Yet Another U Turn by Allexander

Reluctant Hero · Yet Another U Turn by Allexander

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman....n-humiliates-Alexander.4071458.jp

chicmac · Re: Yet Another U Turn by Allexander

Alasdair

This is tragic, the term 'train smash' springs to mind for some reason, yet it somehow doesn't seem to cover it!

If there was ever any doubt as to the worth of Labour as an opposition party then it's just been washed away ... really what's the point.

Regardless of your party politics it's a necessity of good government that we have an opposition that's up to the task and we just don't have that just now.

Lewis

William_Cleland

Now appears to be a complete 360:-

http://www.theherald.co.uk/politi...square_one_on_referendum_Bill.php

However, Labour chief whip Michael McMahon told The Herald last night: "What we are saying is, we made you an offer, you spurned it so all bets are off. Now if the SNP bring forward their own bill we have said we will look at it but we are not committed to supporting it."

But could yesterday's group meeting mean that Labour could actually vote against such a bill? Mr McMahon said: "Yes."

Which probably means that Wendy will be "resigning" in a few weeks time with the official version being that she wants to spend more time with her children. I suspect there are very few people even on the wilder shores of nationalism who don't realise that for this offer to have actually been credible Gordon Brown would have had to be on board given the constitution is a reserved issue so who exactly are they trying to kid?

Lewis

That deserves a double facepalm.

Reluctant Hero

Labour MSPs are now saying that they might vote down a bill that comes forward over the referendum. Sturgeon was right when she said last week that no-one knew what Labour's position was going to be from one week to the next!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7399011.stm

New row over referendum 'U-turn'

A new row has broken out over Scottish Labour's demand for an early referendum on independence.

Labour MSPs have said they could not guarantee support for a referendum Bill when ministers bring it in 2010.

Following a group meeting, the party insisted it had never promised a "blank cheque" to the Nationalists.

The SNP said it was the latest in a "ludicrous series of U-turns" since Scots Labour leader Wendy Alexander urged ministers to speed up plans.

Following the Labour meeting at Holyrood, party group convener Duncan McNeil said there was "no principal objection" to a referendum.

But he added: "The Scottish National Party have been given an opportunity to bring the referendum here last week.

"They refused to do that. We will not give up our right to scrutinise that bill."

The row started after Ms Alexander called on the Scottish Government to "bring on" a referendum on independence but ministers have refused to speed up their current timetable.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown has pledged to do "whatever is necessary" to preserve the United Kingdom - although he has given his backing to Ms Alexander, describing her as an "excellent leader" of Labour in Scotland.

Anyone trying to keep pace with Labour's ever-changing position would be driven to dizziness. No wonder nobody knows what Labour stand for anymore

Nicol Stephen
Leader Scottish Lib Dems

Scottish deputy first minister Nicola Sturgeon said: "Wendy Alexander must accept responsibility for this ludicrous series of U-turns that have left Labour turned inside out.

"'Bring it on' has been brought down, and Labour must now be very close to bringing Wendy Alexander down as their Holyrood leader."

David McLetchie MSP, Scottish Conservative chief whip, said: "Incredibly, 10 days after Wendy Alexander set the ball rolling by hollering 'bring it on', the situation is as muddled and chaotic as ever.

"Wendy is saying one thing. Duncan McNeil is quite obviously saying another. Gordon Brown doesn't want to know. And Des Browne doesn't seem to care.

"What an absolute mess. Few people will be sorry to see the Labour Party ripping itself to shreds but the more serious point is that Labour is endangering the future of the Union by its chronic incompetence."

He added that the uncertainty must end and called for the party to set out a clear position.

Leader of the Liberal Democrats in Scotland Nicol Stephen said: "The Labour Party's behaviour over the last week has been bizarre and bewildering.

"Wendy Alexander's flip-flop on the referendum and the consequent failure of the prime minister to support her has plunged her party into chaos.

"The Labour Party has made a seventh attempt to redefine the conditions in which they would support a referendum.

"Anyone trying to keep pace with Labour's ever-changing position would be driven to dizziness. No wonder nobody knows what Labour stand for anymore."

chicmac

Alasdair

Chicmac, having read, with some interest, your last couple of posts on here I can't help feeling that your input would be highly valued in this debate on the Our Kingdom blog.

It seems that there are a number of commentators are now suggesting that Independence would require two referendums, one on 'the principle' of independence and one on the settlement itself (pdf press release from UCL).

Many of our Southern counterparts, mostly those who support the Campaign for an English Parliament (CEP) seem to believe that not only should the Scots have a say on indepdence, but also the English (I assume they also mean the Welsh and N. Irish too) given that:

chicmac

Dave Coull

Alasdair says

"Many of our Southern counterparts, mostly those who support the Campaign for an English Parliament (CEP) seem to believe that not only should the Scots have a say on independence, but also the English"

Alasdair quotes Brian Barder on "Our Kingdom" :

"Scottish secession would have such a cataclysmic effect on the future of the rest of the UK that it's hard to imagine any UK government or parliament agreeing to it without a prior consultation with all the people of the other three 'nations', presumably by referendum."

Margaret Thatcher, when she was prime minister, stated that, if Scotland wanted independence, that was, of course, a matter for the Scots to decide. John Major, when he was prime minister, re-stated this position. Of course both of them went on to say that they hoped the Scots would always support the Union, but the important point is, they both acknowledged that it was up to the Scots. It might be objected that no British prime minister can bind future governments, but, in any case, as Chicmac points out, British prime ministers are bound by international laws and agreements and the principle of self-determination was written into the very basis of the United Nations of which the UK was a founder member. What Brian Barder said on "Our Kingdom" is merely the wishfull thinking of somebody who is both a newcomer to the concept of self-determination and has very little knowledge in these matters. I personally would consider the discussion on "Our Kingdom" to be largely irrelevant.

Chicmac says

"Don't think I should join that forum I already said too much on this one."

That makes a change. I'm more used to you saying I've said too much in public about these matters!

"These matters are effectively 'sub judice' since measures have already been instigated with the UN and were halted only by the surprise advent of an SNP government (not surprise at them being the largest party, but surprise the Us didn't form an alliance) and one last attempt to get a referendum. Had that not occurred I believe we already had enough evidence to have the UN mount an investigation into the UK government's refusal to provide Scots with a mechanism whereby they could attain independence."

We still have enough prima facie evidence for the UN to mount an investigation of an allegation of the United Kingdom being in breach of the international obligations to which it signed up regarding self-determination. This may take a few months, but, as the case is so strong, the British government will be faced with either doing a U-turn, or being found in breach of its international democratic obligations. My bet is that they will do a U-turn before the UN investigation publishes its findings, while, of course, pretending that they have done nothing of the sort.

But like you I'd better not say any more about this sub judice matter.

William_Cleland

Dave Coull

William asks “In practical terms how much has the UN charter ever done for the people of Papua, the Western Sahara or Tibet?”

The answer to that one is so obvious, I’m surprised it even needs pointing out.

In practical terms, what you can get the UN to do rather depends on who you are, and who your friends are.

Scotland is not Papua, Scotland is not the Western Sahara, Scotland is not Tibet.

Regarding the last of these three, it might be suggested that Tibet has some famous movie stars amongst its supporters.

However, there are some very important differences between Tibet and Scotland.

The first important difference between Tibet and Scotland is that, in Tibetan traditional culture, the Dalai Lama, a god-king whose present body is just the latest Earthly incarnation of all of the previous Dalia Lamas, is sovereign. Whereas in Scottish traditional culture, the people are sovereign.

The second important difference between Tibet and Scotland is that serfdom, in effect slavery, existed in Tibet, under the rule of the Dalai Lama, until the 1950s. Serfdom was abolished in Scotland a couple of centuries earlier.

The third important difference between Tibet and Scotland is that the Tibetan government-in-exile is un-elected, and represents the traditional monastic theocracy and the landlord class. Whereas in Scotland, for better or for worse, the Scottish Parliament is elected by the Scottish people.

The fourth important difference between Tibet and Scotland is that there is clear evidence that the people of Scotland support self-determination. This is far less clear in the case of Tibet.

The fifth important difference is that there is no dispute over what “Scotland” is, and what its boundaries are. There are no significant “national minorities” within Scotland’s borders, and nobody seriously suggests that Scotland extends outside of those borders. Neither of these conditions apply to Tibet, a vast and ill-defined region with significant nationality disputes.

The sixth important difference is that Scotland is quietly accepted by many member countries of the EU as a European country, it already has some representation at a European level, and it is being given, if not a European green light, then at least an amber light to “proceed cautiously”..

The seventh important difference is that, far from being an impoverished “third world” country, Scotland is a wealthy country with a large share of Europe’s natural resources.

For all of these reasons, and many more, Scotland will find it much easier to take advantage of the UN provisions for self-determination than some other territories.

Yet Another U Turn by Allexander

Re: Yet Another U Turn by Allexander