| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
magister ludi
Gaining a Reputation
Joined: 13 Dec 2008
Posts: 225
|
 Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 11:29 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Red Justice wrote: |
The problem is the SNP are constitutional nationalists tied to the parliamentary system. |
True, Red, but that hasn't always been the case.......an earlier generation of nationalists wanted a referendum/plebiscite on the independence question, but were consistantly told by the unionists ( of all colours) that it had to be done through the constitutional processes of parliamentary elections and winning seats in parliament ( westminster). That was more or less the position until the constitutional convention and the "devolution" alternative emerged as an option to be put to the people through a referendum. I won't need to remind anyone that the use of the referendum is not something that British parliament has ever been keen to
use ( I have my own reservations about it's use, but that's perhaps best left for another time). My point is that the SNP were not, and probably still aren't instinctively "constitutional" in that sense, but that is was something they adopted and articulated in response to the No Referendum On Independence brigade who also insisted on the SNP winning a majority of seats in Scotland not just having a majority of the vote.
I still think it ironic that having taken the "you have to go through the westminster system" approach the Unionists collectively ( but Labour in particular) took fright at the prospect of just such an approach resulting in an SNP majority (albeit as a protest/anti labour rather than a pro independence vote) and, being in danger of being hoist by their own petard, introduced ( or in the case of labour, re-introduced) a devolution/home rule policy to be settled by a referendum ( with the appropriate safe-guards of the 40% rule and the dead mans vote of course). Funny old thing politics.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Holebender
Ready For Afterlife!
Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Posts: 2752
Location: Here or There
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 2:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fidget wrote: | | Scotland wanted to make decisions on how it spent its money, on home turf. It got it in the form of its Government. Moaning about that? |
Of course I'm moaning about it; the choice on offer was a Hobson's choice and can not be considered the true will of the majority.
_________________
"My instinct is to agree with your opinion of his verse, but I've never so much as glanced at it." - agentmancuso |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fidget
Standing in a Council Ward
Joined: 21 Jan 2007
Posts: 556
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 5:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The true will of the majority said "yep, let's have devolution". As unpalatable as that might to you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Red Justice
This is Ma' Life!
Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Posts: 758
Location: Kirkcaldy, Fife
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 5:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Now all we need is a referendum on independence unless the unionists don't want it. What are they scared off?
_________________
“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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fidget
Standing in a Council Ward
Joined: 21 Jan 2007
Posts: 556
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 5:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Has there been any official demand for one from the scottish government? It seems to harp on about being a minority government so can't have a referendum. Sounds a bit lame when it hasn't stopped it making other demands of westminster. So why not that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Red Justice
This is Ma' Life!
Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Posts: 758
Location: Kirkcaldy, Fife
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dave Coull
Independentista
Joined: 07 Nov 2006
Posts: 2809
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 5:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fidget wrote: | | Has there been any official demand for one from the scottish government? |
You seem to be under the illusion this is something the Scottish government should ask the British government for. It isn't, so they don't need to "demand" one. What they need to do is to get the majority of Members of the Scottish Parliament to vote for a referendum. The Scottish Government has stated that is exactly what they plan to do. It is expected that the referendum legislation will be put before the Parliament in January, there will then be discussion on the proposed legislation, which will be voted on in the early Spring, and, assuming the legislation is passed, there will then be plenty of time for the "pro-" and "anti-" campaigns to put their cases, before the actual referendum in the Autumn. At no point in this process is the consent of the British government required. The British government would only come into the process AFTERWARDS , if the referendum supports independence, and negotiations with the British government on the details of independence then take place. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Holebender
Ready For Afterlife!
Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Posts: 2752
Location: Here or There
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 5:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fidget wrote: | | The true will of the majority said "yep, let's have devolution". As unpalatable as that might to you. |
As I said, a Hobson's choice. When offered a choice between half a loaf and none almost everyone will choose the half loaf. That does not mean that most people wouldn't actually prefer a whole loaf.
It is disingenuous to say the particular form of devolution Scotland has was the will of the people when no other options were explored or offered. That not only includes the devolution or independence choice, but also the manner in which Scotland's finances are organised. No choices were offered, it was a take it or leave it deal. Most people decided the deal on offer was better than what went before it, and that's as much as can be said about the present form of devolution being the popular favourite.
_________________
"My instinct is to agree with your opinion of his verse, but I've never so much as glanced at it." - agentmancuso |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fidget
Standing in a Council Ward
Joined: 21 Jan 2007
Posts: 556
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 5:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Which kinda suggests that there's nothing stopping the SNP just going for a referendum right now if it's nothing to do with anybody except the people of scotland. Oh, wait! It needs the green light first. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fidget
Standing in a Council Ward
Joined: 21 Jan 2007
Posts: 556
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 5:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Holebender wrote: | | Fidget wrote: | | The true will of the majority said "yep, let's have devolution". As unpalatable as that might to you. |
As I said, a Hobson's choice. When offered a choice between half a loaf and none almost everyone will choose the half loaf. That does not mean that most people wouldn't actually prefer a whole loaf.
It is disingenuous to say the particular form of devolution Scotland has was the will of the people when no other options were explored or offered. That not only includes the devolution or independence choice, but also the manner in which Scotland's finances are organised. No choices were offered, it was a take it or leave it deal. Most people decided the deal on offer was better than what went before it, and that's as much as can be said about the present form of devolution being the popular favourite. |
What did you vote, as a matter of interest? Yes to devolution, or nope - it's all or nothing? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Holebender
Ready For Afterlife!
Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Posts: 2752
Location: Here or There
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 6:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I voted yes-yes because it was all that was on offer. Which exactly illustrates what I was saying; my vote did not reflect my true preference, only what I considered to be the better of the choices available. On the basis that I was not alone in my preferences, you cannot say that the votes cast in the 1997 referendum indicate the genuine wishes of Scotland's population.
_________________
"My instinct is to agree with your opinion of his verse, but I've never so much as glanced at it." - agentmancuso |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stevie
Independentist
Joined: 22 Nov 2008
Posts: 1179
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 6:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Good point.
_________________
Every man dies, not every man really lives.
Alba gu bràth! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dave Coull
Independentista
Joined: 07 Nov 2006
Posts: 2809
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 6:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fidget wrote: | | It seems to harp on about being a minority government so can't have a referendum. |
That is simply untrue. Of course the Scottish Government is a minority government, but they have NOT said that makes it impossible to hold a referendum. What they have said is that they intend to put the legislation for a referendum before the Scottish Parliament. There have been claims by opponents of a referendum that the legislation is bound to be defeated. That's not what I say, and it's not what Alex Salmond has said either. It remains to be seen which way the vote will go. | Fidget wrote: | | Sounds a bit lame |
It would sound a bit lame if what you're saying was true, but it isn't. | Fidget wrote: | | it hasn't stopped it making other demands of westminster. So why not that? |
(1) Because asking Westminster to organise a referendum would in itself be handing some of the powers of the Scottish Parliament back to Westminster and as such would be a backward step; (2) Because it would give opponents of a referendum a perfect excuse for indefinite delay while MPs at Westminster brought in questions of what happens in England, in Wales, and in Northern Ireland; (3) Because, if Westminster did, after years of delay, come up with a referendum, it would be a referendum organised by Westminster and on Westminster's terms.
Putting legislation before the Scottish Parliament is the right course of action. Putting a request to Westminster would be "lame". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fidget
Standing in a Council Ward
Joined: 21 Jan 2007
Posts: 556
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 6:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Holebender wrote: | | I voted yes-yes because it was all that was on offer. Which exactly illustrates what I was saying; my vote did not reflect my true preference, only what I considered to be the better of the choices available. On the basis that I was not alone in my preferences, you cannot say that the votes cast in the 1997 referendum indicate the genuine wishes of Scotland's population. |
and you cannot say otherwise. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fidget
Standing in a Council Ward
Joined: 21 Jan 2007
Posts: 556
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 6:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dave Coull wrote: | | Fidget wrote: | | It seems to harp on about being a minority government so can't have a referendum. |
That is simply untrue. Of course the Scottish Government is a minority government, but they have NOT said that makes it impossible to hold a referendum. What they have said is that they intend to put the legislation for a referendum before the Scottish Parliament. There have been claims by opponents of a referendum that the legislation is bound to be defeated. That's not what I say, and it's not what Alex Salmond has said either. It remains to be seen which way the vote will go. | Fidget wrote: | | Sounds a bit lame |
It would sound a bit lame if what you're saying was true, but it isn't. | Fidget wrote: | | it hasn't stopped it making other demands of westminster. So why not that? |
(1) Because asking Westminster to organise a referendum would in itself be handing some of the powers of the Scottish Parliament back to Westminster and as such would be a backward step; (2) Because it would give opponents of a referendum a perfect excuse for indefinite delay while MPs at Westminster brought in questions of what happens in England, in Wales, and in Northern Ireland; (3) Because, if Westminster did, after years of delay, come up with a referendum, it would be a referendum organised by Westminster and on Westminster's terms.
Putting legislation before the Scottish Parliament is the right course of action. Putting a request to Westminster would be "lame". |
I didn't say Westminster should organise it, I said the demand to have it should be forthcoming from the Scottish Government, which is isn't. Funny how the very same Government wasn't shy in asking for a 20 year or something advance on Capital grants from Westminster. Where's its mouth on a referendum? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dave Coull
Independentista
Joined: 07 Nov 2006
Posts: 2809
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 6:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fidget wrote: | | I didn't say Westminster should organise it, I said the demand to have it should be forthcoming from the Scottish Government, which is isn't. |
If by "demand" you mean they should be asking Westminster's permission, then no, they shouldn't. That really would be "lame". And OF COURSE as soon as you involve Westminster, they would end up running things. Myself and others on this forum (Holebender, for example) have been demanding a referendum for nearly five years now. I'm glad to say it's looking like we could finally get what we've been demanding, through legislation put to the Scottish Parliament by the Scottish Government. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fidget
Standing in a Council Ward
Joined: 21 Jan 2007
Posts: 556
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 7:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| As I said, the Scottish Gov aren't shy in demanding, and since independence is the closest thing to its heart.. don't you think it's a bit odd that the drums aren't banging louder? It's almost 2010 - the year they said they'd likely be having a referendum but it's all a bit quiet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Holebender
Ready For Afterlife!
Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Posts: 2752
Location: Here or There
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 7:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fidget wrote: | | Holebender wrote: | | I voted yes-yes because it was all that was on offer. Which exactly illustrates what I was saying; my vote did not reflect my true preference, only what I considered to be the better of the choices available. On the basis that I was not alone in my preferences, you cannot say that the votes cast in the 1997 referendum indicate the genuine wishes of Scotland's population. |
and you cannot say otherwise. |
Oh but I can. I have given you the example of my own votes in that referendum; the way I voted was based on the choices available and did not reflect my true wishes. Working on the basis that I am far from a unique example it is fair to extrapolate my personal experience (thanks for asking that question) to the population at large and draw the conclusion that the 1997 vote does not reflect the genuine will of the voters.
_________________
"My instinct is to agree with your opinion of his verse, but I've never so much as glanced at it." - agentmancuso |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Holebender
Ready For Afterlife!
Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Posts: 2752
Location: Here or There
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fidget
Standing in a Council Ward
Joined: 21 Jan 2007
Posts: 556
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 8:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
oh I know about the plans for a referendum bill next year.. which isn't quite the same as having a referendum next year, like they said. Forgive my cynicism surrounding this matter's fruition.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Join! (free) 
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
