I live in hope, but there is still no sign of a positive case for the Union emerging from the Unionist parties. This troubles me, not because I want them to miraculously conjure up a convincing case for the Union, but rather because of the consequences if they stick with negativity.
First up, imagine the post-referendum scene, Scotland has voted against independence after years of being hammered with doubts, half-truths, downright lies and pessimism at the hands of the Unionists. In short Scotland has been cowed and frightened into voting No. The spoils of war are a downtrodden, depressed and shrunken Scotland, our people trampled underfoot, bereft of ambition, introverted, knowing our place in the world is the cold, wet corner of an inconsequential little island adrift from a fading continent. This is the victory that the Unionists seemingly crave with their unremitting negativity.
Alternatively (and let us hope and pray that it comes to pass), Scotland sees through the scaremongering and votes for independence. What then for those parties that tried to hold us back without offering any positive, that is to say honourable, vision? I'm sure their self-preservation instincts will kick in and they'll scrabble for some way to become relevant in the new Scotland that they so despised. But I wonder if the electorate will be so quick to forgive and forget.
Showing posts with label referendum. Show all posts
Showing posts with label referendum. Show all posts
Thursday, 27 October 2011
Monday, 9 May 2011
Referendummies
Some suggestions are doing the rounds that 2 referenda are required in order to achieve independence for Scotland. The first would seek the permission of the Scottish people to negotiate the terms of independence. The second would then allow the people to decide if they liked the results of those negotiations. Sounds reasonable enough in principle...except it does rather assume a level playing field.
As David Cameron has said, he will fight an independence referendum with every fibre of his being. Now, fast forwarding a bit, let's imagine the first referendum has been won and the negotiations are about to take place. If I were David Cameron I would have a very good incentive to drive the hardest deal I possibly could in order to influence the result of that second referendum. Give Scotland a terrible deal and the people will surely reject it. Sounds like the sort of thing one would do if one was desperate to keep Scotland in the union. And what would happen after that rejection? We would be in tricky territory - the Scots want independence, but not on the agreed terms. Does that mean more negotiations and a further referendum, repeated until a palatable solution is found? Or is the whole thing shelved, despite the Scots having voted for independence? Sounds like a recipe for chaos.
The knock against the single referendum is of course that approval would give the Scottish government carte blanche to get any old negotiated settlement from Westminster. But quite why the Scottish government would be content to get a bad deal I'm not sure. More plausibly the fear might be that a spurned and spiteful Westminster would only offer grossly unfavourable terms. But that would hardly be conducive to good relations between neighbours. And it would surely be in everyone's interests for the neighbours to get along - even after independence we will still have many interests in common. And it wouldn't play terribly well in the international arena for rump UK to be seen to be thwarting the legitimate democratic aspirations of Scotland.
Interesting times ahead anyway. I just hope Lord Forsyth keeps out of it - how he can possibly think he has a right to influence our nation's future one way or the other is beyond me. Twenty years on and he's still none the wiser.
As David Cameron has said, he will fight an independence referendum with every fibre of his being. Now, fast forwarding a bit, let's imagine the first referendum has been won and the negotiations are about to take place. If I were David Cameron I would have a very good incentive to drive the hardest deal I possibly could in order to influence the result of that second referendum. Give Scotland a terrible deal and the people will surely reject it. Sounds like the sort of thing one would do if one was desperate to keep Scotland in the union. And what would happen after that rejection? We would be in tricky territory - the Scots want independence, but not on the agreed terms. Does that mean more negotiations and a further referendum, repeated until a palatable solution is found? Or is the whole thing shelved, despite the Scots having voted for independence? Sounds like a recipe for chaos.
The knock against the single referendum is of course that approval would give the Scottish government carte blanche to get any old negotiated settlement from Westminster. But quite why the Scottish government would be content to get a bad deal I'm not sure. More plausibly the fear might be that a spurned and spiteful Westminster would only offer grossly unfavourable terms. But that would hardly be conducive to good relations between neighbours. And it would surely be in everyone's interests for the neighbours to get along - even after independence we will still have many interests in common. And it wouldn't play terribly well in the international arena for rump UK to be seen to be thwarting the legitimate democratic aspirations of Scotland.
Interesting times ahead anyway. I just hope Lord Forsyth keeps out of it - how he can possibly think he has a right to influence our nation's future one way or the other is beyond me. Twenty years on and he's still none the wiser.
Friday, 6 May 2011
Scotland comes of age!
Well it's official - the SNP now have a majority in the Scottish Parliament with 21 seats still up for grabs. Unbelievable. Having sat up all through the night enjoying the banter at Subrosa's blog I'm still buzzing. Result after result just kept tumbling our way with some ludicrous swings to the SNP, principally (though not exclusively) from the Lib Dems.
Breaking the Glasgow Labour hegemony is surely a watershed moment in Scotland's modern political history. The habit of many lifetimes has been broken, once and forever. Now that people have come over to the SNP once they will surely find it much easier to do so in future.
The referendum is now a certainty, though I agree with Alex Salmond that this should not be rushed. It's a crucial vote for Scotland's future and the unofficial campaign for a Yes vote should begin right now. Opponents have already begun talking Scotland down (Danny Alexander conspicuously doing so on the BBC earlier today, happily falling into bed with Ed Balls of all people).
Top priority for the SNP though must be getting enhanced powers for Holyrood asap. My great fear is that the reality of cuts to the Scottish block grant will make manifesto commitments extremely difficult to deliver. And we can't use the excuse of minority government now. Labour will paint these as SNP cuts, despite the truth that they are coming from Westminster and are due to Labour's 13 years of misrule. The solution is to gain the extra powers that will allow us to lift our economy up towards its potential. Once that is done we will be in a much better position to persuade the electorate that Scotland's future will best be served as an independent nation, able to govern itself according to its own priorities, taking its place with the other free nations of the world and cooperating with them where common interests occur. We must all play our part in lifting our nation up.
Breaking the Glasgow Labour hegemony is surely a watershed moment in Scotland's modern political history. The habit of many lifetimes has been broken, once and forever. Now that people have come over to the SNP once they will surely find it much easier to do so in future.
The referendum is now a certainty, though I agree with Alex Salmond that this should not be rushed. It's a crucial vote for Scotland's future and the unofficial campaign for a Yes vote should begin right now. Opponents have already begun talking Scotland down (Danny Alexander conspicuously doing so on the BBC earlier today, happily falling into bed with Ed Balls of all people).
Top priority for the SNP though must be getting enhanced powers for Holyrood asap. My great fear is that the reality of cuts to the Scottish block grant will make manifesto commitments extremely difficult to deliver. And we can't use the excuse of minority government now. Labour will paint these as SNP cuts, despite the truth that they are coming from Westminster and are due to Labour's 13 years of misrule. The solution is to gain the extra powers that will allow us to lift our economy up towards its potential. Once that is done we will be in a much better position to persuade the electorate that Scotland's future will best be served as an independent nation, able to govern itself according to its own priorities, taking its place with the other free nations of the world and cooperating with them where common interests occur. We must all play our part in lifting our nation up.
Wednesday, 1 July 2009
Logan's run
The BBC ICM poll details have been published (available here). Some interesting snippets therein, particularly the mixed feeling on Brown as PM, the foreboding at the prospect of Cameron as PM, and the high aproval for Salmond as FM.
The two big questions posed were around how Scotland should be governed and how Scots would vote in a referendum next year. Mischievous type that I am I couldn't help but notice that the 65+ age group responded quite differently to the rest on these questions...
Q.14 Which of the following comes closest to your view about how Scotland should be governed....
Q.19 Next year, the Scottish Government wants to hold a referendum to ask the people of Scotland whether they agree or disagree that..."the Scottish Government should negotiate a settlement with the Government of the United Kingdom so that Scotland becomes an independent state"
Interesting stuff I'm sure you'll agree! Remove the wrinklies (hypothetically speaking!) and Q.19 looks pretty close to me. Maybe Eck should wait a few more years for that referendum ;o)
The remaining difference between pro-independence and pro-devolution max responses to Q.14 comes largely from the 18-34 age group. I wonder what effect a lack of jobs for young people and a good dose of paternal Toryism might have on this group over the next few years...all to play for!
The two big questions posed were around how Scotland should be governed and how Scots would vote in a referendum next year. Mischievous type that I am I couldn't help but notice that the 65+ age group responded quite differently to the rest on these questions...
Q.14 Which of the following comes closest to your view about how Scotland should be governed....
| Excl. 65+ | All | |||
| Scotland should become independent of the rest of the UK, with the Scottish Parliament able to make all decisions about the level of taxation and government spending in Scotland | 42.27% | 38.35% | ||
| Scotland should remain part of the UK, with the Scottish Parliament able to make some decisions about the level of taxation and government spending in Scotland | 49.94% | 53.72% | ||
| Scotland should remain part of the UK, with decisions about the level of taxation and government spending in Scotland made by the UK Government | 6.67% | 6.64% | ||
| Don't know | 1.11% | 1.29% |
Q.19 Next year, the Scottish Government wants to hold a referendum to ask the people of Scotland whether they agree or disagree that..."the Scottish Government should negotiate a settlement with the Government of the United Kingdom so that Scotland becomes an independent state"
| Excl. 65+ | All | |||
| For | 45.92% | 42.26% | ||
| Against | 46.41% | 50.10% | ||
| Refused | 7.67% | 7.64% |
Interesting stuff I'm sure you'll agree! Remove the wrinklies (hypothetically speaking!) and Q.19 looks pretty close to me. Maybe Eck should wait a few more years for that referendum ;o)
The remaining difference between pro-independence and pro-devolution max responses to Q.14 comes largely from the 18-34 age group. I wonder what effect a lack of jobs for young people and a good dose of paternal Toryism might have on this group over the next few years...all to play for!
Monday, 29 June 2009
What a difference a decade makes
Ten years into the era of devolution and we live in interesting times. I'm reminded of the tale of George Bernard Shaw in conversation with a young lady: "Would you sleep with me if I gave you 10,000 pounds?" he asked her. She thought about it and decided that she would. "Good," said Shaw, "so would you also sleep with me for sixpence?" The lady was outraged. "What sort of woman do you think I am?" she thundered. "We've established what sort of woman you are," Shaw replied, "we're merely haggling over the price."
It seems to me that Britannia finds herself in a similar position to that young lady. The referendum in 1997 established the principle that Scotland was entitled to self-determination. The resounding Yes-Yes vote further established the principle of self-governance. And the argument was essentially over at that point. Scotland firmly established what sort of a union it has with the rest of the UK. Scottish sovereignty resides with the Scottish people, not with Westminster (nor indeed with Holyrood!).
Since then there has been much "haggling over the price": which powers to devolve, which to reserve? But the principle of Scottish sovereignty towers above the debate, the Scottish people must decide.
Which brings us to the question of a referendum on Scotland's future constitutional arrangements. Do we need one? Or are we all content with the current model of devolution?
Over the last decade it has appeared increasingly clear to me that change is needed. The rise in the share of the vote for the SNP has been remarkable, as has the demise of the New Labour project. Not all of this swing can be ascribed to a protest vote. Many people will have voted for the SNP precisely because they want Scotland to have more power. This has become all the more likely in light of Westminster's travails over the last year or two. For all its faults Holyrood looks like a paragon of probity next to "Wastemonster".
Meanwhile, the once barely audible discontent south of the border at the "subsidies" and "privileges" that Scotland supposedly enjoys has increased to a low rumble. As swingeing public sector cuts are applied over the next decade this perceived grievance will loom ever larger. How will a Tory government in Westminster respond? How will they handle an SNP government at Holyrood? What mandate will the Tories have to decide on reserved matters, such as Trident, for Scotland?
Alternatively, how will England react if it votes Tory but Labour's tally of Scottish MPs helps bring about a hung parliament? Suddenly that democratic deficit that Scots have railed against for so long might be keenly felt in middle England. Will the Tories happily leak votes to the English Democrats? I suspect not.
How then should Scotland face the challenges of the next decade? With a system that breeds misunderstanding and a sense of injury on both sides of the border? Or with a cleaner, simpler constitutional arrangement backed by a strong democratic mandate?
Quite simply Scotland must be given a direct choice. Not some sleekit, skewed choice, with arbitrary thresholds imposed as a spoiling tactic, nor an extrapolated choice based on the results of a general election fought over many different issues. No. We need a straight, honest choice between the main options: full independence; devolution max of whatever flavour (federalism? confederalism? Calman?); keeping the status quo; or direct rule from Westminster.
For me the choice remains clear, the principle of self-governance has been established. Independence is the logical outcome of that victory. Not "isolation", as Gordon Brown would love you to think of it (Why Gordon, do you think the Scots would vote for isolation? Is your opinion of us really so low?). But simply the freedom to run our country in a fair and just fashion according to our ever-changing needs, choosing when and on what terms to cooperate with our neighbours as common interests arise, and playing a full part in the international community.
As ever the consitutional poll remains open in Brigadoon: cast your vote in the poll on the right hand side.
It seems to me that Britannia finds herself in a similar position to that young lady. The referendum in 1997 established the principle that Scotland was entitled to self-determination. The resounding Yes-Yes vote further established the principle of self-governance. And the argument was essentially over at that point. Scotland firmly established what sort of a union it has with the rest of the UK. Scottish sovereignty resides with the Scottish people, not with Westminster (nor indeed with Holyrood!).
Since then there has been much "haggling over the price": which powers to devolve, which to reserve? But the principle of Scottish sovereignty towers above the debate, the Scottish people must decide.
Which brings us to the question of a referendum on Scotland's future constitutional arrangements. Do we need one? Or are we all content with the current model of devolution?
Over the last decade it has appeared increasingly clear to me that change is needed. The rise in the share of the vote for the SNP has been remarkable, as has the demise of the New Labour project. Not all of this swing can be ascribed to a protest vote. Many people will have voted for the SNP precisely because they want Scotland to have more power. This has become all the more likely in light of Westminster's travails over the last year or two. For all its faults Holyrood looks like a paragon of probity next to "Wastemonster".
Meanwhile, the once barely audible discontent south of the border at the "subsidies" and "privileges" that Scotland supposedly enjoys has increased to a low rumble. As swingeing public sector cuts are applied over the next decade this perceived grievance will loom ever larger. How will a Tory government in Westminster respond? How will they handle an SNP government at Holyrood? What mandate will the Tories have to decide on reserved matters, such as Trident, for Scotland?
Alternatively, how will England react if it votes Tory but Labour's tally of Scottish MPs helps bring about a hung parliament? Suddenly that democratic deficit that Scots have railed against for so long might be keenly felt in middle England. Will the Tories happily leak votes to the English Democrats? I suspect not.
How then should Scotland face the challenges of the next decade? With a system that breeds misunderstanding and a sense of injury on both sides of the border? Or with a cleaner, simpler constitutional arrangement backed by a strong democratic mandate?
Quite simply Scotland must be given a direct choice. Not some sleekit, skewed choice, with arbitrary thresholds imposed as a spoiling tactic, nor an extrapolated choice based on the results of a general election fought over many different issues. No. We need a straight, honest choice between the main options: full independence; devolution max of whatever flavour (federalism? confederalism? Calman?); keeping the status quo; or direct rule from Westminster.
For me the choice remains clear, the principle of self-governance has been established. Independence is the logical outcome of that victory. Not "isolation", as Gordon Brown would love you to think of it (Why Gordon, do you think the Scots would vote for isolation? Is your opinion of us really so low?). But simply the freedom to run our country in a fair and just fashion according to our ever-changing needs, choosing when and on what terms to cooperate with our neighbours as common interests arise, and playing a full part in the international community.
As ever the consitutional poll remains open in Brigadoon: cast your vote in the poll on the right hand side.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)