum because it asks the wrong question" - I am not obsessed with referendums in general. What I have campaigned for is one particular referendum with a simple, straightforward, question on independence for Scotland. If the proposition in a referendum was "We trust the Scottish Government to do whatever is best for the country", then I would vote "no". If the proposition was neither simple nor straightforward and I was suspicious of the reasons for this, then I would advocate a boycott. There is nothing new about this. That has always been my position. The question proposed by the White Paper is not as straightforward as it could be, but it is not so bad it needs to be boycotted. In any case, Alex Salmond has assured us that the "National Conversation" is a genuine consultation, so it is worth trying to suggest an alternative wording.

agentmancuso

Dave Coull

Agentmancuso wrote "Yes, of course the aspiration is clear. But in the real world, aspiration just isn't good enough".

It is good enough to establish whether people want independence or not. That is what matters.

"The political necessity would be for the referendum to be worded in a legally intelligible way" - no, that is a lawyer's viewpoint. As I have already indicated, I take the view that the law is less important than political reality. In practice, in constitutional matters, the law usually adjusts itself to political reality. Look at the so-called "Glorious Revolution" of 1688. Look at the American Declaration iof Independence. Both highly illegal at the time, but the very foundations of Law now. The political necessity is to show that people want independence.

"Legally, and politically, your suggestion is literally meaningless, in that it does not direct the authorities to act in any way" - it shows what the will of the people is. It is then up to the politicians to carry out the will of the people. That is quite enough for me. If we can get a referendum such as I am suggesting, and if it should then result in a clear majority for independence, is the British government then going to say "it may be the will of the people, but it's meaningless"?

Now that could get very interesting.

agentmancuso

It may be interesting in that it would artificially stoke the fires of antagonism, and allow extremists like you to achieve their goal, but that to my mind is a highly irresponsible and reckless way to conduct politics.

That aside, the actual wording of the referendum may itself affect the way many people vote. Most people, by all sensible accounts, are either undecided, or not all that committed to their stated opinion. I myself would definitely vote 'No' to your question, because it represents the triumph of irrational emotivism over real politics. But I could be persuaded to vote 'Yes' to the question as framed in the White Paper, though I do have some reservations even to that version.

Dave Coull

I asked "If we can get a referendum such as I am suggesting, and if it should then result in a clear majority for independence, is the British government then going to say 'it may be the will of the people, but it's meaningless'? Now that could get very interesting".

Agentmancuso responds "It may be interesting in that it would artificially stoke the fires of antagonism, and allow extremists like you to achieve their goal" - if that is what you think, then, clearly, in such circumstances, the British government would have a responsibility not to respond by saying "it may be the will of the people, but it's meaningless".

"the actual wording of the referendum may itself affect the way many people vote" - I think keeping the wording as simple and as straightforward as possible will appeal to most people and will ensure a large turnout from the electorate.

"I myself would definitely vote 'No' to your question, because it represents the triumph of irrational emotivism over real politics. But I could be persuaded to vote 'Yes' to the question as framed in the White Paper" - given what I already know about you from your style of writing here, it doesn't surprise me in the least that you should have such a negative reaction to the question. As for your "I could be persuaded" regarding the other formulation, while it is certainly true that a great many people "are either undecided, or not all that committed to their stated opinion", you are somebody who writes under a false name. While Rinty, for instance, also writes under a pen-name, unlike you, he makes no attempt to hide his actual identity. Why should I accept the word of somebody whose very name and identity is false? I just don't believe your pretence of neutrality.

I believe most people would prefer a simple, straightforward, question on whether or not Scotland should become independent. There is supposed to be a genuine "national conversation" happening. As part of that national conversation, on the Scottish Government website, I have put forward my constructive suggestion regarding the wording of the referendum question. It remains to be seen what the reaction will be over the coming months, but I don't think everybody will react as negatively to my constructive suggestion as you have.

agentmancuso

Aventinian

agentmancuso

Alas, Mr Rifkind, I am undone. Shocked

Dave Coull

Agentmancuso asked "What do you know about me?"

I know things that you have written here. These were quite enough for me to decide not to waste too much of my time on trying to "convert" you. The only reason I bother arguing with you is for the benefit of other folk who will be reading what I write here.

"I'm not convinced that my identity affects the integrity of what I say" - and I'm not going to bother seeking to convince you of this. It is quite enough that for me it matters whether people are honest about their identity or not, and that this has a bearing on whether I am inclined to believe what they say or not.

"it might be worth attempting to find common ground with people" - I do attempt to find common ground with people, where this appears to me to be worthwhile doing. Yesterday, I posted letters to two members of the Labour Party, one member of the Liberal Democrats, and one "independent" member of Angus Council. In each letter I sought to find common ground with the particular person I was addressing, because I calculated that this was worth the effort of doing so. In your case, I decided not to put too much effort into doing so.

agentmancuso

Dave Coull

Agentmancuso wrote "You don't seriously believe that any intelligent neutral party, reading our exchanges, would find your arguments in any way convincing?"

I think a neutral observer would be favourably impressed with my sincerity and open-ness, and would form the impression that you are a particularly unpleasant young brat who can't be trusted. However, I don't think there are likely to be many neutral observers on this forum (although some might seek to pretend to be such). There are supporters of independence and there are committed Unionists like yourself who are here to argue with the supporters of independence. The "other folk" to whom I referred as being on this forum (but, for the most part, not posting to it) and reading these exchanges are mostly symapthetic to independence, but need to be convinced of two things (1) that the referendum question should be as simple and straighforward as possible, and (2) that there should be a referendum on independence without delay, rather than several years down the line.

carol

unpleasant young brat Shocked

I personally haven't found agent disrespectful, and find him/her more credible than others

There are plenty of numpties that 'hide' behind pseudos and agent isn't one of them

Dave Coull

In answer to a question from Agentmancuso about what I thought a neutral observer might think of exchanges between him and myself, I replied that, amongst other things, I thought a neutral observer might form the impression that Agentmancuso was "a particularly unpleasant young brat who can't be trusted".

Carol writes "I personally haven't found agent disrespectful" - Carol, by no stretch of the imagination could you possibly be considered a neutral observer of exchanges between myself and anybody else.

"There are plenty of numpties that 'hide' behind pseudos" - and Agentmancuso is one of them.

My reasons for saying "can't be trusted" are that it isn't just a case of hiding identity, but of seeking to project a false identity.

Look at that "portrait" he uses. Yes, of course it isn't him, we all know that, and yet, despite knowing it, some of us might subsconsciously be taken in by the impression it gives. An impression of considerable age, for one thing. But I have become convinced that Agentmancuso is in actual fact quite a young man. A young man who deliberately uses the portrait of a much older man, and, therefore, a young man who is seeking, not just to hide his identity, but, quite deliberately, to project a false identity.

Also, look at that "classical" quote he uses: "If you are Roman, be worthy of so being; and if you are my equal, make this more clear" (in other words, it doesn't seem to me like you are my equal). This comes from the fact that, in ancient Rome, some were citizens, while others were not. Many, in fact, were slaves. At one point in the New Testament, can't remember the exact chapter and verse, Saint Paul uses the fact of his Roman citizenship to claim a privilege not available to most other Jews (who were non-citizens). Agentmancuso is claiming that he is worthy of being a citizen, while many others are not. Where do young men acquire such a good conceit of themselves, and such a contempt for the mass of the population? And all combined with a "classical" education? Answer, at the fee-paying boarding schools to which rich people in England (and some rich anglicised Scots) send their offspring. Note that, again, the intention of this quote is not just to assert a background of hereditary privilege, but also to create an impression of great age. After all, you can't get much older than ancient Rome. But again it is a false impression. The reality is that any young brat who has been to an expensive boarding school could affect such attitudes and have a suitable "classical" quote to back them up.

It is because of what looks like a deliberate attempt to project a false identity that I say a neutral observer might form the impression that Agentmancuso "can't be trusted". After all, if the person you are dealing with is wearing a mask in order to disguise themselves, why trust them?

As for describing Agentmancuso as "particularly unpleasant", I regret having to discuss Agentmancuso's personality. But he startit it............

carol

so do you see everyone that uses a pseudonym on this forum in the same light? There are reasons for individuals to hide behind an identity, like you not wishing to fly the saltire following independence, it's their personal choice, as long as it's not an abuse of position ie to deliberately disrupt, abuse etc I personally have no problems with a pseudo.

As for his/her personality, you don't know the person so how are you in any position to judge them.

It's surprising how some perceive others from behind a keyboard, not exactly 'real life' is it?

carol

agentmancuso

Dave Coull

Rinty (wearing his moderator's hat) requested "Please start another thread on this, whoever wants to. This thread has been tarnished by personal attacks and it would be better to start afresh".

I am in favour of discussing things on the level of principles, policies, strategy, and tactics, so I was happy to go along with that. Unfortunately, not everybody else is.

Carol writes "Dave Coull wrote 'but he startit it...........' - playground stuff Dave".

Well, I expressed it in a humorous, deliberately-playground-style, but, nevertheless, when lapses from the level of principles, policies, strategy, and tactics occur, it is important to establish who initiated these lapses. I personally always keep a close record of these things in case proof should be needed in the future.

My comments came after various offensive remarks from Agentmancuso including "Back to the bunting-festooned chicken coup wi' ye".

Festoon: an ornamental chain or garland of flowers, leaves, or ribbons, hung in a curve. (Oxford English Dictionary)
Be festooned with: adorn with festoons or other decorations. (OED)
Bunting: flags and other colourful festive decorations. (OED)

I have one flag, not "flags", plural. It is not hung up as a "festive decoration", indeed, I have declared my firm intention of taking it down at a future time when most other people will be putting up flags as festive decorations. That flag is on a garage, not a chicken coop. I have no bunting of any kind, and I have no buildings of any kind which are "festooned". But of course Agentmancuso already knows all this. He was being deliberately offensive. If the privileged products of private schooling for the sons of the idle rich choose to be deliberately offensive, they are in no position to complain when fire is returned. Nor does anybody else have grounds for registering a complaint on their behalf.

Dave Coull

Agentmancuso writes "I have been on the face of this god-forsaken planet for 34 years" - if you are telling the truth on this particular occasion, then I was right. A young man. About half my age.

"I went to a state school in Paisley" - what, as a teacher? Just for a couple of weeks until you found something more suitable through the old-boy network? My brother went to Oxford. As a bricklayer. He was building houses there. Coming from somebody who has already been shown to be deceptive in one way, I see no reason to take this statement of yours at face value. I still say you had a privileged private education.

Dave Coull

Carol asked "do you see everyone that uses a pseudonym on this forum in the same light?"

No. Rinty, for example, uses a pseudonym here, but he makes no secret of his actual name and identity.

"as long as it's not an abuse of position ie to deliberately disrupt, abuse etc" - we have already established that Agentmancuso does indeed shelter behind his own anonymity in order to direct personal abuse at others. I consider that downright cowardly.

carol

carol

Dave Coull

I wrote "when lapses from the level of principles, policies, strategy, and tactics occur, it is important to establish who initiated these lapses. I personally always keep a close record of these things in case proof should be needed in the future".

Carol asks "proof for what?"

History.

carol

????

so what would you do with the proof?

Dave Coull

This discussion started off with the intention of being about high principles, without personal remarks, but the discussion has been sidetracked into stuff that might be more appropriate in the "General Banter" section (I'm only guessing about that, as in fact I never visit the General Banter section). It is notable that, for instance, Carol only became involved after things took a more personal turn. But, always the optimist, I am going to try to get things back on course. We were asked about the referendum question. I said that, in my view, the referendum question should be as simple and as straightforward as possible, and that I thought, using these criteria, the question suggested in the White Paper could be improved on. We already know what both Agentmancuso and Aventinian (opponents of independence) think. But what do supporters of independence think? So - here is a question for Radge Jougal, who initiated this discussion, and for Carol, who has so far expressed no view on the substance of the discussion, as well as for others who have not contributed so far. What do you think of the proposition that the referendum question should be as simple and as straightforward as possible, and that, using these criteria, the question suggested in the White Paper could be improved on?

And, while we are discussing matters of principle, policy, strategy, and tactics, what do you think of the proposition that a referendum should be held without delay, rather than several years down the line?

agentmancuso

carol

if you need fertile ground for campaigning on Dave i've some rabbit poop

I don't think we're quite ready for a referendum, there's a helluva lot of groundwork to do to guarantee a yes vote

Carol

Aventinian

Dave Coull

Well, so much for the attempt to get the discussion back onto a higher level.

Agentmancuso wrote "there is a distinct chance that Mr Coull would burn down his chicken coop in a fit of rage, rendering the poor beasts homeless" - I don't have a chicken coop. I don't have any chickens. I never did have any chickens. They are a figment of your imagination. Since there is no secret about my identity or where I live, there would be no difficulty for anybody in verifying this. The problem for you, of course, is that you would actually have to turn up in person for this verification. You won't do so because the only real chicken involved in this exchange is yourself. You showing up in person would prove conclusively not only that what I am saying is true, but also that what you have claimed about yourself is false: that you are indeed a posh private school boy.

carol

Dave face to face you wouldn't say boo to a goose! You are driven by keyboard madness!

what has a persons social standing got to do with this thread?

Dave Coull

Carol wrote "You are driven by keyboard madness" - a lot of folk can get carried away when they are on the keyboard, and say things they wouldn't say in real life. Agentmancuso is definitely one of them. I'm actually the one who has attempted to get away from personalities and get back to discussing principles, policies, strategy, and tactics for achieving independence.

"Dave face to face you wouldn't say boo to a goose!" - I don't think I have ever in my life said anything on a keyboard I wasn't prepared to repeat in person. Of course, it does have to be, word for word, what I actually said, not somebody else's garbled "interpretation" of what I said. As already mentioned I do keep records, so I can prove when I have been misquoted. Having said that, it is true that, face to face, everybody tends to be a bit more polite than they are on the keyboard.

Nevertheless, it is also a fact, as I stated, that I don't have a chicken coop, I don't have any chickens, I never did have any chickens, they are a figment of Agentmancuso's imagination. And since there is no secret about my identity or where I live, there would be no difficulty for him in verifying this. The problem for him is that he would actually have to turn up in person for this verification. He won't do so because him showing up in person would prove conclusively not only that what I'm saying is true, but also that what he has claimed about himself is false. In that sense, the sense of being afraid of it being conclusively proved that I have told the truth and he has lied, he is the only real "chicken" involved in this exchange.

"what has a persons social standing got to do with this thread?" - as I said before, I would prefer to conduct this discussion about a referendum, about the question to be asked in that referendum, and about the timing of that referendum, on a less personal level. I have tried to do so. It's not my fault if other folk insist on making it personal.

RadgeJougal

Bloody hell, what happened to discussion of the actual question, that's what this thread is for...

RadgeJougal

carol

Dave Coull

Radge Jougal wrote "No referendums can be held 'without delay'. They have to be set up".

A referendum can't literally be held "now". Not right this minute. For the reason that you give. But a referendum can be held "without delay". If I remember correctly, Donald Dewar managed to organise a referendum on a Scottish Parliament "without delay" within a few months of his party taking office. The fact that this was done shows that it can be done. Alex Salmond and other members of the SNP government have been talking about a referendum in 2010. Three years away yet. That sounds like the slow lane to me. We know for a fact (because Donald Dewar proved it) that it doesn't take three years to set up a referendum.

"I just hope the SNP won't get too comfy" - waiting until 2010 sounds like getting a bit comfy to me.

"but it's not the Labour party in charge anymore" - wanna bet? The SNP has a one vote majority over the Labour Party, and is very much in the minority of the parliament as a whole. The SNP doesn't have total control of the parliamentary agenda. Other parties can propose bills. The Labour Party might be a mess for now, but what if they start to get their act together? What if the Labour Party manage to come up with a scheme for a referendum of their own, to be held within a few months, just like Donald Dewar did? What if they get the support of the Lib Dems and others for this? What if they decide the wording of the question to be asked? What if they come up with what Donald Dewar called "Independence Within The UK"? (Yes, I know it's a contradiction, but I wouldn't put it past them.) What if they manage to word their bill so that it looks very positive, yet it means that people will be voting "yes" to lots-more-powers-for-the-Scottish-Parliament, but in doing so rejecting independence? And what if their bill for doing this gets passed by the Scottish Parliament? The SNP executive would then be in a position where they either have to implement the Labour Party's referendum, or resign. Okay, this might seem unlikely just now. But maybe the SNP planning on an early referendum would be less risky than leaving it until 2010.......

RadgeJougal

Dave Coull

Radge Jougal wrote "I think 2010 is a bit long".

Anybody who thinks "2010 is a bit long" should back the slogan which we put on our Determination posters, "REFERENDUM NOW".

Yes, of course, I know we can't actually have a referendum right this minute, but by "now" what is meant is "without delay, as soon as it can, in practice, be properly organised". You try fitting "without delay, as soon as it can, in practice, be properly organised" onto an A5 size poster, and still have the lettering big enough to be readable from several yards away. Anyway, "referendum now" is much snappier, and it is a slogan which can concentrate minds on the need to act promptly, far better than "without delay, as soon as it can, in practice, be properly organised".

Yes, 2010 is a bit long.
What's wrong with 2008?

carol

so what is your strategy Dave? people need to be convinced that holding a 'referendum now' is the right thing to do, a postering campaign is not sufficient. resources, funding is also required

agentmancuso

agentmancuso

carol

curious ............... Dave would you see agent in a different light if he had these supposedly characteristics and was an independence supporter?

Dave Coull

Agentmancuso asked "Would my opinion be any less valid if, God forbid, I were English?"

Not as far as I'm concerned. My daughter is English. Okay, she has a Scottish father and an American mother, but she was born and raised in England, and she speaks with an English accent, and although she is now a long-term resident of Scotland she describes herself as English. I don't love my daughter any less for that, and I don't value her opinion any less. My stepson (of whom I am very proud, after all, although not a "blood relation" he did get many of his characteristics from being raised by me from when he was just out of nappies) is English and teaches at the University of the West of England. He has now taken a sabbatical and is currently working on research at the International Peace Research Institute in Sweden ( see
http://www.basicint.org/nuclear/beyondtrident/cost.pdf ) but he will be here with us for Christmas. And of course his opinions matter. Also of course I lived in England for about twenty years, I have many friends in England, they sometimes visit me here, and my next going-away holiday (Easter 2008) will be a visit to somebody in East Anglia with whom I have been friends for forty years. YOUR belief that I am prejudiced against folk who are English is itself a prejudice, based on absolutely nothing. The reason I am giving so much detail in answering you is in order to prove (to other people reading this, even if not to you) that this belief of yours is simply a prejudice, without any basis in reality. Your opinion is less valuable because it is based on prejudice, rather than on reality.

"What have you got against chickens?" - I have no opinions at all on the subject of chickens. The obsession with chickens comes from YOU , not me. This discussion is supposed to be about a referendum on independence for Scotland, about the possible wording of this and the possible timing of this. We were starting to get back to the subject, but it doesn't suit YOU for there to be a proper discussion about this.

"Would my opinion be any less valid if I were rich?" - it is certainly useful to know if someone is rich because this can affect how we evaluate their opinion. For instance, if there was a particular measure proposed which could benefit the great majority of folk but which could have a detrimental effect on the wealth of a particular person, and they spoke against this measure without declaring their own self-interest in the matter, I would consider that dishonest.

"Would my opinion be any less valid had I received a private education?" - I have known folk who received a posh private school education and who rebelled against the values which that had sought to indoctrinate in them, and I respect them for rebelling against those values. However the majority of those educated at posh boarding schools never rid themselves of the prejudices which they picked up at these. As for yourself, you show every sign of having swallowed these prejudices wholesale.

"I hope you're not suggesting that people exhibiting any, or all, of these characteristics be excluded from your Brave New Tribal Paradise?" - the very fact that you phrase your question in this way shows prejudice. It is based on absolutely nothing but prejudice. However, on the assumption that what you mean is, would people who are English etc etc be excluded from an independent Scotland, my answer is, of course not. The very fact that you can even ask this question is itself proof of your own prejudice. Although I am not a member of any political party, I think you will find that parties in favour of independence, such as the SNP, the Green Party, the Scottish Socialist Party, and Solidarity, would all give you the same answer.

Now can we get back to what this discussion is supposed to be about?

carol

Dave Coull

Carol wrote "people need to be convinced that holding a 'referendum now' is the right thing to do".

Are you now saying that you agree with this, Carol? I know you used to agree with campaigning for a simple, straightforward, independence-yes-or-no referendum, without delay, because you were a member of Independence First back in the days when we were both campaigning for that. However, since the election of an SNP government, it seems to me that some folk (and I am not just referring to IF here) have taken a somewhat more relaxed attitude, and have accepted the idea of a timetable for a referendum several years down the line. So where do you stand on this? Are you in fact saying that you agree with "REFERENDUM NOW"? (Yes, of course, I know we can't actually have a referendum right this minute, but by "now" what is meant is "without delay, as soon as it can, in practice, be properly organised". You try fitting "without delay, as soon as it can, in practice, be properly organised" onto an A5 size poster, and still have the lettering big enough to be readable from several yards away. Anyway, "referendum now" is much snappier, and it is a slogan which can concentrate minds on the need to act promptly, far better than "without delay, as soon as it can, in practice, be properly organised".)

"so what is your strategy Dave?" - I don't think it should be so much a question of what my strategy is, as what ought to be the strategy of everyone who agrees there is a need to continue to press for a referendum without delay. I have been reading the minutes of the last two meetings of the Independence Convention. It seems to me, from these, that there are differing opinions within the IC on how much urgency there should be about campaigning, just as there are differing opinions within other groups, such as IF and Determination, on this matter.

I'm a member of Determination. We decided a couple of meetings ago that if and when the Independence Convention gets its petition with a target of 100,000 signatures going, we will be actively involved in supporting that. But personally, I don't see why it is taking them so long to get around to actually starting that petition. Apparently they want some kind of big public "launch" of the petition, but I think it would be a mistake to delay actually petitioning too long for the sake of appearances. I think 100,000 could be a realistic target which could probably be achieved quite quickly, but it is important not to delay over getting started. I for one want to be campaigning for a "yes" vote in the actual referendum by the Autumn of next year, not still trailing around with a signature form. I also think this should be only one of the ways of pressing for a referendum, and not the be-all-and-end-all.

"a postering campaign is not sufficient" - I agree. However, although it is not sufficient, it is nevertheless useful in making the point that not everybody is content to just take it easy and trust to Alex and co to get it right, nor is everybody content to accept any delay over a referendum. The very fact that we are now discussing "REFERENDUM NOW" shows the usefulness of our posters.

carol

please do get down to strategy and resources Dave

Dave Coull

Carol wrote "please do get down to strategy and resources Dave".

Why?

Why me?

As a matter of fact I have already said quite a bit about strategy, and no doubt I will have more to say on the subject. As for resources, well, I think I can get by until next pension day. But the point is, why do you assume it is up to me to discuss strategy? Why is it not up to Radge Jougal, who initiated this discussion? Why is it not up to you?

carol

It makes sense from an organisational point of view and for the success of a campaign to have a strategy and funds in place, one can only presume Determination are not geared up for this

strategy my foot looks like you'll be using SIC's petition to push your own agenda, why waste time on a long drawn out process such as the petition when you clearly want a referendum now?

Dave Coull

Carol wrote "It makes sense from an organisational point of view and for the success of a campaign to have a strategy and funds in place, one can only presume Determination are not geared up for this" - Carol, at least our most recent meeting, in September, had a quorum, whereas the most recent meeting of IF was unable to proceed because it was not quorate. However, perhaps this is not the best place to discuss the relative merits of IF and Determination. If you would like to discuss that, then I refer you to a subject heading specifically for such a purpose: http://ourscotland.myfreeforum.or...Convention_etc_etc_about4686.html

"it looks like you'll be using SIC's petition to push your own agenda" - campaigns, unlike political parties, do not have mutually exclusive memberships. Some members of Determination have been individual members of the Independence Convention for as long as it has had individual membership. What we decided at our July meeting was to use the SIC petition to push for a referendum on independence.

"why waste time on a long drawn out process such as the petition when you clearly want a referendum now?" - well, for one thing, it doesn't need to be such a long drawn out process, provided the target is realistic and provided there is no delay over getting started. For another thing, the two tactics are not mutually exclusive. Just suppose that the gathering of signatures was going well, but had not yet reached its target, and some MSP (perhaps an independent, perhaps a member of a non-governmental party, perhaps even an individual member of the SNP) was to decide to put forward a bill for a referendum, are you telling me that you would refuse to support such an initiative for a referendum, on the grounds that it could not be allowed to happen until the petition had been presented?

carol

wrong a meeting did proceed, but yes as usual the nasty Dave surfaces when he tries bodyswerving questions

back to Determinations strategy, resources, funding for a referendum now ............

Dave Coull

Carol wrote "wrong a meeting did proceed" - I understood that there were 9 people at the meeting, which would have been one short of the quorum required by the IF constitution to actually take any decisions. If a discussion went ahead with 9 people, then it wasn't a decision-making meeting. If I was misinformed about the number, my apologies.

"the nasty Dave surfaces" - I didn't intend to be nasty. It appeared to me that you were seeking to make comparisons between IF and Determination. The truth, unfortunately, is that both are quite weak organisationally.

If you want to discuss the relative merits of these groups, then I suggest the appropriate place is http://ourscotland.myfreeforum.or...Convention_etc_etc_about4686.html .

This particular thread, started by Radge Jougal, is for a more general discussion about the referendum, the question to be asked, and the timing of the referendum.

I am taking part in this discussion as one individual, and not as a spokesperson for any group. I hope other people are also taking part in the discussion as individuals.

carol

part of your contribution to this thread was to hold a 'referendum now' so please do enlighten me what is Determinations strategy, resources and funding for the campaign is, if there is no long term or short term stratagy and insufficient funds the campaign has very little chance of getting off the ground. Determination's intent is to deliver a poster campaign, so what follows on from that. What is Determinations goal and how are you aiming to acheive it?

agentmancuso

agentmancuso

Dave Coull

Carol wrote "part of your contribution to this thread was to hold a 'referendum now'" - as already explained several times, "Yes, of course, I know we can't actually have a referendum right this minute, but by 'now' what is meant is 'without delay, as soon as it can, in practice, be properly organised'. You try fitting 'without delay, as soon as it can, in practice, be properly organised' onto an A5 size poster, and still have the lettering big enough to be readable from several yards away. Anyway, 'referendum now' is much snappier, and it is a slogan which can concentrate minds on the need to act promptly, far better than 'without delay, as soon as it can, in practice, be properly organised' ". So, since this has already been explained several times, let's see if I am understanding you correctly, Carol. Can you really be saying that you disagree with the idea of holding a referendum "'without delay, as soon as it can, in practice, be properly organised"?

"Please do enlighten me what is Determinations strategy, resources and funding for the campaign" - as also previously stated, I am taking part in this discussion as an individual, not as a spokesperson for any group, and I hope that the same is true of other contributors to the discussion. The idea that the demand for a referendum on independence applies "now" is not a new one, it has been around since at least late September 2004, and indeed it was one of the founding principles of Independence First in 2005. The idea is not specific to Determination, but is being put forward here, by me, as an individual contributor to the discussion, for the consideration of the wider pro-democracy and pro-independence movement, some of whom are not party-line adherents of any particular group.

The only thing that makes this idea seem "new" now is that we now have an SNP government, and some folk appear to have relaxed the previous immediacy of their demand because of this. However, even SNP supporters like Radge Jougal recognise that leaving it until 2010 is a bit long. And because leaving it until 2010 is leaving it a bit long, and because "referendum without delay, as soon as it can, in practice, be properly organised" is not very snappy, I suggested shortening it, for the purposes of a slogan to fit on an A5 size poster and still have the lettering big enough to be readable from several yards away, to "referendum now", and Kenny did indeed produce such a poster.

That's what it is, a slogan. Which, as you will no doubt be aware, is a Gaelic word meaning battle-call. A short, snappy way of communicating something, as part of a campaign, in circumstances which are not suited to lengthy explanation. What it communicates is the idea of there being some urgency about holding a referendum. Nobody suggested it is a "strategy". Yes, there is a need to discuss strategy. I have at least made a start on this already. But it's not up to me to provide "leadership". I don't even believe in the idea of "leadership". It is up to anybody who wants to contribute to this discussion here on this Our Scotland forum to give their thoughts on strategy. Including you, Carol. Something which you have, so far, despite sending numerous posts, not begun to do.

carol

so Determination are not behind a campaign for a 'referendum now'

so there's no campaign, no strategy, no funds

Just a one man band, whoa Dave no leadership Wink

carol

a clue to my own vision re strategy Dave

Unity is the key

'United we stand Divided we fall'

The independence movement is so fragmented until we start pulling together we will have difficulty achieving that goal

So no at this present point I would disagree with a referendum now

that's my personal view, meanwhile I'll leave you 'battle' it out with the other contributers

I don't wish to be continually worn down by the likes of you

Dave Coull

Carol wrote (regarding strategy) "Unity is the key".

I disagree.

Too much emphasis on "unity" at all costs plays into the hands of the authoritarians. Authoritarianism may seem to provide some benefits but in the end the benefits of authoritarianism always prove illusory.

Historically speaking, where protest movements of all different kinds are concerned, it is a fact that authoritarians have tended to be the ones placing the greatest emphasis on "Unity". Joseph Stalin was very keen on "Unity" and the order went out from the Communist International that all of the parties which followed his line should tell all of the different elements involved in "popular front" campaigns "Unity is the key". Even long after Stalin's death such attitudes were often prevalent. During the anti-poll-tax campaign, there was an attempt to impose a monolithic "unity" on the movement. It failed, I'm glad to say. (That is, the attempt to impose "Unity" failed. The movement didn't.)

Carol wrote "The independence movement is so fragmented until we start pulling together we will have difficulty achieving that goal" - as long as we are all seeking independence, and as long as we are campaigning for a referendum on independence, then we are all, to some extent at least, pulling together. It is not necessary to all be doing so through a single organisation and following the "party line" of that organisation. In fact, in some ways, it is positively better if there is a certain amount of diversity of approaches.

RadgeJougal

Dave Coull

In response to Agentmancuso making personal attacks on myself, I wrote "look at that 'classical' quote he uses: 'If you are Roman, be worthy of so being; and if you are my equal, make this more clear' (in other words, it doesn't seem to me like you are my equal). This comes from the fact that, in ancient Rome, some were citizens, while others were not...... Agentmancuso is claiming that he is worthy of being a citizen, while many others are not. Where do young men acquire such a good conceit of themselves, and such a contempt for the mass of the population? And all combined with a 'classical' education? Answer, at the fee-paying boarding schools to which rich people in England (and some rich anglicised Scots) send their offspring".

Agentmancuso now asks "what is an 'anglicised Scot'?"

In the context in which I used the expression, somebody educated in an English-type boarding school.

A few years ago, the historian Dr. Lawrence Whitley was teaching a course on "The History of Scottish Education" at Dundee University. Now, Dr Whitley comes from Yorkshire, and when he first started as a lecturer at Dundee University, he didn't even know that there was such a thing as "Scottish Education". He thought it was the same as in England. But he learned differently, and he became interested in the many differences, and he made a study of the historical reasons for them, and he ended up teaching a course on the History of Scottish Education. One of the differences, Dr Whitley points out, is precisely that there was such a thing as a Scottish Education "system", whereas in England, historically, there was far more of a mish-mash. Another of the differences was the far greater emphasis in England on boarding schools for the children of the rich.

The boarding school seems to be an essentially English institution. The late Freddie Mercury, front man of the very successfull pop band Queen, came from a wealthy Indian, Parsee, background, in East Africa. But he was educated at an English boarding school in East Africa. That essentially posh English education made him appear to be so quintessentially English that he kept quiet about coming from an Indian background in East Africa, and a lot of people just assumed that he was in fact English.

Yes, there are a few boarding schools in Scotland, but, like the one that Freddie Mercury went to in East Africa, they are essentially English institutions in a land where they seem a bit out of place.

agentmancuso

Thanks for the updates about Freddie Mercury.

Now have another go at describing what you meant by the expression 'anglicised Scot', and then tell us why someone's opinion would matter less if they were one?

carol

anglicised Scot - educated in an English type-boarding school Rolling Eyes

crikey what chances have I got, looks as if I'm a non-starter as well Razz

does it make a difference that mine was a non-fee paying school?

get a grasp on reality Dave

As for your anarchist antics well done bravo, wondered when they'd surface

Dave Coull

Agentmancuso wrote "The obsessions, irrationalities and general looney-villagers-with-torches-surrounding-the-house nature of your referendum campaign (i.e. 4 blokes standing in the rain making a fool of themselves with tacky posters) is utterly central to this discussion".

You are again displaying your own prejudices.

There are some folk who object to all demonstrations, large or small, regardless of what the demonstrators are calling for. The present regime in Burma comes into this category, for instance. But if you don't object to all demonstrations, about anything, then campaigning for a referendum only seems like an "obsession" if you disagree with having a referendum. So all that calling it an "obsession" really amounts to is "I disagree with you".

As for "looney-villagers-with-torches-surrounding-the-house nature" - Stalin's successors in the USSR stopped sending protesters to Siberia, and instead they sent protesters to looney bins. The attitude that anybody who demonstrates for something you disagree with belongs in the looney bin is an essentially authoritarian attitude. We don't have torches, and we haven't surrounded anybody's house.

"4 blokes standing in the rain making a fool of themselves with tacky posters" - personally, I think Kenny did quite a good job of designing those posters. Describing his handiwork as "tacky" seems like prejudice.

As for "standing in the rain", unfortunately, none of us can control the weather. If a group of people have decided to hold a demonstration on a particular day, and if it should happen to be raining on that particular day, they would look even more foolish if they called their demo off because of a few drops of rain. Anyway, was it raining that day? I don't remember getting wet, so, if it was raining at all, it must just have been just a light drizzle.

So what we are left with, then, as a perfectly valid subject for discussion, is "four blokes making a fool of themselves". Essentially, the question is, was it sensible, from the point of those who are in favour of a referendum, to go ahead with an action consisting of so few people?

The view of the four of us involved was yes, it was worth doing. It reminded people (and in particular some MSPs, of several different parties) that, regardless of who happens to be in government at any given time, there is a non-party-political campaign for a referendum. Sometimes you just have to be prepared to stick your neck out. All we were risking was some folk thinking we looked a bit foolish. Sometimes, regardless of the numbers involved, it is important to make your point.

Also, it was just one small protest, not "the campaign". There are other ways of campaigning. To take just one example, on the Scottish Government's website, in the various forums of the National Conversation being sponsored by Alex Salmond and co, there are over 50 contributions from myself arguing the case for a referendum without delay.

Other people are campaigning in their own way. And good luck to them.

Dave Coull

Carol wrote "Just a one man band" - come on, be fair, we were a four-man band at that demo at the Parliament! Very Happy

Dave Coull

That young laddie Agentmancuso seeks enlightenment: "have another go at describing what you meant by the expression 'anglicised Scot' ".

As already pointed out, I used this expression in relation to a particular type of education. The reason the African/Asian Freddie Mercury was able to pass himself off as "English" was because certain types of boarding school for the sons of the rich, even when located outside England, are an essentially English institution. It is at such institutions that young men acquire a high conceit of themselves, and a contempt for the mass of the population, combined with a 'classical' education. The meaning should be crystal clear by now.

agentmancuso

carol