Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org

Red Justice · Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 11:07 am Post subject: SNP 'open' to referendum options

SNP 'open' to referendum options

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8313035.stm

Mr Salmond said any referendum must have an independence option

Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond has said he would "probably concede" to a third option being added to any independence referendum.

The option would be likely to offer greater powers for Scotland which would fall short of full independence.

But Mr Salmond said this did not mean the SNP was diluting its core aspiration for independence.

He said the outcome of the UK general election could present Scotland with some "pretty stark choices".

Mr Salmond's minority SNP government wants to hold an independence referendum next year, but the proposal is currently opposed by the majority of MSPs.

I am not frightened of another option on the ballot paper so long as that option is defined and meaningful, something people can understand and not some vague proposition

Speaking on the BBC's Andrew Marr programme, Mr Salmond said his preferred option would be for a straight "yes or no" question on Scottish independence.

But he added: "I have also indicated that if it was necessary to obtain the parliamentary majority in the Scottish parliament to have a third defined option on the ballot paper, which could be done by a couple of questions or by preference voting, then I would be prepared to discuss that and probably be prepared to concede it, so long as independence for Scotland is on the ballot paper.

"People must have the opportunity to exercise their right of self determination. I am not frightened of another option on the ballot paper so long as that option is defined and meaningful, something people can understand and not some vague proposition."

Opinion polls suggest that independence is currently backed by a minority of Scots, but Mr Salmond said the outcome of the next general election could dramatically alter the political landscape.

He said that while it was possible the Conservatives would win a majority of Westminster seats, a hung parliament was a "very live possibility".

Submarine fleet

A "Scottish bloc" of 20 or more SNP MSPs could have a "decisive influence" in a hung parliament and "tilt things in Scotland's direction," he predicted.

Mr Salmond also claimed it was clear that both Labour and the Conservatives wanted to make "swingeing" public expenditure cuts in Scotland.

"Therefore, overlying the constitutional debate is going to be a debate about the direction of the economy, the future of public services, the priorities that people have," he said.

The first minister pointed to the £100bn cost of replacing the UK's Trident submarine fleet, and asked whether it would be better to instead concentrate on "things that really matter like the health service and education system".

_________________
“For socialists, independence is not about the colour or type of flag flying on our public buildings. It is about creating a better society. It is about putting people before profit"
Tommy Sheridan
http://scottishsocfree.blogspot.com

Holebender

Red Justice · Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 11:36 am Post subject:

The third option must be specific about what greater powers are on offer. I would rather see an independence Yes/No referendum but Salmond will have to concede to try get the Referendum Bill passed.
_________________
“For socialists, independence is not about the colour or type of flag flying on our public buildings. It is about creating a better society. It is about putting people before profit"
Tommy Sheridan
http://scottishsocfree.blogspot.com

Alasdair · Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 12:35 pm Post subject:

landg · Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 5:56 pm Post subject:

yes.
no.
more powers for a devolved scotland.

how easy is that.

Reluctant Hero · Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 7:54 pm Post subject:

Salmond's willingness to have a third option coincides with the Lib Dems apparent softening on the issue of a referendum. Has a deal been done?

It looks increasingly likely that we will get a referendum though.
_________________
Visit the Our Scotland Blog at http://our-scotland.blogspot.com/

The Lithgae Jambo · Helping with the Count Joined: 05 Jul 2006 Posts: 362

Kevin · Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:39 pm Post subject:

Holebender · Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:41 pm Post subject:

Cruachan · Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:44 pm Post subject:

I am personally in favour for a straight yes/no question on independence, (and am happy to accept the Scottish Government's intended wording) but I have been wondering for a while what outcomes a multi-option referendum might give us..

Let's assume the following as one possible outcome in the consultative Referendum, whether in 2010 or 2011/12:-

45% vote for Independence
35% vote for Calman or Calman Plus
20% vote for No Change

This, and many other permutations, may show a strong call for independence, but a real mess could emerge.

Is the above a ringing endorsement for full negotiations on independence to begin, or would the focus be on a watered down version of Calman?

It may put a fair bit of pressure on a Cameron Government to do something but would give him a happily confused outcome to string out years of discussion and tinkering with the status quo.

or how about this?:-

32% vote for Independence
32% vote for Calman/Calman Plus
36% vote for No Change

what then? a clear mandate for change or a win for No Change?

of course, the following might be a happier picture:

51% vote for Independence
30% vote for Calman/Calman Plus
19% vote for No Change

I would still be happier with a straight choice of status quo or Independence.
_________________
IT'S TIME.
http://loosechange-cruachan.blogspot.com/

Holebender · Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 9:12 pm Post subject:

If you go back to the first post in this thread you will note that Alex Salmond said

Cruachan · Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 9:26 pm Post subject:

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 2809

Aventinian

This isn't news, he conceded that years ago.

Holebender · Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:36 pm Post subject:

Aventinian, the only poster here who does not understand independence and yet he opposes it vehemently. Do you always oppose what you don't understand? Are you simply a Luddite?
_________________
"My instinct is to agree with your opinion of his verse, but I've never so much as glanced at it." - agentmancuso

Aventinian · Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 5:50 pm Post subject:

kevin04 · Standing in a Council Ward Joined: 06 Mar 2007 Posts: 462

If there is

Yes, No, More Powers options on the paper.

It is almost certain that folk will vote for more powers, if so, what happens to the SNP after this? Do they continue to fight for a Yes/No Ref?
Or get on with the Faroese Powers that we will probably have?

Holebender · Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:07 pm Post subject:

Stevie · Independentist Joined: 22 Nov 2008 Posts: 1179

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 2809

In the old East Germany, in the days before the Berlin Wall came down, there were elections in which it was possible to vote for the Christlich-Demokratische Union Deutschlands (Christian Democratic Union of Germany, CDU), the Demokratische Bauernpartei Deutschlands (Democratic Farmers' Party of Germany, DBD), the Liberal-Demokratische Partei Deutschlands (Liberal Democratic Party of Germany, LDPD), the Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands (National Democratic Party of Germany, NDPD) or of course the Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands (Socialist Unity Party of Germany, SED). The trouble was, these different parties, although they did have some differences of emphasis, were all, in practice, representatives of the regime. It was not possible to vote to get rid of the regime.

In order for real choice to exist, the choices have to be mutually exclusive.

The trouble with putting "more powers" on the ballot paper is that it is not mutually exclusive with other "options" on offer. "More powers" is an expression so vague it could cover dozens of different scenarios. It is not mutually exclusive with mere window dressing, because largely cosmetic changes could be dressed up as "more powers". On the other hand, it is not mutually exclusive with independence either. By definition, an independent Scottish Parliament would be one with a lot more powers than the present set-up.

A referendum with an un-defined "more powers" option would be like an East German election - we'll give you the appearance of choice, so long as the established regime wins.

I have suggested a way in which there could be a well-defined "more powers" option on the ballot which is mutually exclusive of both purely cosmetic change and full independence. By spelling out in a pamphlet or booklet, two or three months before the referendum, exactly what changes are proposed, and then referring to that pamphlet or booklet in the referendum option, for example