Row over vote on independence
Alex Salmond's plans for a referendum on independence met a fierce barrage of criticism from his opponents yesterday.
Unionist MSPs rubbished the First Minister's proposal for a ballot paper in which voters would have to list their preferences.
It was made as he put pressure on those opposition parties to produce a clear plan to put to voters in a referendum that he wants in 2010. If they refuse, he warned he will make this a dominant theme of the following year's election campaign.
He also launched the second phase of his National Conversation on Scotland's constitutional future, appealing to an audience of civic leaders to take part.
If the newly formed Scottish Parliament Commission produces a clear plan for enhanced powers for Holyrood while staying within the UK, he said he expects three choices on the ballot form; independence, devolution with more powers or no change.
The Single Transferable Vote (STV) system, which was used for council elections last year, could mean the Scottish Government being given a mandate to negotiate independence on the basis of second choices, once the votes behind the least popular option are redistributed.
Tory leader Annabel Goldie said: "You do not decide the destiny of a country on the basis of the second best or least-worst option. This is tripe - the wild words of a panicking man."
Labour leader Wendy Alexander said: "Alex Salmond must be delusional if he thinks that Scotland will be happy to accept independence by the back door."
A spokesman for Mr Salmond said: "I don't think there is a more front-door option for the people of Scotland to choose their constitutional future than in a democratic referendum."
Liberal Democrat leader Nicol Stephen accused the SNP of trying to drag an unwilling Scotland to independence. "No matter how hard they push and prod, Scotland remains firmly determined to reject separation," he said. "This latest U-turn is a red herring, designed to deflect attention from the ever-decreasing levels of support for independence."
Mr Salmond lacks a majority of MSPs which he would need to secure support for an independence referendum. The invitation to add a devolution-plus option is intended to draw in support from opposition parties, and to avoid them jointly taking their eventual plan for more powers to a vote of the Scottish Parliament, providing a mandate for amending the Scotland Act at Westminster.
"Our preference is a straight choice for independence," Mr Salmond said. "But another way to do it if you've got another choice is 1, 2, 3. People are handling the idea of STV very well, so why shouldn't it be used? The idea that Scotland is not capable of engaging in a debate, crystallising choices and then making a decision, is nonsense."
© All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without
permission is prohibited.
Posted by: Duns Scotus, The Borders on 11:56pm Wed 26 Mar 08
Tears in the eyes of Onionists - the gemme's a bogey for them.
Tears in the eyes of Onionists - the gemme's a bogey for them.
Posted by: redc;liffe62, brisbane on hols on 12:04am Thu 27 Mar 08
this is very clever by salmond. and the snp as a whole.
and without being too arrogant i hope is just what i would have done.
the transferable vote is a potential banana skin and if it is ridiculed by unionists for the scottish independence question then as an idea it can be ridiculed for the british elections, where the result would not be so palatble for the snp if the union parties gang up and vote for each other.
this makes it impossible for libs and labs to say transferable vote is fairer when they ban it in scotland as not being "democratic", i.e. the result does not suit them.
this is very clever by salmond. and the snp as a whole.
and without being too arrogant i hope is just what i would have done.
the transferable vote is a potential banana skin and if it is ridiculed by unionists for the scottish independence question then as an idea it can be ridiculed for the british elections, where the result would not be so palatble for the snp if the union parties gang up and vote for each other.
this makes it impossible for libs and labs to say transferable vote is fairer when they ban it in scotland as not being "democratic", i.e. the result does not suit them.
Posted by: allymax, yuk on 12:14am Thu 27 Mar 08
The train is in runaway mode; all aboard for independence.
The opposition parties cannot out-manouvre Alex Salmond as their 'commission' has confined them to not talking about independence. Therefore, the 'national conversation' is the only platform independence can be discussed.
Moreover, the fact the commission is in operation now shows that westminster can be nudged into the path of the runaway train.
To me, the gemme is up the poley; indpendence will happen. Now, it is all about how to nudge the tories into giving the Scots a referendum promise in their manifesto for the 2010 general elections.
The train is in runaway mode; all aboard for independence.
The opposition parties cannot out-manouvre Alex Salmond as their 'commission' has confined them to not talking about independence. Therefore, the 'national conversation' is the only platform independence can be discussed.
Moreover, the fact the commission is in operation now shows that westminster can be nudged into the path of the runaway train.
To me, the gemme is up the poley; indpendence will happen. Now, it is all about how to nudge the tories into giving the Scots a referendum promise in their manifesto for the 2010 general elections.
Posted by: Los Angeles, Edinburgh on 12:14am Thu 27 Mar 08
Wendy Alexander Gets Down And Dirty[quote]Labour leader Wendy Alexander said: "Alex Salmond must be delusional if he thinks that Scotland will be happy to accept independence by the back door."[/quote] Quite right.
We want to enter by the front door!
Wendy Alexander Gets Down And Dirty
Labour leader Wendy Alexander said: "Alex Salmond must be delusional if he thinks that Scotland will be happy to accept independence by the back door."
Quite right.
We want to enter by the front door!
Posted by: David, Scotland on 12:19am Thu 27 Mar 08
I[bold] want to vote. I am tired of the Unionists saying they are the silent majority. The preference system is a very accurate way of identifying the wishes of the people. LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE>[/bold]
I
want to vote. I am tired of the Unionists saying they are the silent majority. The preference system is a very accurate way of identifying the wishes of the people. LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE> Posted by: frank mcbride, lusitania on 12:20am Thu 27 Mar 08
"Beware Greeks bearing gifts", springs to mind.
The blindness of the Unionist Alliance never ceases to amaze me.
Roll on the Westminster Election.
"Beware Greeks bearing gifts", springs to mind.
The blindness of the Unionist Alliance never ceases to amaze me.
Roll on the Westminster Election.
Posted by: clochoderic, renfrashur on 12:31am Thu 27 Mar 08
Contrast Salmond`s measured clarity and and obvious command of the brief on Newsnight tonight with the confused inarticulacy of the Opposition leaders 24 hours earlier.
Wendy, Nicol and Annabelle have painted themselves into a corner and haven`t even realised it yet.
Contrast Salmond`s measured clarity and and obvious command of the brief on Newsnight tonight with the confused inarticulacy of the Opposition leaders 24 hours earlier.
Wendy, Nicol and Annabelle have painted themselves into a corner and haven`t even realised it yet.
Posted by: Tired of excuses, Galashiels on 12:34am Thu 27 Mar 08
Oh dear the unionists do seem upset.
What on earth are they afraid of ?
Surely they have faith in elections.
I'm laughing so hard I can hardly type, well done Mr Salmond.
Oh dear the unionists do seem upset.
What on earth are they afraid of ?
Surely they have faith in elections.
I'm laughing so hard I can hardly type, well done Mr Salmond.
Posted by: Wardog, Buckie on 12:35am Thu 27 Mar 08
The gradualism of the SNP's cause will be the unionists undoing.
Patience will be the SNP's power.
Let the unionists panic and wait and see them fight it out amongst themselves once the recommendations come from their 'Best Wee Commission in the World'......patience
.
better than that, wait and watch as they destroy any public trust that they still hold(?) in them by denying people a say....patience
2008-2011 is indeed going to be historic
The SNP are running circles around the other parties, totally wiping them off the headlines with yesterday's announcement and gatherings....
Broon will be furious that his little diplomatic stunt with France (who's companies will supply the UK's shiny new-nuclear / new-danger stations) hasn't even registered north of the border......
The gradualism of the SNP's cause will be the unionists undoing.
Patience will be the SNP's power.
Let the unionists panic and wait and see them fight it out amongst themselves once the recommendations come from their 'Best Wee Commission in the World'......patience
.
better than that, wait and watch as they destroy any public trust that they still hold(?) in them by denying people a say....patience
2008-2011 is indeed going to be historic
The SNP are running circles around the other parties, totally wiping them off the headlines with yesterday's announcement and gatherings....
Broon will be furious that his little diplomatic stunt with France (who's companies will supply the UK's shiny new-nuclear / new-danger stations) hasn't even registered north of the border......
Posted by: Supershug, Eaglesham on 12:36am Thu 27 Mar 08
[quote]Nicol Stephen accused the SNP of trying to drag an unwilling Scotland to independence. "No matter how hard they push and prod, Scotland remains firmly determined to reject separation," he said.[/quote]
Sure Nicol, so determined that they voted the SNP as the biggest party in parliament.
Nicol Stephen accused the SNP of trying to drag an unwilling Scotland to independence. "No matter how hard they push and prod, Scotland remains firmly determined to reject separation," he said.
Sure Nicol, so determined that they voted the SNP as the biggest party in parliament.
Posted by: Traquir, Alba on 12:37am Thu 27 Mar 08
Alex seems to have upset the Unionista cartel :) What exactly do
they fear by not even mentioning, debating or horror of horror
voting on the dreaded I word ? They all seem to be protesting
too much here - they must personally have something to lose
here - peerages perhaps; their masters losing Scottish
revenue (e.g. from Oil & whisky); the ability to pretend
to be in power against the wishes of the Scottish people ?
Perhaps they need to start putting Scotland's interests
first and foremost above all else including their
selfish desires and the needs of their beloved Union.
Alex seems to have upset the Unionista cartel :) What exactly do
they fear by not even mentioning, debating or horror of horror
voting on the dreaded I word ? They all seem to be protesting
too much here - they must personally have something to lose
here - peerages perhaps; their masters losing Scottish
revenue (e.g. from Oil & whisky); the ability to pretend
to be in power against the wishes of the Scottish people ?
Perhaps they need to start putting Scotland's interests
first and foremost above all else including their
selfish desires and the needs of their beloved Union.
Posted by: Thyme Kelpie on 12:44am Thu 27 Mar 08
Yes Traquir
Why are the Unionists so afraid of a vote -any vote- by the Scottish people?
If they are so confident that they are right, that Independence is not wanted, why not prove it?
Just for once, let them allow Scotland to be first and show some confidence in their convictions.
(Or are they really bit fearties?)
Yes Traquir
Why are the Unionists so afraid of a vote -any vote- by the Scottish people?
If they are so confident that they are right, that Independence is not wanted, why not prove it?
Just for once, let them allow Scotland to be first and show some confidence in their convictions.
(Or are they really bit fearties?)
Posted by: clochoderic, renfrashur on 12:49am Thu 27 Mar 08
Wise words about the gradual approach, Wardog but perhaps some journo sleuth could join the dots between skelly Gordy`s power grab in Scotland and his wee brother Andrew`s role as chief stooge for the French nuclear giants EDF who Chairman Broon wants to sell us all nuclear power - forever ?
Wise words about the gradual approach, Wardog but perhaps some journo sleuth could join the dots between skelly Gordy`s power grab in Scotland and his wee brother Andrew`s role as chief stooge for the French nuclear giants EDF who Chairman Broon wants to sell us all nuclear power - forever ?
Posted by: media lies on 12:52am Thu 27 Mar 08
www.scottishindepend
enceconvention.com
www.scottishindepend
enceconvention.com
Posted by: Wardog, Buckie on 12:53am Thu 27 Mar 08
The opposition parties are floundering
Come November and the "Best Wee Commission's' Interim Report, we will see bright red 'mayday' flares go up form the Labour Camp....
or will it be bright yellow flares from the Liberals when they realise the limited scope that is being looked at in the commission.....
The Tories are down in the engine room so won't likely escape in time in any event.....
PtbS will be up high on lookout for the independence iceberg
What's that PtbS......yes..... I can hear the foghorn too.....
phrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
rr
The opposition parties are floundering
Come November and the "Best Wee Commission's' Interim Report, we will see bright red 'mayday' flares go up form the Labour Camp....
or will it be bright yellow flares from the Liberals when they realise the limited scope that is being looked at in the commission.....
The Tories are down in the engine room so won't likely escape in time in any event.....
PtbS will be up high on lookout for the independence iceberg
What's that PtbS......yes..... I can hear the foghorn too.....
phrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
rr
Posted by: Old Tam, Glasgow on 12:54am Thu 27 Mar 08
It's so funny - the unionists don't know what way to run. Maitland Mackie (LibDum) was saying on Good Morning Scotland that he wants the issue resolved sooner rather than later. Others want it kicked into the long grass. They are all over the place. They don't get it that even 25% support for Independence is enough to keep the issue going. Without a referendum, Independence will always be the elephant in the room.
It's so funny - the unionists don't know what way to run. Maitland Mackie (LibDum) was saying on Good Morning Scotland that he wants the issue resolved sooner rather than later. Others want it kicked into the long grass. They are all over the place. They don't get it that even 25% support for Independence is enough to keep the issue going. Without a referendum, Independence will always be the elephant in the room.
Posted by: HenMcStoorie, Port William on 12:55am Thu 27 Mar 08
You have to give it to Alex...this is a shrewd move...at least one of the three stoogies cant say a word about it.
You have to give it to Alex...this is a shrewd move...at least one of the three stoogies cant say a word about it.
Posted by: heatherbell, fife on 12:56am Thu 27 Mar 08
Come on Scotland wake up. When the day comes vote for INDEPENDENCE
Come on Scotland wake up. When the day comes vote for INDEPENDENCE
Posted by: Steve A, Glasgow on 1:06am Thu 27 Mar 08
The unionist leaders in Scotland ONLY ambition is to be told what to do by another country!AWE INSPIRING STUFF!
The unionist leaders in Scotland ONLY ambition is to be told what to do by another country!AWE INSPIRING STUFF!
Posted by: Ronald, Glasgow on 1:26am Thu 27 Mar 08
I am waiting with baited breath on that Independence train. And I am not even a Nationalist. Just want to see the back of those NEW LABOUR ANIMALS.
Bit of a bugger havin to wait more than two years, but hey, when we really do get rid of the scum, well, it'll have been worth the wait !
I am waiting with baited breath on that Independence train. And I am not even a Nationalist. Just want to see the back of those NEW LABOUR ANIMALS.
Bit of a bugger havin to wait more than two years, but hey, when we really do get rid of the scum, well, it'll have been worth the wait !
Posted by: Edward, Edinburgh on 1:38am Thu 27 Mar 08
The unionist parties keep harping on about no one in Scotland wanting Independence. Even the so called 'Independent' chair of their review states that 77% dont want independence
Well its about time they stepped up and put their money where their mouth is and supported a referendum
The referendum based on the STV system would even favour their idea of increased powers. So what are the afraid of???
If they insist on NOT having one and insist on foisting their proposals on Scotland, then every Scots man and women would be entitled to barrack the unionist politicians with shouts of 'CHICKEN!'
The unionist parties keep harping on about no one in Scotland wanting Independence. Even the so called 'Independent' chair of their review states that 77% dont want independence
Well its about time they stepped up and put their money where their mouth is and supported a referendum
The referendum based on the STV system would even favour their idea of increased powers. So what are the afraid of???
If they insist on NOT having one and insist on foisting their proposals on Scotland, then every Scots man and women would be entitled to barrack the unionist politicians with shouts of 'CHICKEN!'
Posted by: Edward, Edinburgh on 1:41am Thu 27 Mar 08
The Single Transferable Vote system was foisted on the last Scottish council elections by Labour (which was one of the reasons over the confusion as Labour instigated two different voting systems for the Holyrood and council elections which they had on the same day!)
Now apparently Labour and the other London managed parties see this as undemocratic!
The fact of the matter is that the STV system would actually favour the increased powers option over everything else. This paper and others in the media are a bit misleading when they state that it would let in Independence by 'the back door' either they think were stupid, or there very thick as to not be able to work out the permutations!
For example those that favour Independence, would have Independece as 1 and Increased powers as 2 ; those who favour increased powers but not independence, would place Increased powers at 1 and status quo 2 ; some may have increased poers at 1 and independence at 1; those who favour status quo will place status quo at 1 and increased powers at 2. As it is it is likely that the vote for status quo would drop out and the second (or transferable vote would go to increased powers.
The only way the country would vote for independence, would be if well over 50% placed independence as 1.
But the unionists keep telling us that only 23% (or there abouts) want independence. So why are unionists so afraid of a referendum, especially one under the STV system. To use an Americanism, 'the bases are loaded' in favour of increased powers!
The Single Transferable Vote system was foisted on the last Scottish council elections by Labour (which was one of the reasons over the confusion as Labour instigated two different voting systems for the Holyrood and council elections which they had on the same day!)
Now apparently Labour and the other London managed parties see this as undemocratic!
The fact of the matter is that the STV system would actually favour the increased powers option over everything else. This paper and others in the media are a bit misleading when they state that it would let in Independence by 'the back door' either they think were stupid, or there very thick as to not be able to work out the permutations!
For example those that favour Independence, would have Independece as 1 and Increased powers as 2 ; those who favour increased powers but not independence, would place Increased powers at 1 and status quo 2 ; some may have increased poers at 1 and independence at 1; those who favour status quo will place status quo at 1 and increased powers at 2. As it is it is likely that the vote for status quo would drop out and the second (or transferable vote would go to increased powers.
The only way the country would vote for independence, would be if well over 50% placed independence as 1.
But the unionists keep telling us that only 23% (or there abouts) want independence. So why are unionists so afraid of a referendum, especially one under the STV system. To use an Americanism, 'the bases are loaded' in favour of increased powers!
Posted by: MrC, Kelvinbridge on 1:41am Thu 27 Mar 08
We are coming, we are coming, we are coming down the road, we are on the march to independence and we're on the road the now!!
We are coming, we are coming, we are coming down the road, we are on the march to independence and we're on the road the now!!
Posted by: Los Angeles, Edinburgh on 1:46am Thu 27 Mar 08
LoL - Watch you don't get arrested singing at the top of your lungs on Kelvinbridge at two in the morning!
LoL - Watch you don't get arrested singing at the top of your lungs on Kelvinbridge at two in the morning!
Posted by: Carnwarth, Carnwarth on 1:46am Thu 27 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Edward[/bold] wrote:
The Single Transferable Vote system was foisted on the last Scottish council elections by Labour (which was one of the reasons over the confusion as Labour instigated two different voting systems for the Holyrood and council elections which they had on the same day!) Now apparently Labour and the other London managed parties see this as undemocratic! The fact of the matter is that the STV system would actually favour the increased powers option over everything else. This paper and others in the media are a bit misleading when they state that it would let in Independence by 'the back door' either they think were stupid, or there very thick as to not be able to work out the permutations! For example those that favour Independence, would have Independece as 1 and Increased powers as 2 ; those who favour increased powers but not independence, would place Increased powers at 1 and status quo 2 ; some may have increased poers at 1 and independence at 1; those who favour status quo will place status quo at 1 and increased powers at 2. As it is it is likely that the vote for status quo would drop out and the second (or transferable vote would go to increased powers. The only way the country would vote for independence, would be if well over 50% placed independence as 1. But the unionists keep telling us that only 23% (or there abouts) want independence. So why are unionists so afraid of a referendum, especially one under the STV system. To use an Americanism, 'the bases are loaded' in favour of increased powers! [/quote] If this is true (and it was the sort of thing I was trying to express in my earlier post) then why are the SNP proposing this form of vote?
Edward wrote:
The Single Transferable Vote system was foisted on the last Scottish council elections by Labour (which was one of the reasons over the confusion as Labour instigated two different voting systems for the Holyrood and council elections which they had on the same day!) Now apparently Labour and the other London managed parties see this as undemocratic! The fact of the matter is that the STV system would actually favour the increased powers option over everything else. This paper and others in the media are a bit misleading when they state that it would let in Independence by 'the back door' either they think were stupid, or there very thick as to not be able to work out the permutations! For example those that favour Independence, would have Independece as 1 and Increased powers as 2 ; those who favour increased powers but not independence, would place Increased powers at 1 and status quo 2 ; some may have increased poers at 1 and independence at 1; those who favour status quo will place status quo at 1 and increased powers at 2. As it is it is likely that the vote for status quo would drop out and the second (or transferable vote would go to increased powers. The only way the country would vote for independence, would be if well over 50% placed independence as 1. But the unionists keep telling us that only 23% (or there abouts) want independence. So why are unionists so afraid of a referendum, especially one under the STV system. To use an Americanism, 'the bases are loaded' in favour of increased powers!
If this is true (and it was the sort of thing I was trying to express in my earlier post) then why are the SNP proposing this form of vote?
Posted by: subrosa on 1:47am Thu 27 Mar 08
Think the unionists were taken aback with Alex Salmond's further announcement today. They must be fizzing being knocked off the front pages about their quartet.
None could make a constructive comment but it's not surprising - they hadn't had time to phone south.
Think the unionists were taken aback with Alex Salmond's further announcement today. They must be fizzing being knocked off the front pages about their quartet.
None could make a constructive comment but it's not surprising - they hadn't had time to phone south.
Posted by: Cynicus, Scotland on 1:49am Thu 27 Mar 08
[quote]The preference system is a very accurate way of identifying the wishes of the people.[/quote]-David, Scotland on 12:19am today
Dou you mean along the following lines:
ONE-Abolish the Scottish Parliament and revert to the [italic]status quo ante[/italic] ;
TWO-Retain the [italic]status quo[/italic] ;
THREE-More powers for Holyrood;
FOUR-Independence.
This is Eck's scheme with Eck's suggested ordering -but with one refinement. It adds "the Tam Dalyell option."
Good idea?
The preference system is a very accurate way of identifying the wishes of the people.
-David, Scotland on 12:19am today
Dou you mean along the following lines:
ONE-Abolish the Scottish Parliament and revert to the
status quo ante ;
TWO-Retain the
status quo ;
THREE-More powers for Holyrood;
FOUR-Independence.
This is Eck's scheme with Eck's suggested ordering -but with one refinement. It adds "the Tam Dalyell option."
Good idea?
Posted by: Los Angeles, Edinburgh on 1:58am Thu 27 Mar 08
[quote]They must be fizzing being knocked off the front pages about their quartet. None could make a constructive comment but it's not surprising - they hadn't had time to phone south.[/quote] LoL
I like that.
Upstaged again! Caught on the hop. His timing is impeccable.
There's no safety in numbers where Eck is concerned!
They must be fizzing being knocked off the front pages about their quartet. None could make a constructive comment but it's not surprising - they hadn't had time to phone south.
LoL
I like that.
Upstaged again! Caught on the hop. His timing is impeccable.
There's no safety in numbers where Eck is concerned!
Posted by: Richard Davis, Vienna, Austria on 1:59am Thu 27 Mar 08
The poor Unionists, the rumours of a redundancy certainly creats a panic.
The poor Unionists, the rumours of a redundancy certainly creats a panic.
Posted by: Edward, Edinburgh on 2:03am Thu 27 Mar 08
Jim Murphy, Labour MP for East Renfrewshire on referendums:
From his own blog at the Foreign Office
http://blogs.fco.gov
.uk/blogs/jim_murphy
/
‘It was right to have a referendum on devolution from Scotland and Wales. It would be right to have a referendum if there was a proposal to join the Euro’
From Hansard 3rd March 2008
http://www.publicati
ons.parliament.uk/pa
/cm200708/cmhansrd/c
m080303/debtext/8030
3-0004.htm
‘Where there is an issue of substantial constitutional significance—for example, if we were ever to consider joining the euro—there is a case for consulting the public in a referendum, as we did when we established devolution in Scotland and Wales. Those are substantial, lasting constitutional changes, and I agree that there is, on occasion, a place for a referendum’
I would have thought that decisions concerning Scotland’s future, in that the devolved government have increased powers or even independence qualifies as a ‘, lasting constitutional change’
Jim Murphy, Labour MP for East Renfrewshire on referendums:
From his own blog at the Foreign Office
http://blogs.fco.gov
.uk/blogs/jim_murphy
/
‘It was right to have a referendum on devolution from Scotland and Wales. It would be right to have a referendum if there was a proposal to join the Euro’
From Hansard 3rd March 2008
http://www.publicati
ons.parliament.uk/pa
/cm200708/cmhansrd/c
m080303/debtext/8030
3-0004.htm
‘Where there is an issue of substantial constitutional significance—for example, if we were ever to consider joining the euro—there is a case for consulting the public in a referendum, as we did when we established devolution in Scotland and Wales. Those are substantial, lasting constitutional changes, and I agree that there is, on occasion, a place for a referendum’
I would have thought that decisions concerning Scotland’s future, in that the devolved government have increased powers or even independence qualifies as a ‘, lasting constitutional change’
Posted by: MrC, Kelvinbridge on 2:03am Thu 27 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Los Angeles[/bold] wrote:
LoL - Watch you don't get arrested singing at the top of your lungs on Kelvinbridge at two in the morning! [/quote] funnily enough it has almost happened although this was in Polwarth in Edinburgh 3 years ago. Easter Sunday night ended up back at mates for a drink etc and we had some tunes on and were singing the erasure classic 'a little respect' and other tunes and the police came round to ask us to shut up. It was funny because my mate Steve, whose flat it was, had to give details including place of birth, which in his case was Hawaii. Needless to say when he said that in his broad fife accent it caused a snigger! I digress......but no Kelvinbridge will be spared my singing tonight and indeed any night, so soory to disappoint the regulars in Hubbards
Los Angeles wrote:
LoL - Watch you don't get arrested singing at the top of your lungs on Kelvinbridge at two in the morning!
funnily enough it has almost happened although this was in Polwarth in Edinburgh 3 years ago. Easter Sunday night ended up back at mates for a drink etc and we had some tunes on and were singing the erasure classic 'a little respect' and other tunes and the police came round to ask us to shut up. It was funny because my mate Steve, whose flat it was, had to give details including place of birth, which in his case was Hawaii. Needless to say when he said that in his broad fife accent it caused a snigger! I digress......but no Kelvinbridge will be spared my singing tonight and indeed any night, so soory to disappoint the regulars in Hubbards
Posted by: Edward, Edinburgh on 2:06am Thu 27 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Richard Davis[/bold] wrote:
The poor Unionists, the rumours of a redundancy certainly creats a panic.[/quote] Especially losing their £ 10,000 gift vouchers for Kitchen equipment from John Lewis Stores for their second (and probably first) homes
Richard Davis wrote:
The poor Unionists, the rumours of a redundancy certainly creats a panic.
Especially losing their £ 10,000 gift vouchers for Kitchen equipment from John Lewis Stores for their second (and probably first) homes
Posted by: Jimbo on 3:22am Thu 27 Mar 08
[quote]Tory leader Annabel Goldie said: "You do not decide the destiny of a country on the basis of the second best or least-worst option.[/quote]
No [bold]you[/bold] don't Annabelle. You do it behind closed doors at Westminster along with the other English run parties and exclude the biggest party in Scotland from having any say in the matter.
Tory leader Annabel Goldie said: "You do not decide the destiny of a country on the basis of the second best or least-worst option.
No
you don't Annabelle. You do it behind closed doors at Westminster along with the other English run parties and exclude the biggest party in Scotland from having any say in the matter.
Posted by: jesus of leith, edinburgh on 4:43am Thu 27 Mar 08
whats that coming over the hill
is it a MONSTER
unionists thought devolution would kill off independence.
George Robertson: "there is no question of the Labour Party supporting calls for a referendum on a Scottish Parliament. The will of the people is behind the scheme and they will vote in that way in the election. Tam Dalyell is the only one of our 49 MPs who holds these views. He is becoming an isolated and lonely figure on this subject." (Herald 12 Feb 1996)
LOL
49-0 to TAM
whats that coming over the hill
is it a MONSTER
unionists thought devolution would kill off independence.
George Robertson: "there is no question of the Labour Party supporting calls for a referendum on a Scottish Parliament. The will of the people is behind the scheme and they will vote in that way in the election. Tam Dalyell is the only one of our 49 MPs who holds these views. He is becoming an isolated and lonely figure on this subject." (Herald 12 Feb 1996)
LOL
49-0 to TAM
Posted by: Ideas of Civilisation, Scotland on 5:16am Thu 27 Mar 08
Loathe as I am to agree with Annabel Goldie, you can't change the entire constitution of the country based on the least worst option. Now I know the argument for this is that it's similar to the system which exists to elect local councillors in Scotland and that if it's good enough for one election it should be for them all. This just isn't the case though, for the reason outlined below.
Until such time as someone comes up with an alternative system then the democratic method of choosing local elected representatives (at whatever level) is the best and only option we have. Unlike Brewster's Millions we can't vote for none of the above or else there's a danger we'd have no-one in councils or governments. I know some people might say 'good' but again, until there's an alternative, there's no choice but to vote for someone.
However this is not the case for changes to the constitution. Unlike choosing elected representatives there is actually no need whatsoever for people to vote for this or back any of the reform ideas. Something as serious as this, particularly if it involved ending a 300 years+ union, must be a positive choice by people - it can't just be what's left. And that goes for all other options on offer.
[bold]http://ideasofcivili
sation.blogspot.com/[/bold]
Loathe as I am to agree with Annabel Goldie, you can't change the entire constitution of the country based on the least worst option. Now I know the argument for this is that it's similar to the system which exists to elect local councillors in Scotland and that if it's good enough for one election it should be for them all. This just isn't the case though, for the reason outlined below.
Until such time as someone comes up with an alternative system then the democratic method of choosing local elected representatives (at whatever level) is the best and only option we have. Unlike Brewster's Millions we can't vote for none of the above or else there's a danger we'd have no-one in councils or governments. I know some people might say 'good' but again, until there's an alternative, there's no choice but to vote for someone.
However this is not the case for changes to the constitution. Unlike choosing elected representatives there is actually no need whatsoever for people to vote for this or back any of the reform ideas. Something as serious as this, particularly if it involved ending a 300 years+ union, must be a positive choice by people - it can't just be what's left. And that goes for all other options on offer.
http://ideasofcivili
sation.blogspot.com/ Posted by: Ideas of Civilisation, Scotland on 5:16am Thu 27 Mar 08
There's also the question of what happens if no option ever gets more than 50% support (a very real possibility I think). Would this mean that the status quo remains or that the most popular 'losing' answer be selected? I think that this is an enormous minefield and could even lead to legal challenges. Surely we have had enough of elections in this country not being run properly without doing something like this that could end up in the courts?
[bold]http://ideasofcivili
sation.blogspot.com/[/bold]
There's also the question of what happens if no option ever gets more than 50% support (a very real possibility I think). Would this mean that the status quo remains or that the most popular 'losing' answer be selected? I think that this is an enormous minefield and could even lead to legal challenges. Surely we have had enough of elections in this country not being run properly without doing something like this that could end up in the courts?
http://ideasofcivili
sation.blogspot.com/ Posted by: Donald Anderson, glasgow on 5:23am Thu 27 Mar 08
Labour and Lib Dum poodles work with Tories against Scotland.
Labour and Lib Dum poodles work with Tories against Scotland.
Posted by: Hamish McKropotkin, Bannockburn on 6:12am Thu 27 Mar 08
...and away from the frothing and infantile views on these boards the majority of Scots carry on regardless. One small point missed by the salvish followers of Mr salmond's minority-interest party posting here: most Scots voted for parties who unequivically stated before the election they would not support a referendum.
Now, I know that the nats have never been big on democracy or keeping election promises, hardly surprsing from a movement without politics or a political philosohpy. The point is that when given the choice to support a party offering a referendum the Scottish people didn't. In very large nymbers.
Please don't let that stop you, though. My son argues for hours about who would win a fight between superman and a jedi. Please nationalist supporters, knock yourself out: it certainly means you don't need to face the brutal reality of job and services cuts being implemented by Scotland's two Tory parties.
Avanti!
...and away from the frothing and infantile views on these boards the majority of Scots carry on regardless. One small point missed by the salvish followers of Mr salmond's minority-interest party posting here: most Scots voted for parties who unequivically stated before the election they would not support a referendum.
Now, I know that the nats have never been big on democracy or keeping election promises, hardly surprsing from a movement without politics or a political philosohpy. The point is that when given the choice to support a party offering a referendum the Scottish people didn't. In very large nymbers.
Please don't let that stop you, though. My son argues for hours about who would win a fight between superman and a jedi. Please nationalist supporters, knock yourself out: it certainly means you don't need to face the brutal reality of job and services cuts being implemented by Scotland's two Tory parties.
Avanti!
Posted by: David B, Larkhall on 7:01am Thu 27 Mar 08
Just two quick points. The Westminster Parliament changes things routinely, and yet the governing party has not had a majority of the popular vote for decades, let alone I believe even a majority amongst those who bothered to vote.
Secondly, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for independence, its not going to happen. It took 2 attempts to get devolution. And until the last drip of oil leaves the North sea Westminster isn't letting us go. So dream on. But that doesn't mean the SNP are not worthy of being elected by majority. Labour needs to kept out of power because they are corrupt. Its just a feature of one party states.
Just two quick points. The Westminster Parliament changes things routinely, and yet the governing party has not had a majority of the popular vote for decades, let alone I believe even a majority amongst those who bothered to vote.
Secondly, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for independence, its not going to happen. It took 2 attempts to get devolution. And until the last drip of oil leaves the North sea Westminster isn't letting us go. So dream on. But that doesn't mean the SNP are not worthy of being elected by majority. Labour needs to kept out of power because they are corrupt. Its just a feature of one party states.
Posted by: Neil, Aberdeenshire on 7:19am Thu 27 Mar 08
Ideas of Civilisation, even if only one person votes for one option and all other ballots are spoiled, that one vote will constitute over 50%. The only possible way for your no option gaining over 50% scenario to come about would be if everyone gave equal ranking to two or more options.
On a more general note, a referendum on anything has to produce a clear winner from among the options. Usually a referendum is a straight yes/no vote on the question in hand, e.g. do you want Scotland to become independent, yes or no. However, if more than two options are to be offered there has to be a mechanism for establishing a clear winner. A first past the post vote would be completely unacceptable for something as important as Scotland's future constitutional position so you have to arrange some sort of a run off between the most popular options. That means either a second ballot with a straight choice between the two highest scorers from the first round (unless one option gains over 50% straight away) or an STV system of voting. Running a single referendum with STV will obviously be cheaper than running two referenda so it seems to me to be the most sensible option.
I am confident that when people are finally given the option of independence in a referendum they will grab it with both hands, despite what opinion polls might imply.
Ideas of Civilisation, even if only one person votes for one option and all other ballots are spoiled, that one vote will constitute over 50%. The only possible way for your no option gaining over 50% scenario to come about would be if everyone gave equal ranking to two or more options.
On a more general note, a referendum on anything has to produce a clear winner from among the options. Usually a referendum is a straight yes/no vote on the question in hand, e.g. do you want Scotland to become independent, yes or no. However, if more than two options are to be offered there has to be a mechanism for establishing a clear winner. A first past the post vote would be completely unacceptable for something as important as Scotland's future constitutional position so you have to arrange some sort of a run off between the most popular options. That means either a second ballot with a straight choice between the two highest scorers from the first round (unless one option gains over 50% straight away) or an STV system of voting. Running a single referendum with STV will obviously be cheaper than running two referenda so it seems to me to be the most sensible option.
I am confident that when people are finally given the option of independence in a referendum they will grab it with both hands, despite what opinion polls might imply.
Posted by: pehman, sussex on 7:21am Thu 27 Mar 08
Wow shock, horror
ROW OVER INDEPENDENCE VOTE
well who'd have thought that !
The next thing you know we'll have an SNP 1st Minister
Wow shock, horror
ROW OVER INDEPENDENCE VOTE
well who'd have thought that !
The next thing you know we'll have an SNP 1st Minister
Posted by: Rev. S. Campbell, Bath on 7:24am Thu 27 Mar 08
[italic]"If this is true (and it was the sort of thing I was trying to express in my earlier post) then why are the SNP proposing this form of vote?"[/italic]
Because they believe in the right of the Scottish people to express their democratic will, even if it turns out not to be the same as the SNP's?
"If this is true (and it was the sort of thing I was trying to express in my earlier post) then why are the SNP proposing this form of vote?"
Because they believe in the right of the Scottish people to express their democratic will, even if it turns out not to be the same as the SNP's?
Posted by: Rev. S. Campbell, Bath on 7:26am Thu 27 Mar 08
[italic]"Loathe as I am to agree with Annabel Goldie, you can't change the entire constitution of the country based on the least worst option."[/italic]
Why not? That's exactly what we've been doing with first-past-the-post Westminster elections for the last 100 years.
"Loathe as I am to agree with Annabel Goldie, you can't change the entire constitution of the country based on the least worst option."
Why not? That's exactly what we've been doing with first-past-the-post Westminster elections for the last 100 years.
Posted by: Jock in the Box, edinburgh on 7:39am Thu 27 Mar 08
You cannot legitimately oppose a referendum which offers all possible solutions and asks unambiguously which you prefer,(and in order of preference).It measures facts and that the least thing LONDON wants to be public knowledge.
[bold]THE PEOPLE ARE TOO STUPID TO DECIDE THEIR OWN FUTURE
GORDON KNOWS BEST[/bold] (and when you look at some Labour voters you can see why) is what Labour are saying!
The only justification the three Unionist parties can muster is that their preffered assumption of Independence is supported by less than 25% may prove to be the nonsense that many claim it is.
It could even be over 50% as some have suggested at times,but the real danger is it may be unretreivavbly close and the argument that the setlled will of the people is Devolution Mk II joins its parent Devolution Mk I in the dustbin.
A futher referendum is inevitable in other words and will probably secure indepencence.
We must remember that the Unionists cannot have faith in the judgement of the people,because they have lied and cheated to stay alive this far.Had they told the truth,Scotland would have been independent forty years ago(or even more stupid than she already is)
They feel that there is a real danger just like Tams slippery slope,now that we know about McCrone and the SNPs claims were not manufactured.[bold]THEY ARE CORRECT[/bold] !
Its Labour Tory and Liberal who have manufactured the Albania scenario and all that goes with it.
Scotland is too small.
Scotland is too poor
Scotland will have border posts
Scotland has no industry
Scotland would have no army air force and navy.
Scotland would starve
Scotland would not be able to heat their homes.
[bold]What do they all have in common? Yes thats it LIES ![/bold]
[bold]YOUR COUNTRY NEEDS YOU SCOTLAND . BE THERE FOR HER[/bold]
You cannot legitimately oppose a referendum which offers all possible solutions and asks unambiguously which you prefer,(and in order of preference).It measures facts and that the least thing LONDON wants to be public knowledge.
THE PEOPLE ARE TOO STUPID TO DECIDE THEIR OWN FUTURE
GORDON KNOWS BEST (and when you look at some Labour voters you can see why) is what Labour are saying!
The only justification the three Unionist parties can muster is that their preffered assumption of Independence is supported by less than 25% may prove to be the nonsense that many claim it is.
It could even be over 50% as some have suggested at times,but the real danger is it may be unretreivavbly close and the argument that the setlled will of the people is Devolution Mk II joins its parent Devolution Mk I in the dustbin.
A futher referendum is inevitable in other words and will probably secure indepencence.
We must remember that the Unionists cannot have faith in the judgement of the people,because they have lied and cheated to stay alive this far.Had they told the truth,Scotland would have been independent forty years ago(or even more stupid than she already is)
They feel that there is a real danger just like Tams slippery slope,now that we know about McCrone and the SNPs claims were not manufactured.
THEY ARE CORRECT !
Its Labour Tory and Liberal who have manufactured the Albania scenario and all that goes with it.
Scotland is too small.
Scotland is too poor
Scotland will have border posts
Scotland has no industry
Scotland would have no army air force and navy.
Scotland would starve
Scotland would not be able to heat their homes.
What do they all have in common? Yes thats it LIES !
YOUR COUNTRY NEEDS YOU SCOTLAND . BE THERE FOR HER Posted by: ex labour voter, glasgow on 7:40am Thu 27 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Hamish McKropotkin[/bold] wrote:
...and away from the frothing and infantile views on these boards the majority of Scots carry on regardless. One small point missed by the salvish followers of Mr salmond's minority-interest party posting here: most Scots voted for parties who unequivically stated before the election they would not support a referendum. Now, I know that the nats have never been big on democracy or keeping election promises, hardly surprsing from a movement without politics or a political philosohpy. The point is that when given the choice to support a party offering a referendum the Scottish people didn't. In very large nymbers. Please don't let that stop you, though. My son argues for hours about who would win a fight between superman and a jedi. Please nationalist supporters, knock yourself out: it certainly means you don't need to face the brutal reality of job and services cuts being implemented by Scotland's two Tory parties. Avanti![/quote] idiot .
Hamish McKropotkin wrote:
...and away from the frothing and infantile views on these boards the majority of Scots carry on regardless. One small point missed by the salvish followers of Mr salmond's minority-interest party posting here: most Scots voted for parties who unequivically stated before the election they would not support a referendum. Now, I know that the nats have never been big on democracy or keeping election promises, hardly surprsing from a movement without politics or a political philosohpy. The point is that when given the choice to support a party offering a referendum the Scottish people didn't. In very large nymbers. Please don't let that stop you, though. My son argues for hours about who would win a fight between superman and a jedi. Please nationalist supporters, knock yourself out: it certainly means you don't need to face the brutal reality of job and services cuts being implemented by Scotland's two Tory parties. Avanti!
idiot .
Posted by: Corrupt EU, Fife on 7:48am Thu 27 Mar 08
Oh yes, let's demand a referendum on Scotland's union with England, and ignore the fact that the EU dictates most of our laws.
When will the SNP admit that they have no intention of making Scotland a truly independent nation. The SNP are lousy globalists, just like the Lib-Lab-Con.
Oh yes, let's demand a referendum on Scotland's union with England, and ignore the fact that the EU dictates most of our laws.
When will the SNP admit that they have no intention of making Scotland a truly independent nation. The SNP are lousy globalists, just like the Lib-Lab-Con.
Posted by: daveymac, web on 7:53am Thu 27 Mar 08
In other referendums when there has been more than 2 choices (such as Quebec, I think) it is possible to have 2 rounds of voting.
Personally I think this is the best system:
Round 1. a) Independence b) Dev + c) Status Quo.
If there is no clear winner (> 50% of vote), losing option drops out.
Round 2 if needed, would clearly be a) and b). All voters would vote again on this option. This means the majority get what they voted for.
In other referendums when there has been more than 2 choices (such as Quebec, I think) it is possible to have 2 rounds of voting.
Personally I think this is the best system:
Round 1. a) Independence b) Dev + c) Status Quo.
If there is no clear winner (> 50% of vote), losing option drops out.
Round 2 if needed, would clearly be a) and b). All voters would vote again on this option. This means the majority get what they voted for.
Posted by: Conway on 8:00am Thu 27 Mar 08
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 opinions.People who support independence are from all sorts of backgrounds and political persuasions left and right,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.
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 opinions.People who support independence are from all sorts of backgrounds and political persuasions left and right,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.
Posted by: daveymac, web on 8:01am Thu 27 Mar 08
Salmond and his team are gradualists and I think they would be quite happy with Dev MAX - IF and only IF, it has real teeth such as full fiscal control at a minimum.
However it is now clear that the 'Review Commision' is not going to propose much of anything. That is why the unionists will vote against a referendum.
People will reject Status Quo + 1.
They will reject still further if the proposal is : Status Quo + some powers - others !!
The SNP and the Unionists know that Dev MAX is something the electorate would vote for. Problem is, its NOT on the table.
Salmond and his team are gradualists and I think they would be quite happy with Dev MAX - IF and only IF, it has real teeth such as full fiscal control at a minimum.
However it is now clear that the 'Review Commision' is not going to propose much of anything. That is why the unionists will vote against a referendum.
People will reject Status Quo + 1.
They will reject still further if the proposal is : Status Quo + some powers - others !!
The SNP and the Unionists know that Dev MAX is something the electorate would vote for. Problem is, its NOT on the table.
Posted by: Jock in the Box, edinburgh on 8:06am Thu 27 Mar 08
Corrupt EU, Fife on 7:48am
The SNP are a party who seek to repeal the Act of Unionof 1707(but
not 1603).
Scotland automatically retains membership of the European Union and this has already been checked(and again lied about by David Martin Labour MEP Lothian years ago).
If Scotland wishes to remain or leave the EU (as opposed to the UK)
is a seperate issue ,and can only be measured[bold] after you have an indepndent Scotland,[/bold] since Scotland cannot remove whilst still part of the UK which is still a member. You have to be pretty thick to fail to realise that!
Whether Scotland is a member or not will be decided by the people.Thats fair and democratic,but more important its the only acceptable way under international law.
The SNP cannot include any promise to leave or retain EU membership until there is a Scotland!
Its a bit like building a car. YOu build it then you paint it!
What you are talking about is the other way round. [bold]IT CANT BE DONE[/bold]
If you seriously want Scotland out of the EU then first you have to create an independent Scotland from the United Kingdom.She cannot leave any other way. and even if she could dealing with one thing at at a time would still be the sensible way forward,or you split the vote and get [bold]NOTHING[/bold]
Corrupt EU, Fife on 7:48am
The SNP are a party who seek to repeal the Act of Unionof 1707(but
not 1603).
Scotland automatically retains membership of the European Union and this has already been checked(and again lied about by David Martin Labour MEP Lothian years ago).
If Scotland wishes to remain or leave the EU (as opposed to the UK)
is a seperate issue ,and can only be measured
after you have an indepndent Scotland, since Scotland cannot remove whilst still part of the UK which is still a member. You have to be pretty thick to fail to realise that!
Whether Scotland is a member or not will be decided by the people.Thats fair and democratic,but more important its the only acceptable way under international law.
The SNP cannot include any promise to leave or retain EU membership until there is a Scotland!
Its a bit like building a car. YOu build it then you paint it!
What you are talking about is the other way round.
IT CANT BE DONE
If you seriously want Scotland out of the EU then first you have to create an independent Scotland from the United Kingdom.She cannot leave any other way. and even if she could dealing with one thing at at a time would still be the sensible way forward,or you split the vote and get
NOTHING
Posted by: SC, Dundee on 8:10am Thu 27 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Corrupt EU[/bold] wrote:
Oh yes, let's demand a referendum on Scotland's union with England, and ignore the fact that the EU dictates most of our laws. When will the SNP admit that they have no intention of making Scotland a truly independent nation. The SNP are lousy globalists, just like the Lib-Lab-Con. [/quote] Well, let's deal with one union at a time. At the moment, the EU is far from the centralising beast that is the UK. However, I imagine Brussels is inspired by the UK's centralised model of government, so we should be more than wary.
Corrupt EU wrote:
Oh yes, let's demand a referendum on Scotland's union with England, and ignore the fact that the EU dictates most of our laws. When will the SNP admit that they have no intention of making Scotland a truly independent nation. The SNP are lousy globalists, just like the Lib-Lab-Con.
Well, let's deal with one union at a time. At the moment, the EU is far from the centralising beast that is the UK. However, I imagine Brussels is inspired by the UK's centralised model of government, so we should be more than wary.
Posted by: daveymac, web on 8:13am Thu 27 Mar 08
Taking my above post still further, the Unholy trinity have the option to come up with their own proposals after the 'Review'.
Ldems are syre to push their federated ideas.
Toryies - who knows - or cares.
The New Wendy party - will do what shes told and propose little but aspire a lot.
Where the hell would that leave devolution?
Taking my above post still further, the Unholy trinity have the option to come up with their own proposals after the 'Review'.
Ldems are syre to push their federated ideas.
Toryies - who knows - or cares.
The New Wendy party - will do what shes told and propose little but aspire a lot.
Where the hell would that leave devolution?
Posted by: Vronsky, Scotland on 8:20am Thu 27 Mar 08
The refusal by the Axis of Drivel to support an STV-based referndum is the first clear admission that they know that the 'only 25% support for independence' statistic is an artefact of the way the question has been posed.
They will also never accept an option that says 'increased powers for Holyrood' - what they will want will be something much more open-ended, like
News
INDEX
Comment | Read Comments (220)
