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.
|
Reluctant Hero
|
Wrong Time To Hold ReferendumAccording to Iain Gray, Leader of the Labour Party in Scotland, just in case anyone has forgotten!
He said it was wrong to have it in a recession. My question is Why?
He also said Alex Salmond has no mandate. Well, did Salmond not get elected as leader of the party with the most MSPs on the back of a manifesto that said there was going to be a referendum on Scottish Independence?
| Quote: | | Mr Gray launched an attack on the minority Scottish government and its planned 2010 independence referendum, saying First Minister Alex Salmond had "no mandate, no majority and no shame". |
That paragraph really winds me up. It is very unlikely that there will ever be a party with a majority in the Scottish Parliament under the current voting system.
| Quote: | | Taking to the stage, Mr Murphy said the only choice voters in Scotland faced come the next UK election was Labour or the Conservatives. |
Does Murphy even know Scotland? For a large majority, the Tories will never be an option and the way things are going, Labour look a very unattractive option too.
Yet again there is nothing in the report to say what Labour would do if they got elected. Maybe it is just rubbish journalism, but all that is in there is Labour saying what the other parties would do or have done.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8278045.stm
|
Stevie
|
Re: Wrong Time To Hold Referendum[quote="Reluctant Hero"]
| Quote: | | Mr Gray launched an attack on the minority Scottish government and its planned 2010 independence referendum, saying First Minister Alex Salmond had "no mandate, no majority and no shame". |
With his usual flair of an attacking wet kipper.
The Labour party is devastated through their pseudo Tory policies in England and in Scotland there is the wit and intelligence of the recent number of Scottish Labour leaders (I've lost count) to fend off.
The SNP must be quaking in their boots.
|
Shagpile
|
Correct, Labour has less of a mandate for union.
2nd, Voters in Scotland have no real Labour or Conservative choice, (England detrmines the outcome). Which is why (ALLEGEDLY) Labour has "given us" (ahem) Devolution........ in order to perpetuate "Labourism", NOTB.
3rd, Check out your own link on another thread, Lib's worried; if they don't back an early referendum, they might never get there... or what ever...... the smallest party to have a say in Scottish government.
AND OMG! How they F***ed-Up so spectacularly!
And they wonder how they once were running an Empire.
Perhaps McTavisssh Jock can tell us?
|
Dave Coull
|
Re: Wrong Time To Hold Referendum | Reluctant Hero wrote: | According to Iain Gray, Leader of the Labour Party in Scotland, just in case anyone has forgotten!
He said it was wrong to have it in a recession. My question is Why? |
The truth is, so far as Ian Gray and his pals in the UK Labour Party are concerned, NEVER would be the best time to have a referendum. This "wrong to have it in a recession" is just their latest excuse for not holding the referendum they never want to have. The Gray fella dances to Gordon Brown's tune, and Gordon Brown has been part of the UK government since forever, first as Chancellor of the Exchequer and then as Prime Minister, and as such he played a big role in international finance politics, and as such he has a big responsibility for getting us into this recession in the first place, and now his sidekick Ian Gray says because of the mess his pal Gordon and co got us into it's the wrong time to hold a referendum? The Scottish people have NEVER , at any time, been asked whether they want independence, or to be part of a Union. The referendum is over three hundred years overdue. All this "wrong time" crap shows is that Ian Gray is a hypocrite and a liar.
|
Shagpile
|
Hay, "shagpile" got away wi' a wee swearie! Accidental of course.
|
Aventinian
|
Re: Wrong Time To Hold Referendum | Reluctant Hero wrote: | | He said it was wrong to have it in a recession. My question is Why? |
Because a referendum campaign would move all focus in Scottish politics from ordinary issues, like the economic situation we find ourselves in, to the matter at hand, ie Union or independence. He believes, quite properly, that politicians should be focusing on that.
| Quote: | | He also said Alex Salmond has no mandate. Well, did Salmond not get elected as leader of the party with the most MSPs on the back of a manifesto that said there was going to be a referendum on Scottish Independence? |
Legislation requires a mandate in the legislature, rather than simply an invitation by the Queen to form a government.
| Quote: | | That paragraph really winds me up. It is very unlikely that there will ever be a party with a majority in the Scottish Parliament under the current voting system. |
I wouldn't rule it out indefinitely, but you're right - it's unlikely. Still, there is a pro-Union, anti-referendum majority at the moment. Try switching that around.
|
Aventinian
|
Re: Wrong Time To Hold Referendum | Dave Coull wrote: | | The truth is, so far as Ian Gray and his pals in the UK Labour Party are concerned, NEVER would be the best time to have a referendum. This "wrong to have it in a recession" is just their latest excuse for not holding the referendum they never want to have. |
True, but it's a pretty good excuse all the same.
|
Rinty
|
I totally reject all of the 'focus' arguments. The idea that we cannot debate important matters because we have other matters to discuss is a fallacy.
It has been used in the past to argue against minor legislation such as hunting bans - 'the parliament should be concentrating on poverty not foxes'. But to use it to try to halt key issues such as how we are governed is a weak argument and those who use it highlight their fear of the subject in hand.
If there was a proposal to debate the referendum and ban all talk of any other subject simultaneously then I could see the point of the argument, but no-one is suggesting that.
|
Holebender
|
Those poor thickos who have the right to vote apparently lack the ability to think about more than one important issue at a time.
I can walk and chew gum at the same time so I must be quite exceptional!
|
Dave Coull
|
| Aventinian wrote: | | there is a pro-Union, anti-referendum majority at the moment |
When I first started arguing for a referendum on independence, some years ago now, I found myself arguing on some internet forums with some fundamentalist Scottish Nationalists who regarded holding a referendum as too "gradualist". They took the view that the SNP should be happy to remain in opposition and build party strength until such time as it could get either a majority of Scottish MPs in a Westminster election, or a majority of MSPs in a Scottish election, and then simply declare independence, without a referendum. So there are, and always have been, some folk who are FOR independence and AGAINST a referendum. On the other hand, there are many people who say they would vote AGAINST independence who nevertheless are FOR holding a referendum.
In linking the two different things "pro-Union, anti-referendum", your statement can, at the most, only be half-true. I accept that your so-called "polls" appear to suggest a pro-Union majority at the moment, and, if that proved to be correct in practice, there would be a big task for pro-independence campaigners to try to accomplish in a referendum. However, even your beloved "opinion polls" do not support your assertion of the majority being against HOLDING a referendum.
|
Aventinian
|
| Rinty wrote: | | I totally reject all of the 'focus' arguments. The idea that we cannot debate important matters because we have other matters to discuss is a fallacy. |
We can't. Look at any newspaper or news programme, at best they handle a small number of issues; when something 'big' comes along, everything else waits. When Princess Diana died, or September 11th happened, nothing else was reported for a week - and those weren't even political events.
| Quote: | | It has been used in the past to argue against minor legislation such as hunting bans - 'the parliament should be concentrating on poverty not foxes'. But to use it to try to halt key issues such as how we are governed is a weak argument |
Why? If you have limited time to discuss issues, as parliaments generally do, then you should be discussing important ones.
| Holebender wrote: | Those poor thickos who have the right to vote apparently lack the ability to think about more than one important issue at a time.
I can walk and chew gum at the same time so I must be quite exceptional! |
I thought that was your position on why, if people want Scottish independence, they don't vote for it in elections.
|
Aventinian
|
| Dave Coull wrote: | | In linking the two different things "pro-Union, anti-referendum", your statement can, at the most, only be half-true. I accept that your so-called "polls" appear to suggest a pro-Union majority at the moment, and, if that proved to be correct in practice, there would be a big task for pro-independence campaigners to try to accomplish in a referendum. However, even your beloved "opinion polls" do not support your assertion of the majority being against HOLDING a referendum. |
Nothing to do with polls. I was talking about the Scottish Parliament - and the majority of its members have voted, in person, against a referendum on independence being held or even a Bill introduced.
|
Rinty
|
I see that Gordon Brown annnounced a referendum on voting reform, I wonder if he will consult Iain Gray over the timing 
|
Shagpile
|
| Rinty wrote: | | I see that Gordon Brown annnounced a referendum on voting reform, I wonder if he will consult Iain Gray over the timing |
Indicative of how deep Labour are in the Do-Do. Tantamout to an admission of that.
Probably rush it, to get in place for the next GE. 
Do you have a link on that one Rinty?
|
Rinty
|
| Quote: | | There is now a stronger case than ever that MPs should be elected with the support of more than half their voters – as they would be under the Alternative Voting system. And so I can announce today that in Labour’s next manifesto there will be a commitment for a referendum to be held early in the next Parliament it will be for the people to decide whether they want to move to the Alternative Vote. |
http://www.labour.org.uk/gordon-brown-speech-conference
Fortunately doesnt have the intro, the list of 'achievements'.
To me, the scariest bit was
| Quote: | | And I do think it’s time to address a problem that for too long has gone unspoken, the number of children having children. For it cannot be right, for a girl of sixteen, to get pregnant, be given the keys to a council flat and be left on her own. |
| Quote: | | "From now on all 16 and 17 year old parents who get support from the taxpayer will be placed in a network of supervised homes. These shared homes will offer not just a roof over their heads, but a new start in life where they learn responsibility and how to raise their children properly. That’s better for them, better for their babies and better for us all in the long run." |
Magdalene Sisters?
|
Dave Coull
|
| I wrote: | | In linking the two different things "pro-Union, anti-referendum", your statement can, at the most, only be half-true. I accept that your so-called "polls" appear to suggest a pro-Union majority at the moment, and, if that proved to be correct in practice, there would be a big task for pro-independence campaigners to try to accomplish in a referendum. However, even your beloved "opinion polls" do not support your assertion of the majority being against HOLDING a referendum. |
| Aventinian wrote: | | Nothing to do with polls. |
What? You mean, when it suits you to do so, you ignore your beloved "polls"? | Aventinian wrote: | | I was talking about the Scottish Parliament |
No you weren't..
I mean, surely you couldn't have been, or you would have said so.
Or...........you mean you really WERE talking about the Scottish Parliament, and just neglected to say so? You're getting sloppy. | Aventinian wrote: | | the majority of its members have voted, in person, against a referendum on independence being held |
A totally pointless, non-binding "vote", in which HOW to vote was, for some mysterious reason, imposed by the unionist parties' leaderships, with whips and threats of punishment, on their members. | Aventinian wrote: | | or even a Bill introduced. |
Like I said, a totally pointless, non-binding exercise. The Bill will be introduced. As a matter of democratic principle, the vote on the Bill ought to be a FREE VOTE , if the Unionist leaders can be persuaded to resist their primitive predilections for whips and punishments. It remains to be seen how that vote will go. However, I think there are reasons for believing that, amongst the population of Scotland, a majority do indeed favour having their say in a referendum. I suspect that a majority of MSPs will also think (though they may not all say so out loud) that a majority of the population of Scotland do indeed favour having their say in a referendum. For this reason, some MSPs who were prepared to accept being whipped into voting against a referendum when the vote was not binding, and meant absolutely nothing, may not be quite so keen to vote against in this vote which actually means something. But that remains to be seen. (Incidentally, what exactly IS the stance of the LibDems this week?)
|
Alasdair
|
| Rinty wrote: | | I see that Gordon Brown annnounced a referendum on voting reform, I wonder if he will consult Iain Gray over the timing |
Wrong time to hold a referendum on major issue 'X' but right time to hold referendum on major issue 'Y'?
|
Holebender
|
| Aventinian wrote: | | Holebender wrote: | Those poor thickos who have the right to vote apparently lack the ability to think about more than one important issue at a time.
I can walk and chew gum at the same time so I must be quite exceptional! |
I thought that was your position on why, if people want Scottish independence, they don't vote for it in elections. |
I know you're not thick, but that comment seems like an attempt to change my opinion about that. The idea of a single issue referendum is not that people can't handle more than one important decision at a time, but that people prioritise issues and you cannot truly gauge opinion on any individual issue unless you only enquire about that one to the exclusion of all others.
But you know that.
|
Shagpile
|
| Rinty wrote: | | where they learn responsibility and how to raise their children properly. |
Do you wonder if the's thinking about The Straw's or The Blair's?
| Quote: | | Magdalene Sisters? |
You bet! He will retort they have to EARN while they learn!
|
Aventinian
|
| Dave Coull wrote: | | Aventinian wrote: | | I was talking about the Scottish Parliament |
No you weren't..
I mean, surely you couldn't have been, or you would have said so.
Or...........you mean you really WERE talking about the Scottish Parliament, and just neglected to say so? You're getting sloppy. |
I was responding to a comment on the Scottish Parliament, viz:
| Quote: | | Quote: | | That paragraph really winds me up. It is very unlikely that there will ever be a party with a majority in the Scottish Parliament under the current voting system. |
I wouldn't rule it out indefinitely, but you're right - it's unlikely. Still, there is a pro-Union, anti-referendum majority at the moment. Try switching that around. |
So yes, I think that's clear enough.
[quote]A totally pointless, non-binding "vote", in which HOW to vote was, for some mysterious reason, imposed by the unionist parties' leaderships, with whips and threats of punishment, on their members./quote]
For some mysterious reason? Because that's simply how legislatures work. It's called a party system. As for pointless - I think not. It has demonstrated clearly that the Scottish Parliament supports the Union and opposes a referendum on independence.
|
Dave Coull
|
| Aventinian wrote: | | It has demonstrated clearly that the Scottish Parliament supports the Union and opposes a referendum on independence. |
Ah, you're confusing two different things. Yes, there is almost certainly a majority for the Union in the present Parliament. However, Ian Gray stated at the Labour Party conference that he and his colleagues were ruling out a referendum "at this time". Which implies not ruling out a referendum at some other time. I know you are against a referendum in principle, but I don't think you can say the Scottish Parliament is. As for whether the Scottish Parliament will be against a referendum in about a year and two months' time, we will only find that out when the legislation is put before them.
|
Alasdair
|
| Dave Coull wrote: | | However, Ian Gray stated at the Labour Party conference that he and his colleagues were ruling out a referendum "at this time". Which implies not ruling out a referendum at some other time. |
I would rather suspect that this is a stalling tactic which gets them out of the "you won't let the people speak" argument, as what they are now saying is that now is not the right time for such a vote.
Later there will be another 'good reason'.
|
Dave Coull
|
| Alasdair wrote: | | I would rather suspect that this is a stalling tactic |
Yes, it probably is. Nevertheless, my point still stands. Aventinian is opposed to a referendum IN PRINCIPLE , but his claim that a majority of the Members of the Scottish Parliament are also opposed to a referendum IN PRINCIPLE rests on shaky foundations and is undermined by statements from Ian Gray and others.
|
Dave Coull
|
Re: Wrong Time To Hold Referendum | Rinty wrote: | | I see that Gordon Brown announced a referendum on voting reform, I wonder if he will consult Iain Gray over the timing |
This proves the "wrong time for a referendum" argument is nonsense. The truth is, so far as Gordon Brown and his cronies are concerned, NEVER would be the best time to have a referendum on independence for Scotland. However, that's not the case so far as many Labour voters in Scotland are concerned, nor, indeed, so far as many Labour Party members in Scotland are concerned. A lot of them do want a referendum on independence - whichever way they would vote in it. The same is true of many LibDem voters (and party members), and is even true of a significant number of Tory voters (and members).
A referendum just asks the electorate a question. In a referendum, nobody is standing for election. Your vote does not elect any politician, nor does your vote support any political party. Neither does your vote endorse any policy (other than the one specified in the question). That being so, it is vital that the referendum itself, when we finally do get it, is not conducted on party political lines. The pro-independence campaign must stress that it is NOT seeking a vote for Alex Salmond, nor for the SNP, nor for any other politician or political party, and that what kind of government an independent Scotland will have is a completely separate matter from the referendum, a matter which will be entirely up to the people of Scotland, in the general election to be held within a few months of independence.
|
Ultra
|
What about the SNP not having a majority of MSP's to get the bill through Parliament? Is that not a good enough reason for not holding a referendum?
|
Alasdair
|
| Ultra wrote: | | What about the SNP not having a majority of MSP's to get the bill through Parliament? Is that not a good enough reason for not holding a referendum? |
That's the reason why the bill won't get through parliament, it's not the reason why it's not a good time for the referendum on it.
|
Ultra
|
| Alasdair wrote: | | Ultra wrote: | | What about the SNP not having a majority of MSP's to get the bill through Parliament? Is that not a good enough reason for not holding a referendum? |
That's the reason why the bill won't get through parliament, it's not the reason why it's not a good time for the referendum on it. |
So it's a good time to put a referendum bill through Parliament when you know you can't get the bill passed and hold a referendum...
The SNP don't have enough MSP's. So campaign on the issue at the next Holyrood elections and try and get a majority of MSP's to make it happen. By which point the Tories will be in power at Westminster which should ensure some more votes heading to the SNP.
|
Reluctant Hero
|
Who is to say that the bill won't be passed though?
The Lib Dems, Labour and Tories may all abstain if the vote takes place before the next General Election for fear of voter reprisals.
|
Holebender
|
| Ultra wrote: | | What about the SNP not having a majority of MSP's to get the bill through Parliament? Is that not a good enough reason for not holding a referendum? |
You are counting chickens before they are hatched. On paper, obviously, there is a Unionist majority but why are those Unionist parties fighting so hard to prevent the Bill even being brought to parliament? I believe it is because they are terrified of actually having to vote against allowing the voters their say, and having to explain that at the next election (which will only be a year away by then). I think many people will be surprised at the number of abstentions and absentees on the opposition benches when it comes time to vote on the referendum bill.
And if the bill is voted down, you can imagine the SNP's election material in 2011; vote of the party which is willing to give the voters their say, or vote for the other lot and be gagged.
|
Dave Coull
|
| Ultra wrote: | | What about the SNP not having a majority of MSP's to get the bill through Parliament? |
Nevertheless, Alex Salmond has insisted that legislation for a referendum will indeed be put before the Parliament. If MSPs oppose that legislation, then it will be up to them to vote it down. It very much remains to be seen whether a majority of them will do so. | Ultra wrote: | | Is that not a good enough reason for not holding a referendum? |
That's seeing it purely in party political terms, in terms of the official party line, which I think is a mistake. There really is no question that there are differing opinions within all of the political parties about this. For example, some in the Labour Party want to "bring it on" while others want to "hold it back". There are similar divisions within the LibDems, and also amongst Tory MSPs. There are probably also some SNP members who would rather NOT have a referendum, or, at least, not at present. That being so, my view is that, when the legislation is presented to Parliament, instead of having the party whips making MSPs toe the party line, there ought to be a free vote by all MSPs. I can't predict precisely what the voting figures in such a free vote would be - and neither can anybody else. But my guess would be that there would be a pretty good chance of the legislation for a referendum being passed.
|
Ultra
|
| Holebender wrote: | | Ultra wrote: | | What about the SNP not having a majority of MSP's to get the bill through Parliament? Is that not a good enough reason for not holding a referendum? |
You are counting chickens before they are hatched. On paper, obviously, there is a Unionist majority but why are those Unionist parties fighting so hard to prevent the Bill even being brought to parliament? I believe it is because they are terrified of actually having to vote against allowing the voters their say, and having to explain that at the next election (which will only be a year away by then). I think many people will be surprised at the number of abstentions and absentees on the opposition benches when it comes time to vote on the referendum bill.
And if the bill is voted down, you can imagine the SNP's election material in 2011; vote of the party which is willing to give the voters their say, or vote for the other lot and be gagged. |
I suppose the Unionist parties will just have to deal with it.
Assuming the SNP can deliver some more election pledges in the next 18 months too.
Alot of people work in local Government and public services in Scotland. They may not take too kindly to pay freezes and job losses and blame the Government over the next 18 months.
The private sector and industry have already gone through this pain and things are picking up along with the economy.
I don't hear a great deal of people showing much interest in independence as they are more occupied by other things.
Tactically it may be better to wait for the SNP.
|
Holebender
|
I definitely believe the SNP has nothing to lose by "bringing on" its referendum bill. If it is passed they get their referendum, if it is voted down they get great ammunition for their next election campaign. But they have to put the bill to a vote for any of that to happen. If they bottle it and don't even bring the bill forward they lose a lot of the moral high ground at the next election.
|
Dave Coull
|
| Reluctant Hero wrote: | | The Lib Dems, Labour and Tories may all abstain if the vote takes place before the next General Election for fear of voter reprisals. |
"All" of them abstaining would only happen if that was their party's line, and my view is that there ought to be a free vote. Nevertheless, whole party abstention cannot be ruled out. The Labour Party in Scotland have said that they "will not support" a referendum - but note that "will not support" is not the same thing as "will oppose". Plus some Labour MSPs are on record as saying they "will NOT oppose" a referendum. The possibility which reconciles these positions would be abstention. As for the LibDems, I doubt if even THEY know what they will do in a few months' time, when the legislation is voted on. For the legislation to pass, all it needs is to get more votes than the votes against. By definition, abstention doesn't count.
|
Dave Coull
|
| Ultra wrote: | | What about the SNP not having a majority of MSP's to get the bill through parliament? |
| Alasdair wrote: | | That's the reason why the bill won't get through parliament, it's not the reason why it's not a good time for the referendum |
I think we have to start taking very seriously the possibility that the legislation for a referendum might actually pass. It would be silly to be left saying "We weren't expecting THAT". Of course, if and when the bill passes, the SNP will conduct a campaign for a pro-independence vote in the referendum, and so, no doubt, will other, smaller, pro-independence parties; but it is vitally important that this task should NOT just be left to the SNP or any other political party. There should be a non-party-political campaign. Mind you, I'm certainly not saying there should be just one single campaigning organisation, perish the thought, diversity is a good thing. But it is important to ensure that everybody in Scotland hears the message that this is not about electing any politician, or supporting any particular political party, it's about the people who live in Scotland today taking control of their own destiny. I say "the people who live in Scotland today", and not "the Scots", quite deliberately, because there are plenty of people who live in other countries yet consider themselves Scots (and who, quite rightly, will NOT have a vote), and there are some people who live in Scotland who are not sure how "Scottish" they feel. I think I read somewhere that one person in 8 of the population of Scotland was born in England. Now, maybe that's an exaggeration, maybe it's not quite as much as that, but, nevertheless, that is our largest "national" minority, and every one of them will have a vote in a referendum. The good news is, all the signs are that folk born in England, and in other countries too, are just as likely to support independence for their adopted country as the native-born, provided it is put to them in terms of a democratic self-determination in which they can play a full part, and not as the more "narrow" kind of nationalism. So, the pro-independence campaign for the referendum should be non-party-political, it should be inclusive, and yet welcome diversity - and it should be ready to get moving, when the time comes!
|
mac
|
Orlando ex-pat's thoughtsAgreed, DC - was born, lived and voted in Edinburgh till '98 and consider myself Scottish - still have the accent, and am proud to talk up Scotland at every opportunity - I realize I won't get a vote, but the important thing is for there to actually be a vote, which I consider an opportunity - I also agree that folk from different countries develop an affection for the country they're living in, and they must be included, not only natural born Scots.
When/if Scotland gets the chance, residents should think carefully about the decision. Consider the options 
|
|
|
|