'Second best or least worst'
Launching , First Minister Alex Salmond called for blunt speaking from his audience of the great, the middling and the mostly good.
His address prompted a notably blunt response - but not from the immediate audience. Annabel Goldie, she who must be obeyed in the Scottish Tories, said Mr Salmond鈥檚 referendum plan was 鈥渢ripe".
What could this be? What had so upset the abseiling Annabel? Mr Salmond had advocated a multi-option referendum, settled by the Single Transferable Vote, or STV.
It would work like this. You鈥檇 get a ballot paper with three options: the status quo; devolution with enhanced powers; independence.
Mr Salmond envisages that option two, devolution plus, would emerge from .
You鈥檇 place a number one against your first preference, two against your second and . . . you鈥檙e ahead of me now, aren鈥檛 you?
'Travelling hopefully'
As in council elections, if any option wins majority support, then it鈥檚 settled. Failing that, the least popular would drop out, with second preferences reallocated to find a winner.
Miss Goldie is unimpressed. You don鈥檛, she says, decide 鈥渢he destiny of a country on the basis of the second best or least worst option".
In response, Mr Salmond says STV is used the world over, that the people of Scotland proved themselves capable of handling it in the council elections - and that independence would only win through if it gained sufficient support.
The first minister also points out that his prime objective has been to secure a straightforward referendum on independence.
Given the opposition to that, he is 鈥渢ravelling hopefully鈥 towards alternatives, driven by the emerging views of his rivals.
My guess is that Mr Salmond is more than content to trade arguments and even insults over referendum options. It means the topic is discussed.
I'm 
Comments
It is now time to reassess the effectiveness and costs of the devolution settlement. A referendum would seem to be the fairest way for the electorate to voice their views. However the questions in the referendum must reflect all opinion in Scotland eg. 1-Full Independence; 2- Enhanced Devolution; 3- Status Quo; or 4- Scrap the devolved parliament completely. As we are totally overgoverned at present in Scotland either options 1 or 4 would represent the most efficient and cost effective results for the future of Scotland.
Miss Goldie one doesn't decide the destiny of a country on the basis of a dictatorial parliament in another country either. Nor does one decide the destiny of a country on the say so of a few rich men who didn't have the sovereignty to give it away in the first place. Except apparently one does when it's Scotland and the rules are those chosen by you and your cohorts.
You were doing so well in regaining Scottish trust of the Conservative party, and now you've gone and blown it all away by playing as just another Westminster puppet. The sovereignty of Scotland belongs to the people of Scotland, as it should do. The first party to turn their back on this twenty-first century parcel o' rogues might come out with some moral dignity left.
Brian I assume we got no quote from Brown's First Mistress because her patronising tone doesn't come across well in the written word.
I hope Phase 2 catches the imagination more than Phase 1..... a visit to the National Conversation website shows that since it launched on 23rd August, it has attracted an average of 16 comments per day. Not much of a Conversation.
When you compare it with, for example, the St Mirren Football Club website which attracts an average of 160 comments per day, it really makes you wonder if there is a groundswell of popular opinion for this sort of constitutional debate.
To be quite frank, I'm more interested in the quality of eduction and healthcare my children get, and I'd rather the government focussed on these issues, and leave constitutional issues to a second term.
Not one of the Unionist parties support putting their constitutional settlement to the people. Does this mean that they expect there to be unpalatable compromises in the final bill?
Annabel Goldie said 鈥淵ou don't have a referendum to preserve the status quo鈥, indeed, the referendum is multi-option however, some may choose more powers where to others they may wish to vote against more powers for the Scottish Parliament i.e. The 鈥 status quo鈥 and why not? Seems its back to the old days where the Scots are being told that they have no choice other than what we give them. So to recap, the independent review will not allow Independence as part of its remit, and any future referendum cannot have the Status quo, who's interests are being addressed here?
Funny the oppositions fixation with the "status quo", especially when WAs new slogan is "Change is what we do"???
There is no such thing as the status quo, especially when it has been imposed on Scotland for the last 300 years!
It is Scotlands turn to decide what the "normal" status of Scotland will be.
The 'tripe' remark from Annabel Goldie was unworthy. She wasn't up for any more powers for Holyrood or for any sort of referendum on independence but having thrown in her lot with Labour she's handed all her cards over to Brown and Westminster who will be calling the shots on the 'Review'. Does she really trust Gordon Brown more than she trusts the Scottish people?
If the Unionist Parties are so sure that Independance will be rejected by the Scottish People ,why do they not back a Referendum and have done with it ? .A defeat for the Independance Option would kill the issue for a Generation which would surely be what Unionists would want ?.I think Labour in particular should come clean about there reasons for not allowing,We,The People to decide Our Nation's future.
Okay. We can hold a FPTP referendum instead and then, when no option gets more than 50%, we can deduce that the electorate doesn't really approve of any of the proposed political setups.
Then we abolish the government altogether. Makes sense, right Annabel? We wouldn't want to take the 'least unpopular option', after all.
Brian
A question you can ask the unionist gang of three the next time you interview them.
Why are you all petrified of democracy, you expect people to vote for you at elections, yet you deny them a referendum, one that you all spin that you would win.
Suggest Friday would be a good day to start with one of them.
P.S. Do you expect one straight answer on Friday? not if Newsnight last night was an indicator.
Oh no we can't have any kind of proportional representation, except when it suits the politicians. Why are the three unionist parties so terrified of the electorate getting to make a decision, is it because they imagine they know best what we want, it would be nice to be asked. Our M.S.P.'s are a craven lot ,hanging to the coat tails of the national parties with no opinion of their own. I think it would be better if most of them went back to the third grade jobs they were doing prior to jumping on the Holyrood gravy train. They trumpet about Scotland's " parliament " but sadly what we have is what Bruce and Wallace fought long and hard against, a vassal parliament controlled by Westminster. This was clearly demonstrated by the vitriol spewing from Gordon Brown at the SNP councils and cabinet during PMQ's this morning.
As someone who isnt scared of an independant scotland, but is doing fairly ok by myself as is. Id like to comment on the single transferable vote issue.
Its a bit of smart gradualist thinking from Alex. No chance the Tories libs or labour are going to vote independance. He knows most of the population will accept more powers and all the nationalists will have independace or more powers. Pretty much an enhanced Scottish parliament power view is a certainty.
It would short change Westminster Labours attempt to steal back the planning powers and changes to the scottish judiciary over detention etc.
And give the SNP further control over the scottish economy which may lead to further confidence in the present government.
It would be a win win situation, however it kind of has been for the SNP since the election as none of the parties have be able to form a consolidated opposition.
My hopes on this matter are not high, given the inability of many of my fellow Scots to deal with the May election ballot papers last year.
'Miss Goldie is unimpressed. You don鈥檛, she says, decide 鈥渢he destiny of a country on the basis of the ... least worst option".'
Oh really? Do politicians have such a high opinion of themselves that they believe that this isn't exactly what the electorate does at every parliamentary election?
Annie's opinion seems to be that the options should be trimmed before the ballot paper is set, rather than during the vote-counting process.
So Ms Goldie - "you don't have a referendum to keep the status quo"?
Ermmmm isn't that EXACTLY what "Call me Dave" Cameron has been calling for throughout the last few months in relation to the European treaty?
WHOOPS!
Brian,
There may be some less than warm words from Auntie Anna but she is a smart cookie and is just letting Alex know her support is limited and she will continue to pursue her own 'independent' line.
It looks like auntie Annabel has lost her usual wise-cracking ability. "Tripe" is that the best she can manage. Does she really think we are to stupid to decide our nations future. The unholy triumvirate of the unionists are getting all a bit hysterical about the whole business. The only cool customer is Alex Salmond who makes the most reasoned arguement for a true multi option referendum
The Unionist Parties are against the idea of having 'Complete Independence' as an option because they know that the people of Scotland will vote for it.
Why else would they not want that as an option?
There is more people in England who want to seperate from Britain then there is in Scotland.
When will the Government's realise that no one wants to be in Britain anymore and we all seek to go our seperate ways?
Why does this blog attract so many SNP supporters? I am constantly amazed in the vigour that comes from the supporters of the SNP when coming here.
It seems that unless you are 100% behind the SNP and the policies it follows then you are:
a) UnScottish
b) Undemocratic
c) Not willing to engage in any kind of debate
It is crystal clear that the Labour Party, the Lib Dems and the Tories are simply never going to agree to independence. It is down to the SNP to convince the electorate that it is a good thing to go independent. On that basis surely an "all or nothing" referendum would be best, following a prolonged and engaged, adult and educated debate on the issues at hand?
If the people say Yes, then Yes it is. If the people say No then devolution is then looked at, improved and developed by the parliament with the sure and certain knowledge that the people are behind them.
My personal vote is No, and I would be happy for Alex Salmond and the SNP to call the referendum tomorrow and be done with it.
After all, it is the SNP that is in power. Time for them to put up or shut up.
For a multi-option referendum, no matter how many options it has or what they may be, it is a simple fact that STV is a must so that any outcome can be legitimate. FPTP will secure a majority in a 2 option referendum, but increase that to 3 or more options and it is almost certain that whichever option emerges on top will not command the majority support of the electorate. On an inssue as important as independence, minority support is not enough. We can have a multi-option referendum or we can avoid using STV. We cannot do both.
Perhaps Annabel should have given this some more consideration before commenting.
Brian,
Sometimes it's hard not to despair!
I have no doubt that parties on all sides of the political spectrum as we know it in Scotland genuinely want to see progressive change as to how the country is governed.
I have no issue with the SNP who seem to want to 'converse' with all parts of the electorate, but who seem to have a fairly tough job to do if the opinion polls are to believed.
On the other hand, I have no issue with the electorate deciding 'there is a limit and we will not go further' approach.
I do have a major issue with politicians and their acolytes saying 'we have already decided for you'. Which is exactly what the newly appointed Chairman of yesterday's commission did.
I trust the Scottish electorate will see the sham for what's it worth and get on with removing from office those who tell them 'we ken better than you', as per yesterday's non-conversation.
Dear Mr. Taylor,
You say, with STV, "if any option wins majority support, then it鈥檚 settled." So what happens in a 3-option referendum, with options A-B-C, if everyone casts all three preferences? So that every option gets 100% support!? Admittedly, that is unlikely.
But consider a situation which is far more likely: the case when 35% vote (1st-2nd) A-B, when 33% vote C-B and when 32% vote B-C. In a (first-past-the-post) plurality vote, A wins. In STV, C wins. Yet it's pretty obvious from the preferences cast, with 32% 1st preferences and 68% 2nd preferences, that option B is actually the most popular option.
So why does the 大象传媒 not discuss multi-option preference voting? You talk about electoral systems fairly often, but you rarely if ever talk about the more sophisticated decision-making systems like Borda and Condorcet counts.
Yours sincerely,
Peter Emerson
Interesting proposition - I understand (via Holyrood Magazine's news pages) that the Scottish Electoral Reform Society is supportive of a multi-option referendum being STV.
I don't understand this talk of a "least worst option". As with STV in the council elections, the voter should only number those options/candidates for whom they wish to express a preference. If a voter believes independence is the only palatable option they should put a 1 against that and not express any further preference. Likewise the voter who wants the status quo, nothing else, should put a 1 against that and not use 2 and 3 and so on. There is no compulsion to use all three preference votes.
Ms Goldie is, of course, also branding her colleagues serving in Scottish Councils and not elected by a majority at the first count in May 2007 as "the second best or least worst option". Not the most ringing endorsement...
The only fair solution is to have a referendum.
Without one there will always be arguments over the right and wrongs etc. It will get boring in time. Lets get it done. Put the questions to bed for good.
Im surprised at Anabel its the first time since May that I have been dissapointed in her. Glib and Labour its no surprise to find they are the Brown puppets, suppose Anabel has to carry the encumbant attitude of Cameron, still dissapointing though.
"Mr Salmond says STV is used the world over, that the people of Scotland proved themselves capable of handling it in the council elections..." Are we thinking about the council elections that were on the same day as the elections for Holyrood??? The one with lots and lots of spoiled ballots because people got confused.... hmmmm, methinks that Salmond is either insane or lying. Given that he is a politician, it could be either or both!
Cory MacRae, you wrote,
"It is crystal clear that the Labour Party, the Lib Dems and the Tories are simply never going to agree to independence. It is down to the SNP to convince the electorate that it is a good thing to go independent. On that basis surely an "all or nothing" referendum would be best, following a prolonged and engaged, adult and educated debate on the issues at hand"
I wonder where you have been since May? That is option that the SNP would like, but that is what the three unionist parties are terrified off. They are the reason that you will not see a referendum. Mind you they will be back in 2011 telling everyone our votes are important to them.
As for your point about this blog attracting so many SNP supporter, maybe it is because there are a lot of us, possibly more than you think. The other reason is that blogs are the only medium where the SNP get a fair hearing, if you want proof of that compare the coverage today of Alex Salmond compared to the gang of three yesterday.
The 大象传媒 at one time was an impartial public service broadcaster, but alas no longer.
Single transferable voting systems are not about giving the people their "second best choice," but are instead about not wasting any votes. People don't seem to realise the inefficiencies of first-past-the-post voting. STV may not be infallible, but it does represent a new, viable alternative to electoral systems (which are in disarray most places in the world). It's the cutting edge, and solves some of the problems of standard voting.
As for the issue itself, I think it's fascinating to see the call for Scottish independence finally eek ever so slightly closer to coming to a head. The over-governance of the Scottish people is actually good for them, in terms of public money spending. I would venture to guess there are more people in England that would see Scotland separate than in Scotland.
Re: Phase 2 of the National Conversation:- Having watched the Scottish news at 6.30 p.m. I can only assume that there was no positive reaction to Alex Salmond's address as the only two gents interviewed both gave a negative response. Would my assumption be correct, Brian?
Completely agree with you Cory. I am bored of the wearisomely frequent implication that Scots are just too wee and scared and unconfident to go it alone, otherwise we'd all be clamouring for independence. So rude and patronising - and plain wrong.
Hang on a minute, enhanced devolution is one thing, but if we're talking about independence, shouldn't this matter go to a referendum of the whole of the UK? I'm not anti-independence per se, but I think that if the UK is to be broken up then all of its citizens deserve a say in the matter.
As a Unionist I agree with those who have said "why not hold a referendum in six months with just one question-namely do you want to remain in the U.K" If the majority say "yes" that is that.If they say "no" then Scotland becomes independent.
Roger
Unless Independence is included in any referendum then any vote is nill and void.
What I don`t understand ,unionist politians treat independence supporters like some form of disease rather than fellow countrymen and women with a different viewpoint.People who support independence are from all sorts of backgrounds and political persuasions,and that the desire for Scottish Independence will never EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER be quashed.And if or when Independence does come these people who presently support the SNP will then vote for whatever there political leanings are.
And even the SNP.
It's time for them to put up or shut up.
Why not have a straight in or out vote rather than all this perpetual Scottish moaning. If they want independence, let them go so the rest of us can keep the taxes we send North. But I'm sick of them inflicting all this dour Scottish whingeing on the rest of us. Have the guts to do it or start smiling and stay.
Scotland has a chance to be a modern European democracy just like the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark etc. With Politicians in Edinburgh we can keep these warmongers & wasters on a short leash.
The Scottish people would be crazy to listen to the Conservatives, Labour or Liberals over this as they all have shown that they put London (not England) first. I'm not an SNP voter but I'm sick of funding the London gravy train.
Bravo to Cory MacRae (no. 17). The same group of serial SNP bloggers have long been using this site to flood the 大象传媒 with their anti-British remarks.
The Scots people have already voted on independence, by returning a large unionist majority to the Scots parliament. It is only because that majority is divided between three unionist parties that the SNP have been able to form a minority administration by default.
Let the SNP respect the will of the Scots people and stop issuing nationalist diktats in the guise of a 'national conversation.' The SNP does not represent the people of Scotland and do not speak in our name. God bless Great Britain.
Would Alex Salmond and the SNP be prepared to grant the Orkney Islands and the Shetland Islands a referendum on whether they would want to remain part of an independent Scotland ?
If the United Kingdom can be divided, surely Scotland can be divided. The Shetland and Orkney Islanders are not ethnically Scottish but they are definitely British.
Secession from a Unitary State is never as neat as the secessionists would wish, look at former Yugoslavia !
[quote]Why does this blog attract so many SNP supporters? I am constantly amazed in the vigour that comes from the supporters of the SNP when coming here.[/quote]
Maybe because in the past we have been abused and accused of talking rubbish. I remember the last weighted vote which was made virtually impossible for the true voice of Scots to come to the fore.
Margo speaks a lot of sense in this debate most of the other politicians are playing as spoilt adults who know whats best for us without asking. This debate needs to be done on a more local basis allowing far more people to have their personal views heard rather than just those who have access to certain media fronts. A postal vote from start to finish is how it needs to be done
Rather like an unwanted husband whose wife is always complaining and threatening to leave him but never quite manages to do so, the Britain should declare its independence from Scotland so as to have done with all this drawn-out shall-we shan't-we shenanagens from the Scottish Parliament. Even Republicans in NI now have a more mature, rational and balanced relationship with Westminster than the Scots: we in Britain are not waiting for you to make your mind up any longer; if you are free to go then we are free to kick you out, so get on your bikes and head for Gretna, and take that Gordon Brown with you.
As an inhabitant of North England I have an interest. How about, as a long term aim, incorporating the ancient Northumbria into the Scottish realm. If Scotland does become independent, it will leave us at the mercy of the Tory south. For all the SMP's faults, Southron domination would be worse.
The opposition parties are only making things worse for themselves. The SNP are not going to loose an election within the next fifteen years . By that time the majority of Scots will have woken up to the real potential of their country and backed independence.
Who else is for the old vote spoiler, "None of the above"?
This was exactly the suggestion that I made at the National Conversation website on August 24, 2007. I actually listed six options, including returning all legislative and governance authority to Westminster. It is good to see that the suggestions are being listened to, at least to some degree.
However I have also had two comments censored because I pointed out that if we remain within the EU we would not be independent at all, in any meaningful sense. At present 75% of all UK legislation is made in Brussels and if we join the Euro, monetary policy will be made in Frankfurt. Fiscal policy would also be greatly affected by decisions made in Brussels and since the Lisbon Treaty, legislative competence is likely to be increasingly centered there. In that case what would independence actually mean? It seems to be very much a case of out jumping of the frying pan into the fire.
My wife and I are very much in favour of Scottish independence, but with full monetary, fiscal and legislative competence. This should be one of the options in the referendum. Anything less will be a fanciful charade, in my opinion.
How sad to think that the unionist parties may get to decide the future of Scotland again. If by any chance we manage to get the referendum. I am sure Scotland having had a taste of a party who truly puts Scotland first will vote to put our interests first and vote for independence.
London and Gordon Brown must feel sure of this or they would not have gotten in first with our Commission/review.
When it is sure that Independence will come then we will see the Annabelle Goldie's and the Nicol Stevens vying for the job of first First Minister in Scotland.
The reason they resist is they know they have every chance that if Alex Salmond were to resign now and call an election right now they would both look very silly.
The vote should be given to the English, the majority who pay for Scotland, not the Scottish as to whether we want Scotland in the Union, A Scottish M.P. should have no vote in England at all. Instead, they should take their seats in a Scottish parliament. The so called Lothian question does not go far enough.
Oh, the whole 'devolution' argument is so tedious! If folks in the north want 'independence' then let them have it, and the first thing they'll do is jump straight into the European Union. Where's the independence in that? Something like 60% of new laws come from across the channel anyway. No, this is about the ego of certain politicians and Alex Salmond knows he wouldn't win a straight yes/no vote, as my Scottish friends really couldn't care less.
By then way, the Union was never 'imposed' - the fact is that Scotland was bankrupt at the time after the Panama fiasco, and we already shared the same monarch. The country has done far better from the deal than England!
We in Britain are tired of the Scots' will-we won't-we shall-we shan't-we attitude, and should take the initiative ourselves and dissolve the union. It has reached a pretty pass when Republicans in NI have a more mature and reasonable relationship with Westminster than Scots do. And by the way, on the way out, take that Gordon Brown with you.
As an Englishman who has lived for a long time in Scotland whilst in the RAF I would personally love to see Scotland get a vote on Independence. If the vote goes no we can at least shut up the people who constantly complain about rule from Westminster despite the financial benefits of being connected with by far and away the most profitable part of the UK. If the vote is yes then we get the advantage of no longer having to support Scotland through the Barnett formula.
For those who will reply about "Scotland's Oil" they should (1) draw in the borders on the oil/gas fields and (2) do the maths. Once both are done they will quickly discover that an independent Scotland is a poorer Scotland. Note that, in total, primary energy production accounts for a total of only 10% of GDP (including coal, and oil/gas outside Scottish waters); whereas services including primarily banking, insurance and business services (consultancy etc.) account for the vast majority of the GDP (75.5%). All these services are centred on London. (Source CIA factbook).
STV is a good method of voting. But you only use it to elect more than one person (or policy?) If you are only electing one, like here, then it is known as Alternative Vote, which has known quirks. It can't be proportional unless more than 50% vote first for the option finally chosen, when First Past The Post would be equally good.
I doubt if it would lay the issue to rest anyway. The SNP want independence. Will they agree to abolish themselves if independence gets voted down? No, they will ignore "the voice of Scotland" and continue to campaign.
Cory Mcleod calls for the SNP to call a referendum. Erm you do know that Parliamentary arithmetic means that the Scottish Government would need other political parties to vote for it but not a single one has got the bottle to ask the people. If it was just down to the SNP we would have had a referendum.
It's the big question that Unionists never answer. If they are so confident of winning the referendum which would kill of nationalism for a generation why won't they call the referendum. I suspect they are scared that they are losing the argument - which they are,
This sort of referendum differs fundamentally from a general election as there is no constitutional need to replace something which has been dissolved. In other words the status quo prevails by default. Therefore I trust that not registering a vote at all (or spoiling the ballot paper) will count as a vote for the status quo and will be counted as such.
This would prevent a minority of the electorate (albeit a majority of those casting a vote) from forcing a change where none is required.
Poster 17
Er, Eck wanted to have a vote on this but the other parties didn't. I think you have a basic misunderstanding of the powers of a minority government.
On your point on SNP supporters writing to the blog; again, aren't you looking at this from the wrong angle? Why aren't more "anti" SNP people posting? Either Brian is a closet Nat & binning their posts, or -shock horror- there aren't that many of them.
As an Englishman living in Edinburgh, and have done now for the last 10 years, it surprises me to see some of the responses shown here. Why on earth do the Scots allow the English to still continue to rule the roost after all this time? I am sure if you were to do a straw poll in England, most people would say let Scotland go their own way. Personally, i think Scotland would be a better country for not having the English yoke weighing them down any longer. The Scots have stood up and told the Labour party where to go, even after the fiasco that was the last election. Yes i did vote, and also yes, SNP was the only choice.
Alex Salmond seems to have achieved more in the last year or so that his party have been in power, than the previous administration manages in the previous 10 years...
Good Luck Scotland, make the right and only choice!!!
Another smart bit of thinking from Alex Salmond, I was at first dubious of an STV referendum but it actually makes sense.
I think the ball is firmly in the court of the unionist parties to explain just why they think it would be fair to expand powers with or without a referendum and yet the concept of a referendum on independence is somehow beyond the pale. Alex at least can offer his opponents option in his plans, and it seems odd for his opponents not to reciprocate. Game on.
Just exactly what has the Scottish Parliament achieved?
Please give me the option on STV or FPTP to return back to the UK and remove this arbitrary and expensive layer of middle management.
There are no economic reasons for the existence of the Scottish parliament. Nationalist jingosim from Mr Salmond and his cronies has done nothing but increase the national (UK) tax burden to line their own pockets and fund their own grandiose schemes.
Bring back GB!
Corry McRae (#13) I would agree. Interestingly I would generally consider myself pro-Independence but also mostly anti-nationalist... unfortunately most "nats" seem to have such a big chip on their shoulder that they can't get beyond the moaning to discuss the issues.
People keep asking why politicians wont ask the people, what they are afraid of.
the way democracy works in practice is that we have an educated ruling 'elite', as much as we hate to think so. we allow these people who understand fully the issues to make decisions for us.
they do not want to ask the people because popularism leads to knee-jerk reactions, not necessarily what is best for the country but a decision based on some romantic idea, and made by people who may want to make their dream a reality but who rarely understand the complexities or realpolitik of that reality!
but c'est la vie - popularism is hard to resist - as many have shown in the previous century!
I suppose the real question is: is it real democracy if the people who vote never really understand fully the issues?
I'm surprised that Miss Goldie is so unimpressed with the Single Transferrable Vote system, as this is the system used by the Conservative Party (and the other main parties) to elect their leaders!
A STV system can be turned into a FPTP by the electorate simply not choosing a second (or third, etc.) preference. Given that STV is probably the fairest system when there are more than two options, Ms Goldie would appear less bitter by accepting it and publicizing this fact.
No wonder Annabel Goldie was not impressed by the proposal to use STV. Actually in this context it's AV (Alternative Vote) but that's splitting hairs.
Heaven forbid that voters should be allowed to make a sophisticated choice where multiple options are on the table.
Sounds far too much like crediting the public with some common sense and the capacity to make a rational, informed decision!
Annabel Goldie is probably also worried that a wider public, i.e. South of the border, will see how the system works and take a greater interest in its function.
After all, STV in multi-member format tilts the balance of power irrevocably in favour of the voter (both individually and collectively) at the expense of organised political parties and we can't possibly have that, can we?
personally Id like to see a 'put an end to this glorified regional council worth of nobodies and bin the lot' fourth option on any ballot.
Why should those of us who want a return to westminster based govt have no choice in such a ballot? As it stands the closest option provided would be to retain the status quo which is far removed from my actual views on the subject
Given that peak oil in the North Sea passed in 1999, is there really any reason for hanging on to Scotland? They don't seem to like us English very much, so perhaps it is time we waved them off on their merry way.
The Unionist parties are not exactly coming across as mature in this debate.
This entire business of a seperate commission to look at the constitution, but specifically NOT look at independence... childish and pointless.
And now Annabelle Goldie thinks that we Scots cannot be trusted with our own future?
Wasn't her party in Westminster all in favour of an EU referendum? Why the double standards?
The basic trouble with referendums is the wording of the questions to be answered. A question can put in a way that favours a particular answer, and the order in which options are offered can influence the result.
If a referendum is to be put to the Scottish people, then the questions must be decided by the Electoral Reform Society, and not by any political party (or group of parties). It needs to clearly indicate what is meant by each option, and the effects on the economy, etc. It is not meant to be a popularity contest, to be repeated until the powers that be get the result they want!
It should make clear that if no option commands 50 per cent of the vote, then the Status Quo remains unquestioned for a stated period of time.
As a Scotsman who moved to England, reading the comments here from so many small-minded nationalists makes me really glad to have left it all behind. In my view devolution was a monumental mistake. It would have been better to unify the laws of Scotland with the rest of the UK. That's what any rational person would have done. There's nothing wrong with the laws in the rest of the UK - they're all pretty similar anyway. The only problem was having all the laws for Scotland decided by one minister (the Scottish secretary). Well done Labour for putting the wrecking ball to the Union(!) Anyway maybe it was inevitable since so many of my fellow Scots still have an inexplicable chip on their shoulders about the English. I am only sorry that the rest of my family is going to be left behind in what is going to become a tiny irrelevant footnote to the world if independence goes through. And imagine that I'd have to have a different passport from my own family just because I moved to England! It turns my stomach.
I'd love to take all the nationalists and put them on their own little island and leave the rest of the UK to get on with life in the 21st century. But alas that's only the stuff of fantasy.
This can be easily resolved by giving the English a vote on full economic and political indepence for Scotland.. We know what the answer would be don't we? Now what do you think independence means to Mr. Salmond? Any provisos? You bet!! Nationalism in any form is fundamentally destructive in the long run. However, since Tony and Gordy have done us proud the last 10 years, why not lets really make sure we self implode....
move on. The vast majority of Scots dont want independence. Salmond is just trying to sneek a question through the back door.
No point in rising to his usual slippery ways.
While I wouldn't go as far as calling myself "Scottish" after spending only a couple of years that I don't remember in the country at the start of my life, it does say "Scotland" on my driving licence, and that's something I'm at least a little bit proud of. My sisters spent many of their school years there, and one of them still can't manage to say "Aberdeen" without slipping into her accent.
Applying the rules of British citizenship, my parents were "legally settled" in Scotland at the time of my birth, and thus I qualify as a "Scotish national". (I know its an over-simplification, but still).
I am just one of a host of people potentially affected by the independance issue in some small way. Personally, I'm concerned that such a serious issue has been simplified so much. For a country as deeply integrated into the United Kingdom as Scotland is, can three options really satisfy all of the issues?
Untangling the Scottish government from Britain is one thing, but what happens with everything else? Everything from the Royal Mail to the Royal Air Force currently spans the entire UK. National companies would become multinationals overnight; multinationals would find themselves with a whole extra country with its own laws to contend with. The military, highways agencies, public transport, education systems and all manner of other things would be affected.
Then there's the money issue. Where does Scotland find the money to establish a new political infrastructure? Do they tax the Scottish people to source the funds, or do the tax payers from the rest of the UK kindly donate a hefty loan on behalf of the government to help ease the transition?
This issue doesn't just affect the population of Scotland. There are massive implications associated with this decision. Asking the Scottish people if they want independance is one thing, but treating it as more than a glorified opinion poll is something else entirely. I'm not saying they don't deserve the right to decide their own fate, but I think that everyone - including those of us who won't be included in the STV - deserve more implication on the consequences of the vote, before such a black-and-white question is asked.
Well, we have our selves a tricky situation. Now, it seems logical the Ms. Goldie is right with her comments about "the least worst option." But there is a wider, that those English citizens, such as myself, also deserve a vote on the matter because it would effect aswell. Those in Scotland should be glad that they get a devolved parliament, as I have to deal with a Government in Westminister that has power over me, but I can't refer to another set rules. Also the UK Government is usually decided by Scotland and Wales, not what actually happens in England. So, in conclusion, England should get a vote and some sort of devolved assembly/parliament.
Two points:
1. Where does this devolution nonsense stop? Home rule for Yorkshire? Independence for Lancashire? Self-determination for Clan MacDonald? Yes, we have tribal and ethnic groups within the British Isles, but speaking as a Scot I believe we need to keep the combined strengths and talents of these ethnic groups within a UNITED Kingdom.
2. Why don't expatriate Scots get a vote in the future of their homeland?
I sincerely hope the scottish people will vote for independance.
The English are fed up with them taking our money and forever whinging
Appears to most that the SNP offer is democratic, fiar and puts everything on the table for consideration. The Unionist parties are terrified they will loose.
Unionist parties are reactionary, right wing and nt Scottish this position is not sustainable in Scotland in the 21st Century! Trust is, Unioist parties can not agree a single stace against independence, hence they are split, susequently their votes will be split too.
Lets put everything on the table and vote on the merits of each proposal. Or are Unionist parties scared of Scottish voters?
Appears to most that the SNP offer is democratic, fiar and puts everything on the table for consideration. The Unionist parties are terrified they will loose.
Unionist parties are reactionary, right wing and nt Scottish this position is not sustainable in Scotland in the 21st Century! Trust is, Unioist parties can not agree a single stace against independence, hence they are split, susequently their votes will be split too.
Lets put everything on the table and vote on the merits of each proposal. Or are Unionist parties scared of Scottish voters?
The Unionist parties are being really sneaky about this whole debate. They keep telling us that they won't include the independence option because they're concentrating on the mainstream views and only 23% of the population are in favour of a separate Scotland. What they don't tell you is that the "only 23%", when put in to actual numbers, means that around 1,100,000 people are being ignored. That's a significant number whatever way you slice it and is the reason they prefer to quote in percentages.
If the Unionist parties are so sure that independence will be rejected, why are they so scared of a referendum?
Appears to most that the SNP offer is democratic, fiar and puts everything on the table for consideration. The Unionist parties are terrified they will loose.
Unionist parties are reactionary, right wing and nt Scottish this position is not sustainable in Scotland in the 21st Century! Trust is, Unioist parties can not agree a single stace against independence, hence they are split, susequently their votes will be split too.
Lets put everything on the table and vote on the merits of each proposal. Or are Unionist parties scared of Scottish voters?
The Unionist parties are being really sneaky about this whole debate. They keep telling us that they won't include the independence option because they're concentrating on the mainstream views and only 23% of the population are in favour of a separate Scotland. What they don't tell you is that the "only 23%", when put in to actual numbers, means that around 1,100,000 people are being ignored. That's a significant number whatever way you slice it and is the reason they prefer to quote in percentages.
If the Unionist parties are so sure that independence will be rejected, why are they so scared of a referendum?
Just look at the unionist paranoi on show, in some of the comments on this blog! The SNP would favour a straight yes/no referendum on independence. However, they are smart enough to know that the unionist parties would never back such a referendum as they would almost certainly lose it. So they have been given the option to come up with a third choice, and put it to the people too.
As for the idea of a UK wide referendum, what a nonsense! What happens if Scotland votes for independence but the rump-UK doesn't allow it to happen? Or the reverse!? Could Scots really be stopped from gaining independence because the English, Welsh and Northern Irish electorates didn't favour it, or could Scotland be expelled from the Union against its will?!
Since Labour and Liberals backed the current settlement, decided by a referendum, it is extraordinary they dont think another one is required now the Scottish people are dissatisfied with the current settlement.
As for Ms Goldie - the Tories back a referendum arguing for no change on Europe and they did the same in the 1997 devolution referendums.
Finally, since Labour can back a referendum for more powers in Wales for 2010, why cant they bring themselves to test the democratic will of Scots in the same year? Could it be they might get an answer they dont want!?
Well said Cory. I really don't understand the overflowing bile of many SNP supporters. Get a grip guys, you're not exactly being a good advert for what an indie Scotland might look like.
48 Exactly what have the SNP really done ?
brian, its amazing that auntie A.thinks the stv.system chosen by alex,is "trype"since this is the only way "torry's" get any meaningfull rep.is this a case of
"shooting ones own foot"funny!!i thought she was better than that.but it just shows what THE FEAR FACTOR can be, the other two ar'nt worth the effort to comment.
Adrian (post 54) is absolutely right. It would not be possible for a minority to vote for independence as todays Scotsman claims. The majority would have to indicate somewhere their preference for that option.
Can anyone realistically paint a scenario where we could end up with independence from a minority first preference in any case?
Adrian (post 54) is absolutely right. It would not be possible for a minority to vote for independence as todays Scotsman claims. The majority would have to indicate somewhere their preference for that option.
Can anyone realistically paint a scenario where we could end up with independence from a minority first preference in any case?
Westminster and the Sewel convention
1.11 Under the present form of devolution, the United Kingdom Parliament remains sovereign and is able to legislate even in devolved areas (this is explicitly recognised in section 28(7) of the Scotland Act). It therefore retains the general power to make laws for Scotland in all reserved and devolved areas, including altering the competence of the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government. This may be done either by explicitly amending the Scotland Act or, implicitly, by passing other legislation that is clearly inconsistent with the Scotland Act or a provision in another United Kingdom statute or an Act of the Scottish Parliament.
Patriots, we have a long political war ahead of us, it shall make liberation day all the sweeter !
Wansanshoo
"Just to put a few things right for everyone.
The UK is split into 13 regions; different regions get more/less Barnett formula money.
Scotland is third on the list after No1 London and no2 Northern Ireland. Scotland has the second highest GDP in UK after London.
The poorer areas are in the north of England with the lowest Barnett spending and also the lowest GDP.
If you want to make every-area get the spending on a per person basis then do so.
This is the fairest system but don鈥檛 forget that the Scottish government has prioritized its spending also.
No Olympics no revamp for London central, No 9 billion pounds on the London cross rail link (that alone is 1/3 of Scottish public spending this year). The 60 billion paid to buy out Northern rock doubles Scotland鈥檚 annual public spending allowance.
Scotland last year paid 49 billion pounds in revenue to the treasury, they got 30 billion back for everything but defense and foreign policy. Works out at 61 percent of our annual taxes, this is less than the other regions in the UK.
If you also add to this that at the moment the annual oil revenue is expected to be over 20 billion pounds by years end (conservative estimate).
Which sits in Scottish water (well at least 90% does) but somehow does not come under Scottish revenue (amazing why have one rule for whisky exports and another for oil).
Ill watch with bated breath as both north and south seem to want fiscal autonomy for Scotland. The Scots think they will be better off (certainly will be if they can persuade the English to give up the oil) The English want the Scots to be financially more responsible, does this mean full fiscal autonomy, probably not as the treasury wont want to give the money back and with full fiscal autonomy there is the question of the oil revenues. If Scotland gets these then England would be 20 billion pounds a year worse off. This is something that Westminster wont allow even if the English voters decide to dump Scotland, it was the only reason Thatcher kept Scotland within the UK no Tory Mps, all Labour Mps not really an incentive to keep Scotland but the oil revenue allowed her to make tax cuts before three general elections.
Be careful what you wish for, Scotland might get a short term gain even without the Oil revenues but would find it hard to compete against a larger economic power next door. However if Scotland takes the oil revenue with it, Considering this would almost double the amount that could be spent in Scotland annually they could drastically lower business rates without harming public spending and poach larger companies from England.
Even if they did not poach larger companies from England the treasury would still lose 39 billion pounds from Scotland that goes to help support the poorer regions of England this would lead to less public spending in the London and south east regions as they would have to pay more to support the other 10 remaining regions.
I think full fiscal autonomy is the only way for Scotland to go if the rest of Britain wants it to remain in the UK. The Scottish press and blogs all show huge results for more powers for the Scottish parliament. A reduction in funding and a removal of powers will lead to the Scots voting for complete independence, In which case I think we all lose"
with thanks to the originator Stephen on Nick Robinsons blog
Following up on my post #38, there is another aspect of this "independence" question worth considering; the social context in which any referendum may be held.
The GDP of the UK as a whole comprises about 2% agriculture, 18% manufacturing and 80% services of which fully 33% is financial services. During the almost eleven years of the Labour government this latter sector has been the locomotive of UK GDP growth. While manufacturing is benefiting at the moment from the weak pound, the financial sector is hit very badly by the same phenomenon. In addition to this, since mid-2007 the global banking industry has suffered a massive heart attack and this is buffeting the City of London just as much as other financial centres around the world. Central bankers are pouring copious transfusions of credit into the corpse but to little good effect. The result of this mayhem is, and will continue to be, an enormous drag on the UK economy which, in spite of official protestations to the contrary, is already in recession in the "real economy".
My question is, what effect will the inevitable economic collapse have on any decision to move Scotland towards independence? By 2010 it is a virtual certainty that the entire country will be mired in dreadful economic conditions that most of the people have never experienced, nor are they equipped to cope with them. How willing, in those conditions, will the UK government be, to discuss transference of ownership of the North Sea oil fields to the Scottish people? Not very,in my opinion, given that this may well be one of the very few sectors of the UK economy generating decent tax revenues at that time.
On the other hand, although worsening economic conditions would usually weigh in favour of the people opting for the status quo, it may be that they will see greater security in being set free from the sinking UK ship and casting in their lot with the EU. No doubt since Mr. Salmond is an economist, he has given some thought to these possibilities and has prepared a convincing argument in support of throwing Scotland wholly into the embrace of the European alliance.
Personally I believe there is an even stronger argument in favour of going in the opposite direction, towards complete legislative, fiscal and monetary independence; however, the likelihood of ambitious politicians and bureaucrats abandoning the possibility of a cushy posting, an inviting career path,and all expenses paid travel on EU junkets, is vanishingly minuscule.
i think an awful lot of people are missing the point here. I put it to you that A.S. has no intention in going with this 3 or 4 question referendum or the way it will be conducted.at most there will be 2 questions increased powers or independance as the staus quo is no longer a runner. the reason this idea was floated was to watch the "axis of drivel" self distruct before there wee tea party even gets started.divide and rule it has worked for the unionists for ages. ok so i lifted the "axis of drivel " quote from another board but its a cracker, it deserves to be used and it describes them to T.
I watched Reporting Scotland last night usual biased reportng by 大象传媒 "Scotland". The two people they interviewed a union leader and a business leader both did not like what they heard ...fair enough but I am sure someone did. Also the General coverage of the National Conversation was/is far less positive than the coverage of the C/R/C. Just look at the politics page in this wabsite jist a tiny wee bit mentioned.
Also the reason SNP supporters use the web and sites like this are because the media are totally and utterly biased towards the Unionistas.
Bill Fairbrother:
The SNP stood aside when the Orkney and Shetland Movement stood for election in the Westminster Orkney and Shetland seat. So yes, yes they would.
Mary, #69 said; "What exactly has the SNP done?"
Answer;
1. Prevented closure of A&E units.
2. Placed the removal of an unfair council tax firmly on the table.
3. More police (considering the poor settlement from the Barnett Formula.)
4. Won through a substantial budget despite again the poor settlement.
5. Scrapping Graduate endowment.
6. Cutting Business rates.
7.Phased in elimination of perscription charges
...to name but a few. And all in 10 months too.
Now... what did Lib-Lab do in the last 10 years Mary? (We will ignore the Wars, new nuclear power, son of Trident etc for the purpose of this conversation or else the list will be endless.)
I look forward to your response.
Regards,
A straight yes or no to the Union would irradicate the unjust 1707 union, when we the Scottish people were not asked but yet the Scots Lairds and Glasgow merchants were.
The 2nd phase, whatever your opinion on independance, has hardly come as a suprise. Alex is gently testing the water to find out out how many want independance. Failing a majority voting for it, he's almsot certainly guaranteed the vote for more powers, a concession he can live with.
The options themselves though are not as 'open' a 'conversation' as I think would be ideal. Whether we want an independant Scotland or not, are any of us actually happy with the job the MSP's do? More powers is more fine and well, but it's hardly like they've done a sterling job for us so far. With the exception of a few, the majority just seem to be a bunch of numpties. Can't say many local councils fill me with much confidence either. I would much prefer to see a constitutional review of the Scottish system - councillors, councils AND the MSP's.
Anyone reading through this blog south of the border would assume that the majority of Scots want full independence. If that were true, then why did the only party advocating that course in the last elections for the Scottish parliament not receive a majority of the votes? Most voters chose one of the parties backing the Union.
Perhaps those shouting loudest for independence should consider the following:
The continuence of the United Kingdom is not a matter for only one of its members to decide. Those from England, Wales and Northern Ireland have an equal stake and must have an equal say.
Scotland entered into the Union with England and Wales voluntarily. There was no coercion. Having tried, and failed, to establish an empire of its own, Scotland was saved from certain bankruptcy by joining the Union, but she did so with her eyes fully open, and aware of the consequences.
Scotland profitted hugely during the days of the British (note the "B" word) empire. A casual glance at any atlas will show the proliferation of Scottish names throughout the old colonies and dominions. No calls for independence then. Just where does the huge chip on your shoulders come from?
Scotland has much to be proud of, and the innovation of her sons in days past should be celebrated, but the funding invariably came from south of the border. History (not the fanciful Mel Gibson version)tends to repeat itself unless you learn its lessons. Scotland, with a population smaller than London's, punches far above her weight because of, not in spite of, her place in the Union.
How many of those who campaigned loudly against the amalgamtion of proud old Scottish regiments also call for independence? A nation of 5 million would support a far smaller army still. Or do they hope to pick and choose how "independent" they should be?
Now is the time for those sensible, pragmatic Scots, who recognise the real benefits to Scotland of the Union (and all the more so since devolution) to stand up and be counted. The constant squeals of complaint from the nationalists are starting to fray the nerves of those of us south of the border who can only look on in envy at the largesse with which they are treated by the Edinburgh parliament. Indeed envying the fact that they have their own parliament at all! Unless we become convinced that they are in reality (as I suspect) just a noisy, unrealistic, ungrateful minority, the clamour for "independence" will come from south of the border instead. That will be a call which no politician will be able to resist.
If its not STV...and one option gets say 34% and the others 33 and 32, will it be taken as the 'decision of the electorate'?
And if it is STV...Won't the 'no to independance' vote essentially be split between the devolution+ and status quo options?
Surely a straight yes or no is the best way forward with manifestos for the next election on how to respond to the yes or the no.
It seems absurd that we are having any type of referendum in Scotland about breaking away from the UK to become independent.
I believe William Wallace died some time ago and that GLOBALLY Scotland, as part of the UK - one of the wealthiest (socially and finacially) countries in the world, should be moving forward as part of something great rather than struggling through independence to prove a point. We are about to encounter massive increases in wealth and power in 2 of the most populated countries in the world - this is not something to be addressed with ease by a newly formed, small economy which plans to coast by on oil revenues if it gets it own way.
I am Scottish and proud of it - but see no sense in the current poilcies. Fruition of these ridiculous ideas wiil in fact merely encourage me to take my income, which is growing, and family to a different part of the UK to live!
Interesting isn't it. There are lots of folks who dismissed the idea of loony independence SNPers in government. They wouldn't last a day... Suddenly the complete lack of a plan, and also of able bods in the other parties, starts to show - 'tripe'. Oh dear.
What I seem to be hear a lot is that the blocking, huffing, puffing and searching for all sorts of reasons why only a limited menu should ever be presented to the great unwashed is starting to seem desperate and the half decent and very solid job done by the SNP makes many doubters feel that the next election will be increasingly 'och well, lets see where this takes us, with them if the others don't have a better plan'.
I am, by the way, a supporter of increasing seperation and lack of union. Or of independence for other bits of the UK. However as I do not see Scotland as 'dependent' it is difficult to consider it as 'independent'. We will remain, as most countries are, totally and completely dependent on all with whom we trade.
The great 'round the corner' lies are
a) independence would be a disaster for Scotland - too much rides on the links in all directions;
b) independence would instantaneously transform Scotland into a rich super country - too many are still too poorly educated and afflicted with the sickness of being perversely proud of that.
What is left is the great gift of Adam Smith and Robert Burns - the possibility to compete and develop variations of strategy, and the fact that a man's a man for all that.
Unless someone decides that they are not worth listening to. 'Tripe' indeed. What was it that the Conservatives in London used to call parties like the SNP because they only had the possibility of ganging together to have any impact at all - irrelevant? I can only note that the SNP have not sunk that far. Crack on. Let's see where it takes us.
Thank you for all of the comments above regarding my earlier post.
There was a comment above about the Unionist parties grabbing power. Well that is what happens when people vote for them.
I personally would like the other parties to drop the anti-referendum stance. I know my mind and I know my vote. However if they all entered into a prolonged and detailed debate then the issues would be aired.
I have yet to see any detailed statement about an independent Scotland that lays out:
Armed Forces - Who pays, what are they, what happens to the Scottish members of the UK Armed Forces, what the relationship is with the UK?
NHS - Please give an economic breakdown of an independent NHS. Will we have one, will it be private insurance, will the State continue to offer the service?
Tax - I own a VAT registered company. Can I be told who I pay tax to, how much, when, my importing criteria etc etc?
Education - Again, funding plans need to be in place for the future of Scotland. What are they?
European Status - Will an independent Scotland seek to join the EU? How long will this take, what will be our responsibilities to European members be and what will it benefit to us.
Currency - If the question above is Yes then will Scotland be a Euro country? If not then what will the currency be and how will we trade on it?
Head of State - Are we to have a President or a HOS that is figurehead?
Oil - What is the true legal status of the Oil? My understanding is that the companies that pump it up may have something to say about the whole thing. Truth is, the Oil debate has to be shelved, it is not the cure to all that ills us!
The Independence Debate has to be more than speeches. A huge plan of action needs to be in place. This is a situation that requires educated voters making choices with their heads and not their hearts. I hope the "National Conversation" involves more conversing than so far, telling us that you are talking to us doesnt work, you actually have to talk to us!
My vote is No but I want the people to make a choice. Frankly I don't fear it as if the same number of people that voted for Lab/Lib/Con voted No and all that voted for everyone else voted Yes then it would never happen. This isn't opinion, this is a mathematical fact.
Maybe some of the "nationalists have been hard done by with the 大象传媒/journalists/English/everyone else" brigade above would be better suited targetting their energies into the discussion and challenging the other parties to put forward their detailed ideas rather than simply saying that unless you are for Independence then you are against Scotland.
Brian
A number of 'less than constructive' comments appear to have slipped past the moderator.
A more cynical person might believe that they are there in order to encourage 'abusive' responses from pro-independence posters.
To those who seem to think the English should be settling this matter:
1) Can England kick Scotland out of the UK? Not England per say, but the rest of the UK in concert could, if they wanted. Why not? The assumption that its only the English rather shows the bias of those that phrased it that way
2) Why not independence for Yorkshire? (or Shetland). It is not so clear-cut as these are not separate countries. Scotland, England and NI are (Wales is a principality I'm afraid). But longer term; yes, they could indeed sue for independence.
3) Democratic deficit of English regions: well, you were offered assemblies. you refused. By the way, the use of Westminster for English-only bills is a also unreasonable: Westminster is the UK parliament, and nicking it for English bills is a misappropriation.
4) Bias of payments to Scotland: Have any of you folks looked into the bias per capita of London? It is far in excess of Scotland with an equivalent population, as so many "UK" costs are de-facto London expenditure. It never gets mentioned however, 鈥榗os that would ruin the story
And on and on...
look at the good job--douglas(i made florida/USA pres election look good)alexander made of the scottish ballot papers.
i think unionists need to get the message,those who want the FREEDOMS of a FULL NATION STATE--tax/oil/fisheries ect will always ask for more and will never stop till it is reached.
the commission/review set up the 3 unionist parties--with the PM gord blessings, is laughable mainly because its there to restrict the powers of a scottish parliament.it will say nov--WE THINK SCOTTISH PALIAMENT--SHOULD GET MORE POWERS.
PMSL
while independence gives TOTAL POWER.
My understanding of the vote in Parliament setting up the Review/Comission stated quite clearly that the Chairman would be independent. Considering that the Chairman is a self-confessed Unionist how can he possibly be independent.
The chairman then spoke about ignoring the option of independence because only 23% wanted independence. By the same arithmetic the status quo option which is less popular than independence should be ignored as well.
So that leaves two options - increased power for the Scottish Parliament which would be popular or diminished powers for the parliament which would appear to be less popular than the status quo.
However, the Lib Dems, an integral part of the trinity, have stated that they will not tolerate diminished powers so, by my reckoning, there will only be one option open to the Review.
Wee Eck as given us so many catch phrases since he became FM ...
" 1 Check Eck "( needs no explaining )
He has even given us ..Hokey Cokey Policies ....In out , in out , Shake it all about ( That is the one were he said " If Independence doesnt work we can always rejoin the Union ") and what does he want to do now ... He is all for an Eeny Meeny Miney Mo voting solution on Independence and I am amazed that most of his supporters actually thinks this man walks on water and come out with lines such as he is a Great Leader and Statesman ..Well No he aint all he is is a sad wee man with a Big Chip on his shoulder like all the Natz that do Scotland down at every turn
In his recent 'defence of the Union' Gordon Brown repeatedly mentioned the importance of the Union to England, Wales and Scotland - but barely mentioned Nortehrn Ireland!
How extraordinary that Gordon Brown is at best ignoring Northern Ireland, and at worst actively seeking to push the province out of the Union - even though the majority of the people of Northern Ireland clearly want to stay in it, whilst at the same time he is desperate to deny the people of Scotland the choice of independence - even though it seems that is what most Scots (and many of the English) want.
The position is totally incoherent, and it is no wonder that the strains are showing in the Union.
So Annabel has joined the National Conversation after all.
It will be noted that "TRIPE" is most decidedly, an english dish, which Annabel, for all her faults is not.
It is but a start from the lass
If there is to be a referendum, would it perhaps be possible to have a simple test to determine whether a given person may cast their ballot?
The question, delivered orally, would be: spell 'independence'.
Some of the recently-posted, but typically rancid Brit-propaganda gives rise to specific questions.
Firstly, does it never occur to those who bemoan the volume of blogs in support of independence, that this might just reflect a substantial and growing public support for independence??
Self-evidently, internet blogging allows the direct expression of public views 鈥 in direct contrast the established news and broadcast media, where we have always been, and remain, at the whim and invariably unionist editorial bias of the publishers & broadcasters.
Are those of a pro-unionist bent objecting to this freedom of expression, just as they persist in objecting to the freedom of the Scottish people to exercise their sovereignty through a referendum on their country鈥檚 future?
The individual who suggested that the majority of pro-independence blogs are somehow vulgar or inappropriate should also take the trouble to check his facts before making crassly false comment.
Secondly, the drive for Scottish independence is not predicated on North Sea oil, but on our national potential and sovereignty as a people.
There remain those, however, who tediously assert (often in blinkered Kelvin-McKenzie-esque terms) that Scotland鈥檚 public spending is at the expense of the English taxpayer.
Can they, or anyone else, name another oil-producing country on the planet which is regarded as a subsidy junky by its neighbour???
Thirdly, in response to whoever expressed the view that the union was never imposed:
ALL central governance has historically imposed 鈥 particularly from London over the past 3 centuries, and most particularly in Scotland, where its unwelcome centralist doctrines will always be rightly open to challenge.
Even today, despite our electoral rights, we see daily evidence of the lack of accountability in government.
Lack of accountability equals imposition, and had ordinary people been accorded the vote in 1707 鈥 as opposed to a handful of autonomous politicians selling out their country to line their own pockets 鈥 the evidence indicates that this contentious union would never have seen the light of day.
Or did Rabbie Burns call it wrong when he wrote A Parcel of Rogues not so long after the event?
Does MalcolmW #91 actually know anything about the history of Scotland / Britain. He may come across as knowledgeable but his post is so full of inaccuracies as to be laughable.
Scotland entered the Union voluntarily and without coercion. Well, if we ignore the large bribes paid to the lairds, the fact that the ordinary Scot had no say and and the very large sword the English king held up as the English response if the lairds voted "No", then we could concede that fact.
However, his assertion that the cries for independence and this so called chip are recent occurances ignores that fact that less than 100 years ago, the British government actually put tanks and soldiers into the streets of Scottish cities as insurances against dissent over the Union. It was not the only first time, nor the last, that the British government used military action against large parts of the British population within these shores.
Far from being a recent phenomena, ordinary Scots have being fighting for against the Union since its inception over 300 years ago.
He makes the point that Scots are great inventors and innovators yet also states that, invariably, the money to help these inventors came from South of the Border. This is true but the fact the money wasn't available from within Scotland is hardly a ringing endorsement of the Union.
If the Union serves Scotland so well, and Scotland is so full of inventors and innovators, can a Unionist tell me why Scotland has the slowest economic growth in Europe, the lowest life expectency, the highest teenage pregnancy rate, the highest rate of obesity and diabetes, the largest percentage of economically inactive people in the UK, do I really need to go on with the list of how poorly Scotland is doing within the Union?
To Ed Gray #104:
Your post, with due respect, is long on emotional nationalism, but lacks a certain logic. The Act of Union, into which whether you like it or not, Scotland entered willingly, was in 1707. Universal suffrage was not then available in England either, or indeed anywhere in the world. Would you go back and renounce every treaty that has stood for 300 years because of that? What then of treaties on Gibraltar? Or Quebec? Or a hundred other places? The world by your rules would be ungovernable.
Rather than expend your political energy calling for the repeal of a historical treaty which has stood the test of time, would you not be better serving the interests of both Scotland and the UK as a whole by calling for a vote on the Lisbon Treaty which has not yet been ratified, but which will erode meaningful independence for the whole of the UK, never mind Scotland? Scottish nationalists who persist in putting their priority as renouncing the Act of Union 1707, whilst ignoring the Lisbon Treaty 2007 (when we do have universal suffrage, and upon which we were promised a vote)seem to me to betray an anti-English prejudice which is neither attractive nor logical. If you feel that Scotland has "suffered" under an oppressive English yoke, (for which there is precious little evidence), just how does swapping that for an even more undemocratic European one improve your lot? It is a position which frankly does not carry much conviction. So is it like Iraq, all about oil?
Sir Tom Hunter came out firmly today for a yes - no referendum. He feels that the Scots have the right to determine their own destiny. But who are the 'Scots' in this case or any other referendum? If 'Scots' in this case means those entitled & registered to vote for the Scottish Parliament elections, this would include all EU & Commonwealth citizens resident in Scotland. Is this who he means? If not who are 'they'?
While MalcolmW (#106) speaks dismissively of 鈥渆motional nationalism鈥, he clearly embraces the kind of pro-union doctrines that might well have been issued by a 9th Century public schoolmaster.
The baseless assertion that the union was 鈥渨illingly accepted鈥 鈥 despite being in the gift of a handful of bribed politicians, despite the total absence of popular suffrage, and despite the subsequent rebellions, and the shame of the vengeful oppression they invoked from London 鈥 is critical because it forms the very heart of the unionist argument 鈥 that the union is somehow incorruptible, because it has 鈥榖rought untold benefits to Scotland鈥, it has 鈥榮tood the test of time鈥 and continues to allow us the privilege of remaining the 鈥榖est wee subsidy junkies in the world鈥.
Terms such as 鈥榮eparatist鈥 and 鈥榯he break-up of the union鈥 are emotively designed to appeal to those for whom any threat to London鈥檚 dominating sphere of influence cannot be countenanced 鈥 hence it follows that while Scottish nationalism is inherently spiteful and immoral, its British counterpart 鈥 as decreed from London 鈥 is inherently beneficent and all-embracing!
Can any unionist properly justify the mantra that it is 鈥榠nsular鈥 or 鈥榥arrow鈥 to aspire to an independent, successful Scotland, engaging fully and pro-actively on the global stage 鈥 as opposed to remaining a 鈥榮ubsidised region鈥 under Westminster control?