I may only have been in from work less than half an hour, but I already know that what I say is going to upset some of my good friends within the Scottish Liberal Democrats.
Nicola Sturgeon is right to call for a second Scottish Referendum after the deal is known and before the UK pulls out. What follows is the reasons why?
Firstly the dynamic of what it means to be part of the UK has changed. Many of those, including myself, while part of the last No campaign said that one of the uncertainties for Scottish Independence was their future having to renegotiate with Europe. That is no longer part of the issue because Theresa May is taking the UK out of Europe while Scotland voted to remain.
That other lady of politics Theresa May today is talking about the tunnel vision of Nicola Sturgeon. But since the Brexit vote and her taking control has failed to acknowledge that the people of Scotland and indeed Northern Ireland whose interaction with Europe is different from a lot of England took a different view from the Brexit result.
Scotland is pro-Europe, but Theresa May is taking us away from Europe, yet somehow she talks of tunnel vision while all her talk of taking the UK out of every aspect of Europe and heading for a hard Brexit is just that.
I myself did say after the last Scottish referendum that Nicola Sturgeon should have stuck to her pledge that this was a once in a generation opportunity. I have however changed my mind, the seismic plates have shifted in UK politics. While I would have vote No last time, I personally would be voting yes next time (if the rumours of what Theresa May is heading for turn out to be true).
Showing posts with label independence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label independence. Show all posts
Monday, 13 March 2017
Saturday, 4 October 2014
First impressions of post referendum Scotland
Yesterday was the first time I stepped foot in Scotland after the referendum. It is a fortnight on from what Alex Salmond hailed the biggest decision Scotland has to make in 300 years so what do I think.
I come from Northern Ireland, so I am used to opposing sides marking their territories. Green, white and orange kerbstones in some parts red, white and blue ones elsewhere. But if you were in doubt you'd look up to the lampposts or the top of towerblocks and there you would see flags of the matching hue to confirm where you were. In days gone by from me this used to indicate whether I was Stephen or Patrick and whether my father came from Londonderry or Derry and more precisely The Fountain or just vaguely the Cityside.
There have always been Saltires flying across Scotland but this time as I traveled by bus from Cairnryan to Ayr and on my train to Glasgow as I wandered a little last night after grabbing a bit to eat in the City Centre back out to my accommodation for this week I noticed something else. Wherever I saw a Saltire there seemed to inevitably be a Yes poster or sticker in the windows as well.
Now I know that not all of those across the whole nation who fly the Saltire are anti British as those who fly the Tricolour in Northern Ireland are. And I expect, indeed know, that there are some who have a flag pole outside their house, hotel or whatever that fly the Saltire that do so for tourism reason and not as a mark of their voting intentions. But I largely was traveling through towns and villages. Or that is where I was close enough to see the flags and the additions. Or just the stickers like the one next to the plague on the Kingston Bridge commemorating the opening of it by Queen Elizabeth , the Queen Mother.
Just like my Facebook and Twitter feeds which has members of the 45% who voted Yes there are signs of people marking their territory. The one thing I did spot is that it is by no means 45% of all the accommodation that I wonders past that still is doing so. But there was enough of it to catch my attention. Maybe by online presence is more politically active that the general populace, or maybe the general populace is more ready to move on with the decision than what the media and the vocal parts of the 45 are telling us.
As I said these are just first impressions from someone who grew up in a divided community, where symbols have a greater importance to marking your identity that almost anywhere else I have visited or lived. Also as I wasn't present here during it and last lived in Scotland over a year ago I cannot judge on the intervening period it is just a brush on the surface from someone who has spent a decade living here.
I come from Northern Ireland, so I am used to opposing sides marking their territories. Green, white and orange kerbstones in some parts red, white and blue ones elsewhere. But if you were in doubt you'd look up to the lampposts or the top of towerblocks and there you would see flags of the matching hue to confirm where you were. In days gone by from me this used to indicate whether I was Stephen or Patrick and whether my father came from Londonderry or Derry and more precisely The Fountain or just vaguely the Cityside.
There have always been Saltires flying across Scotland but this time as I traveled by bus from Cairnryan to Ayr and on my train to Glasgow as I wandered a little last night after grabbing a bit to eat in the City Centre back out to my accommodation for this week I noticed something else. Wherever I saw a Saltire there seemed to inevitably be a Yes poster or sticker in the windows as well.
Now I know that not all of those across the whole nation who fly the Saltire are anti British as those who fly the Tricolour in Northern Ireland are. And I expect, indeed know, that there are some who have a flag pole outside their house, hotel or whatever that fly the Saltire that do so for tourism reason and not as a mark of their voting intentions. But I largely was traveling through towns and villages. Or that is where I was close enough to see the flags and the additions. Or just the stickers like the one next to the plague on the Kingston Bridge commemorating the opening of it by Queen Elizabeth , the Queen Mother.
Just like my Facebook and Twitter feeds which has members of the 45% who voted Yes there are signs of people marking their territory. The one thing I did spot is that it is by no means 45% of all the accommodation that I wonders past that still is doing so. But there was enough of it to catch my attention. Maybe by online presence is more politically active that the general populace, or maybe the general populace is more ready to move on with the decision than what the media and the vocal parts of the 45 are telling us.
As I said these are just first impressions from someone who grew up in a divided community, where symbols have a greater importance to marking your identity that almost anywhere else I have visited or lived. Also as I wasn't present here during it and last lived in Scotland over a year ago I cannot judge on the intervening period it is just a brush on the surface from someone who has spent a decade living here.
Wednesday, 23 October 2013
The wider impact of the loss of Grangemouth peterochemical jobs
Around 800 people across West Lothian and Falkirk are to lose their jobs with the announcement today that Ineos are to shut down the Grangemouth petrochemical plant with immediate effect. The fate of the remaining 570 jobs linked to the refinery on the same site are yet to be determined.
It is one of the biggest loss of jobs in the area following on the the 3,100 lost with the shutting of the Motorola plant at Bathgate in 2001, the same number lost their jobs at NEC, Livingston the same year. More recently 500 lost their jobs with the shutting down of the Bausch and Lomb plant at Livingston.
But the danger of losing jobs in the petrochemical plant is nothing new. Indeed back in May 1992 my some time sparring partner the MP for Linlithgow and East Falkirk mentioned then recent job losses at the plant in his maiden speech:
It is sad day for the 800 who have lost their jobs today. However, both sides have been acting like stubborn mules in recent days, if not years. The owners seem to be doing all they can to get what they view as a white elephant off their books, while at the same time the workers are not prepared to take any chance in pay and conditions, fearing their own job without considering that all the jobs in the sector could be gone.
When Ineos came with what they called a survival plan, you would have thought that alarm bells would have been ringing with the workers. The fact that the plant has survived so long without a major change in conditions when others the area have had to accept such adjustments, knowing that if they didn't their job could disappear.
But the Grangemouth plants is almost a fifedom of Unite. The same union that has been at the centre of the Fallkirk Labour Party's election shenanigans. The Union appears to have been promising the workers take a stand and we'll see that everything will be alright, only to have found that Ineos were also not going to budge. it appears that the 570 jobs in the refinery are now also in danger. But with that there is also other jobs in the oil industry and possibly the ability of Scotland to actually process the oil that lies off its shore.
The last element is going to be of extremely great concern to Alex Salmond because part of the way he was going to fund an independent Scotland was through the production and processing off 'Scottish' oil within Scotland. If the Grangemouth plant were to totally close and be mothballed or decommissioned it could take years if at all to be able to get the processing of oil within Scotland up to the speed that would make it capable of supporting Scotland's economy to the extent that Salmond wants it to. If the oil is going to have to be processes and refined elsewhere that would be extra costs and less value added within Scotland causing a rather big hole in his economic plan.
It is one of the biggest loss of jobs in the area following on the the 3,100 lost with the shutting of the Motorola plant at Bathgate in 2001, the same number lost their jobs at NEC, Livingston the same year. More recently 500 lost their jobs with the shutting down of the Bausch and Lomb plant at Livingston.
"The town of Grangemouth is at the centre of Falkirk, East and has been noted for some time as a petrochemical town, boasting substantial production facilities for BP Oil, BP Chemicals, ICI, General-Electric Plastics, and Rhom and Haas (Scotland). My constituents are pleased at the commitment to investment by those companies, notably the £600 million investment by BP Chemicals in an ethylene cracker plant, the process technology labs of ICI and the Rhom and Haas plant upgrade. However, all is not what it once was. Harry Ewing noted the vast expansion of Grangemouth in 1971, but in 1971, when speaking about new employment, he said that the position was rapidly changing. I say without criticism of local management in Grangemouth that, in 1991–92, more than 1,000 job losses were announced in the town. Some 300 jobs have gone at the BP refinery, 250 have gone at ICI and 200 more redundancies are being sought. In addition, there were major job losses in the timber yards, which were made much of in 1971 by my predecessor."
It is sad day for the 800 who have lost their jobs today. However, both sides have been acting like stubborn mules in recent days, if not years. The owners seem to be doing all they can to get what they view as a white elephant off their books, while at the same time the workers are not prepared to take any chance in pay and conditions, fearing their own job without considering that all the jobs in the sector could be gone.
When Ineos came with what they called a survival plan, you would have thought that alarm bells would have been ringing with the workers. The fact that the plant has survived so long without a major change in conditions when others the area have had to accept such adjustments, knowing that if they didn't their job could disappear.
But the Grangemouth plants is almost a fifedom of Unite. The same union that has been at the centre of the Fallkirk Labour Party's election shenanigans. The Union appears to have been promising the workers take a stand and we'll see that everything will be alright, only to have found that Ineos were also not going to budge. it appears that the 570 jobs in the refinery are now also in danger. But with that there is also other jobs in the oil industry and possibly the ability of Scotland to actually process the oil that lies off its shore.
The last element is going to be of extremely great concern to Alex Salmond because part of the way he was going to fund an independent Scotland was through the production and processing off 'Scottish' oil within Scotland. If the Grangemouth plant were to totally close and be mothballed or decommissioned it could take years if at all to be able to get the processing of oil within Scotland up to the speed that would make it capable of supporting Scotland's economy to the extent that Salmond wants it to. If the oil is going to have to be processes and refined elsewhere that would be extra costs and less value added within Scotland causing a rather big hole in his economic plan.
Saturday, 19 October 2013
Alex Salmond and the Royal Mail
So in his speech today Alex Salmond said that after independence he would return the Royal Mail to public ownership. Now I make no apology here for being a philately geek as this is where the issues arise from what Alex has said in such a blasé manner.
First up there is the name, he would have no powers over the Royal Mail. The only postal service in the World that does not need to use the nation's name in its title is that of the United Kingdom as in 1840 they were the first to offer a universal set price postal service. Every other nation from the USA to South Sudan has to have the name of the country in its postal service name and on its stamps.
I have no qualms about Alex salmond saying he would restore a public postal service, but I do when he says that it would be the Royal Mail.
However, on the subject of a public postal service, does that mean that the franchised counters out to grocery stores or other shops in our rural communities would also be brought back into public ownership and therefore into a custom state run enterprise. You see if Alex truly means that all units of the Scottish Mail Service are to be public we cannot have rural post services run in the local shop. Nor can we have grocers delivery groceries and mail as an all in one service. You see the post service has not been entirely publicly owned for some time. Sometimes the franchised counters do not live up to expectations or occasionally the store into which they have been franchised run into difficulty. Then the Royal Mail has had to find some alternative arrangement, and this has not always been immediate, nor it is always fit for the purpose that those locals would like to expect, initially.
Then we have the matter that Alex Salmond's post service would have to operate outside of the UK. People will know that the cost of posting to the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man is the same as to the UK. But these are crown dependencies. What Alex Salmond is wanting is a fully independent Scotland within the framework of the UK.
While in the UK to post a letter up to 100g currently costs 60p first class and 50p second class. If I wanted to post something from Londonderry to Letterkenny, it would cost 88p minimum (up to 10g) but rise to £2.38 for between 90 and 100g. This is because Ireland counts as being in the EU. I know of people close to the border who have family in Northern Ireland who will order to the Northern Irish address as it is cheaper by quite some way.
Independence and the mail will have an affect on Scottish jobs.
Amazons largest fulfillment centre is in Dunfermline. But with increased mail costs to the rest of the UK will it be economically viable to keep both the one there and the one at Gourock? Probably not. So they will probably close the Gourock centre and scale down the one at Dunfermline. The same applies to other distribution networks that have based themselves in Scotland because of the space. With increased postage as shown above being quite steep for even small items the cost of distribution by mail order would mean a scaling back of these type of industries. That would mean a lot of lost jobs in the central belt where the M8, M9 and M80 triangle have prided themselves in becoming a distribution hub.
Independence would affect these jobs, these industries. Therefore is not enough for Alex Salmond to merely say that under independence theRoyal Mail will be returned to public hands. Under independence mail will cost a lot more to send outwith Scotland and that has an impact on the cost of running companies and on people's jobs.
The Royal Mail is an essential service to people all across the UK. But under independence 5.25 million of those citizens will find it has an impact on them, the work they do, keeping in touch with family and friends and maybe even their job. People in the borders will be able to get around this, they'll use the address of their family or friends in Carlisle or Berwick to order stuff from English based firms. You don't believe this. This already happens with people from the Republic ordering stuff from UK companies to their f&f in Derry/Londonderry, Newry or Enniskillen.
There are more questions that Alex and his SNP team have to answer about postal services under an independent Scotland, because this is another area where we are Better Together.
First up there is the name, he would have no powers over the Royal Mail. The only postal service in the World that does not need to use the nation's name in its title is that of the United Kingdom as in 1840 they were the first to offer a universal set price postal service. Every other nation from the USA to South Sudan has to have the name of the country in its postal service name and on its stamps.
I have no qualms about Alex salmond saying he would restore a public postal service, but I do when he says that it would be the Royal Mail.
However, on the subject of a public postal service, does that mean that the franchised counters out to grocery stores or other shops in our rural communities would also be brought back into public ownership and therefore into a custom state run enterprise. You see if Alex truly means that all units of the Scottish Mail Service are to be public we cannot have rural post services run in the local shop. Nor can we have grocers delivery groceries and mail as an all in one service. You see the post service has not been entirely publicly owned for some time. Sometimes the franchised counters do not live up to expectations or occasionally the store into which they have been franchised run into difficulty. Then the Royal Mail has had to find some alternative arrangement, and this has not always been immediate, nor it is always fit for the purpose that those locals would like to expect, initially.
Then we have the matter that Alex Salmond's post service would have to operate outside of the UK. People will know that the cost of posting to the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man is the same as to the UK. But these are crown dependencies. What Alex Salmond is wanting is a fully independent Scotland within the framework of the UK.
While in the UK to post a letter up to 100g currently costs 60p first class and 50p second class. If I wanted to post something from Londonderry to Letterkenny, it would cost 88p minimum (up to 10g) but rise to £2.38 for between 90 and 100g. This is because Ireland counts as being in the EU. I know of people close to the border who have family in Northern Ireland who will order to the Northern Irish address as it is cheaper by quite some way.
Independence and the mail will have an affect on Scottish jobs.
Amazons largest fulfillment centre is in Dunfermline. But with increased mail costs to the rest of the UK will it be economically viable to keep both the one there and the one at Gourock? Probably not. So they will probably close the Gourock centre and scale down the one at Dunfermline. The same applies to other distribution networks that have based themselves in Scotland because of the space. With increased postage as shown above being quite steep for even small items the cost of distribution by mail order would mean a scaling back of these type of industries. That would mean a lot of lost jobs in the central belt where the M8, M9 and M80 triangle have prided themselves in becoming a distribution hub.
Independence would affect these jobs, these industries. Therefore is not enough for Alex Salmond to merely say that under independence the
The Royal Mail is an essential service to people all across the UK. But under independence 5.25 million of those citizens will find it has an impact on them, the work they do, keeping in touch with family and friends and maybe even their job. People in the borders will be able to get around this, they'll use the address of their family or friends in Carlisle or Berwick to order stuff from English based firms. You don't believe this. This already happens with people from the Republic ordering stuff from UK companies to their f&f in Derry/Londonderry, Newry or Enniskillen.
There are more questions that Alex and his SNP team have to answer about postal services under an independent Scotland, because this is another area where we are Better Together.
Wednesday, 10 April 2013
To boldly fail, where no meme has failed before
When attempted to use a meme for your cause it may be better
if you check the appropriateness or not of that meme.
The Yes for Scottish Independence campaign have produced
this meme.
Only problem is that in the Star Trek cannon Scotland is not
an independent nation, indeed neither is the UK. Referring to Denise and Michael Okuda's chronology of Star Trek, indeed from 2079 Earth is
united under one government in Star Trek lore. This is the United Earth, it is not like the UN at all,
but all people are joined together under one big parliament, this also includes
Scotland. Indeed keeping the Enterprise's engines doing exactly what the c'ptain is wanting is a wee laddie from Lithgae.
In 2161 the first four planets Earth along with Vulcan,
Tellar and Andoria form the United Federation of Planets, maybe this is a bit like
the European Coal and Steel Community, a
post conflict (in this case with the Romulans) community of peoples looking to
live peacefully together.
So therefore to have a picture of a c. 2266-69
communications officer talking about Unionist propaganda when she lives happily
on United Earth and in part of the United Federation of Planets seems a little
bit bizarre. Surely it would be separatist propaganda that would cause more
concern on the Bridge of the Enterprise?
Nice try guys but you’ve probably just lost the geek, and almost certainly the Trekker, vote.
Nice try guys but you’ve probably just lost the geek, and almost certainly the Trekker, vote.
Sunday, 7 April 2013
When the Nationalists don't follow Norway's Example
I'm not saying I'm an oil expert, although I do have a degree in Economics that can help me understand both the macroeconomic and microeconomic consequences of actions. But Ian Taylor is a man who understands the oil industry. He is Chief Executive of oil and gas trader Vitol Plc.
One of the things we hear about from the Nationalissts is that post-independence the oil revenue will allow an independent Scotland to build up an oil fund like the one that Norway has been stockpiling for the last 30 plus years. Indeed Norway is often used as an example by the SNP as to how their model of Scotland will work.
However, as Taylor points out in today's Sunday Herald there is one place that the Nationalists are not following Norway and that is forecasting oil prices.
That is some gap! That is some hole in the budget for an independent Scottish economy that wants to base itself so dependently on oil revenue. That is something that doesn't need a degree in economics to tell you is going to be disasterous.
One of the things we hear about from the Nationalissts is that post-independence the oil revenue will allow an independent Scotland to build up an oil fund like the one that Norway has been stockpiling for the last 30 plus years. Indeed Norway is often used as an example by the SNP as to how their model of Scotland will work.
However, as Taylor points out in today's Sunday Herald there is one place that the Nationalists are not following Norway and that is forecasting oil prices.
"Norway, so often held up as an example, are planning on an oil price of $77 a barrel in 2014 compared to the SNP's 'cautious' estimate of $113. Make no mistake – such over-optimistic assumptions would come at a real cost.
"The cash gap between peak and trough of oil revenues in the last decade is equivalent to the entire budget of the NHS in Scotland. I ask everyone reading this to consider one question. What if the Nationalists' optimistic projections are simply wrong?"
That is some gap! That is some hole in the budget for an independent Scottish economy that wants to base itself so dependently on oil revenue. That is something that doesn't need a degree in economics to tell you is going to be disasterous.
Thursday, 21 March 2013
The countdown has finally begun
So now I know what I'll be doing on the day before my 45th Birthday.
Yes today it has been revealed that the last day that I am 44 is also going to be Referendum Day.
On the day I turned 40 I was interviewing Nick Clegg ahead of Liberal Democrat federal party conference on the day I turn 45 I shall probably be exhausted and most likely at a count. At least there is the weekend to celebrate hopefully not just my birthday and the boss's wedding anniversary (also the day after) but I trust that the people of Scotland will know that they are better together and not some separate identity.
I've yet to see what that other politician with a link to Linlithgow will do should the raison d'être of his whole political identity falls apart. At least as a Liberal Democrat while I recognise the rights of individuals to self determination, and I accept that there are some in my own party who support the independence line of this, my political identity goes beyond a decision on whether we should declare independence or not. I joined a party that was set up for fairness for all.
To build a strong economy and a fair society you need leaders who will honest and open about the situation that you are in. Sadly the SNP, even with a former energy economist as leader, believe that the price of oil can only reach its maximum potential and all will be well for an independent Scotland. Sadly Big Eck's 'long walk to freedom' has meant that he and the SNP government have taken their eyes off other things while their eyes are focused on cloud cuckoo land.
I know what it means to be liberal and that will apply no matter what the outcome in 2014, do the SNP have any idea what it means to be pro-Scottish and part of the UK if they lose on that day. The Lib Dems are already talking about what will come after when the people of Scotland speak and are determined to bring more powers to Scotland within a Federal UK, we have 545 days from now the tell the people of Scotland why that is better for them than the uncertainty of so much from going alone.
Yes today it has been revealed that the last day that I am 44 is also going to be Referendum Day.
On the day I turned 40 I was interviewing Nick Clegg ahead of Liberal Democrat federal party conference on the day I turn 45 I shall probably be exhausted and most likely at a count. At least there is the weekend to celebrate hopefully not just my birthday and the boss's wedding anniversary (also the day after) but I trust that the people of Scotland will know that they are better together and not some separate identity.
I've yet to see what that other politician with a link to Linlithgow will do should the raison d'être of his whole political identity falls apart. At least as a Liberal Democrat while I recognise the rights of individuals to self determination, and I accept that there are some in my own party who support the independence line of this, my political identity goes beyond a decision on whether we should declare independence or not. I joined a party that was set up for fairness for all.
To build a strong economy and a fair society you need leaders who will honest and open about the situation that you are in. Sadly the SNP, even with a former energy economist as leader, believe that the price of oil can only reach its maximum potential and all will be well for an independent Scotland. Sadly Big Eck's 'long walk to freedom' has meant that he and the SNP government have taken their eyes off other things while their eyes are focused on cloud cuckoo land.
I know what it means to be liberal and that will apply no matter what the outcome in 2014, do the SNP have any idea what it means to be pro-Scottish and part of the UK if they lose on that day. The Lib Dems are already talking about what will come after when the people of Scotland speak and are determined to bring more powers to Scotland within a Federal UK, we have 545 days from now the tell the people of Scotland why that is better for them than the uncertainty of so much from going alone.
Wednesday, 30 January 2013
So the Question is...
Should Scotland be an independent nation?
Yes or No
Yes the phrasing that the SNP wanted "Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?" was ruled by the electoral commission as possibly leading and not neutral. So the shorter more neutral question above is now the one that Nicola Sturgeon has agreed that she will recommend is adopted for the referendum.
Scottish Electoral Commissioner John McCormick commenting on the issue of the all important question said he wanted voters to have confidence in the result of the referendum. Adding:
"We have rigorously tested the proposed question, speaking to a wide range of people across Scotland.
"Any referendum question must be, and be seen to be, neutral. People told us that they felt the words 'Do you agree' could lead voters towards voting 'yes'."
The Electoral Commission have also agreed that the spending limits for the Yes Scotland and Better Together campaigns also be increased from £750,000 to £1.5m. While the caps placed on political parties spending on this issue remains as it was.
So now that the people of Scotland know what will asked of them at some point in 2014, it is on with telling them what the consequences of those decisions means.
Sunday, 27 January 2013
A no vote is not always vacuous
Nicola Sturgeon in this morning's Scotland on Sunday
says that a no vote in next year's referendum on Scottish Independence
is a vote for nothing. This is rather big seeing as the SNP have yet to
secure an Independent Scotland's future within Europe and to answer some
leading questions on military, support for the arts, culture and
leisure (currently covered by the national lottery) and other issues
that severance with the rest of the UK would bring about.
Of course she pulls the line of toeing the line to Westminster Austerity cuts, has she forgotten that Scotland two banks and largest Building Society received bail outs from that same Westminster? Has she ever wondered what state Scotland would have been in had they not had the support of Westminster at that time? Maybe she should look at Greece and what is required there. Part of the reason that some of these cuts are required is because of the state that the Scottish financial institutions got us into, not all, but a sizable chunk.
Of course there are many who believe that a vote to stay within the UK is in the best interests of Scots, there is the economy of scales questions of trans-British industry, there is security in a economy that despite the recession is still recognised world wide as a leader, there is certainty in freedom of trade and movement within Europe (yes even though David is promising a referendum on that in 2016).
You see what Nicola is forgetting to factor in is that the people of Scotland voted for a devolved Scottish Parliament within the UK. They also voted for tax raising powers with flexibility within parameters from the UK, powers that have yet to be exercised by any party in power in Scotland. So with the ability to do certain things differently that have not been exercised and others that have being taken, just what is this nothing that Nicola is talking about. Student fees, care for the elderly, prescription charges etc are all different in Scotland than in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. That is hardly a nothing decision.
The other three main parties in Scotland all promised in the past to look at increasing powers for Holyrood, some may have taken a step back from that. However, the reason that this is on the back burner is because of the SNP insistence of taking this to a referendum and the decision to make it a single issue question of being part of the Union or not. The fact that parties like the Scottish Liberal Democrats do not want to muddy the waters does not mean that there will not be any further powers handed to Holyrood it is just that this is not something that theexecutive
Government in Scotland are pursuing. You see it is Nicola and her SNP
colleagues who are playing high stakes poker. They have gone all in on
one hand, for them it is independence or bust. There is no get out,
indeed there is no detail in what an independent Scotland will be,
although Alex Salmond seems more that content to be dictator in chief,
referee and player in his own referendum to anoint himself and his heirs
and kings of Scotland thereafter.
Voting for the status quo is not always a vote for nothing, it can be a vote for stability as opposed to calamity. It can be a vote for prosperity as opposed to doom. Just because people do not want change does not mean that change is good or better. Until you can convince people that change is better for people they will vote for what they know.
The fact that the SNP are trying to scare people into saying a vote to stay in the UK is vacuous only goes to show that they have no real plan for the future. They have yet to convince me that Scotland is better apart from the UK, which is why I say we are Better Together, if I were to have a vote in the referendum I would be voting "No".
Of course she pulls the line of toeing the line to Westminster Austerity cuts, has she forgotten that Scotland two banks and largest Building Society received bail outs from that same Westminster? Has she ever wondered what state Scotland would have been in had they not had the support of Westminster at that time? Maybe she should look at Greece and what is required there. Part of the reason that some of these cuts are required is because of the state that the Scottish financial institutions got us into, not all, but a sizable chunk.
Of course there are many who believe that a vote to stay within the UK is in the best interests of Scots, there is the economy of scales questions of trans-British industry, there is security in a economy that despite the recession is still recognised world wide as a leader, there is certainty in freedom of trade and movement within Europe (yes even though David is promising a referendum on that in 2016).
You see what Nicola is forgetting to factor in is that the people of Scotland voted for a devolved Scottish Parliament within the UK. They also voted for tax raising powers with flexibility within parameters from the UK, powers that have yet to be exercised by any party in power in Scotland. So with the ability to do certain things differently that have not been exercised and others that have being taken, just what is this nothing that Nicola is talking about. Student fees, care for the elderly, prescription charges etc are all different in Scotland than in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. That is hardly a nothing decision.
The other three main parties in Scotland all promised in the past to look at increasing powers for Holyrood, some may have taken a step back from that. However, the reason that this is on the back burner is because of the SNP insistence of taking this to a referendum and the decision to make it a single issue question of being part of the Union or not. The fact that parties like the Scottish Liberal Democrats do not want to muddy the waters does not mean that there will not be any further powers handed to Holyrood it is just that this is not something that the
Voting for the status quo is not always a vote for nothing, it can be a vote for stability as opposed to calamity. It can be a vote for prosperity as opposed to doom. Just because people do not want change does not mean that change is good or better. Until you can convince people that change is better for people they will vote for what they know.
The fact that the SNP are trying to scare people into saying a vote to stay in the UK is vacuous only goes to show that they have no real plan for the future. They have yet to convince me that Scotland is better apart from the UK, which is why I say we are Better Together, if I were to have a vote in the referendum I would be voting "No".
Monday, 25 June 2012
BSD better buck up their online strategy
I was rather horrified earlier to read this line from the Daily Telegraph coverage of the Better Together (campaign against Scottish Independence) launch today.
The reason being that throughout most of the Yes to AV campaign whenever Blue State Digital were mentioned it was often followed by the phrase "forgive me for swearing".
I have no doubt that they are very good at running US nationwide campaigns but when it came down to the dynamics of the recent yes campaign they failed miserably to adjust to the requirements of UK based campaigns. Indeed throughout the whole campaign despite me mentioning it from when I first got sight of their software it was impossible to search using any Northern Irish postcode. This is a common enough error in a lot of postcode based software, but one that I always checked on updates of the software I've used in any job that requires it.
But it was worse than that. Trying to develop delivery walks, or even to access the data to make the telephone campaign was incredibly difficult and took far too long to sort out when the issues were raised. Indeed issues were usually within hours of the latest update and took weeks to rectify if at all.
Therefore to have them oversee the online strategy terrifies me. I'm hoping the chain to get stuff updated online isn't as cumbersome as the Yes 2 AV leadership made things. I hope that rebuttals can get out there swiftly when need and leading the debate rather than constantly rebutting is the name of the game, taking Alex Salmond into areas that he isn't willing to have looked at too closely should be the battle ground.
For example over the weekend Joan McAlpine claimed "Scotland's future should be in Scotland's hands. We have 8.4% of UK population but contribute 9.6% of UK taxes." so in other words being part of the UK makes Scotland better off than the rest. So how is this plus the giving back with the Barnett formula of more per capita a keeping down of the Scots?
"The campaign has brought in Blue State Digital, the US political experts who ran President Barack Obama's web campaigns, to build a website and oversee its online strategy."
The reason being that throughout most of the Yes to AV campaign whenever Blue State Digital were mentioned it was often followed by the phrase "forgive me for swearing".
I have no doubt that they are very good at running US nationwide campaigns but when it came down to the dynamics of the recent yes campaign they failed miserably to adjust to the requirements of UK based campaigns. Indeed throughout the whole campaign despite me mentioning it from when I first got sight of their software it was impossible to search using any Northern Irish postcode. This is a common enough error in a lot of postcode based software, but one that I always checked on updates of the software I've used in any job that requires it.
But it was worse than that. Trying to develop delivery walks, or even to access the data to make the telephone campaign was incredibly difficult and took far too long to sort out when the issues were raised. Indeed issues were usually within hours of the latest update and took weeks to rectify if at all.
Therefore to have them oversee the online strategy terrifies me. I'm hoping the chain to get stuff updated online isn't as cumbersome as the Yes 2 AV leadership made things. I hope that rebuttals can get out there swiftly when need and leading the debate rather than constantly rebutting is the name of the game, taking Alex Salmond into areas that he isn't willing to have looked at too closely should be the battle ground.
For example over the weekend Joan McAlpine claimed "Scotland's future should be in Scotland's hands. We have 8.4% of UK population but contribute 9.6% of UK taxes." so in other words being part of the UK makes Scotland better off than the rest. So how is this plus the giving back with the Barnett formula of more per capita a keeping down of the Scots?
Friday, 25 May 2012
Donald where's yer towel mon?
They also as she points out launched it on Towel Day.
Clearly they missed a trick, they needed someone like the guy on the left to really launch it in style today, instead of in some dingy cinema with a whole pile of men talking at us.
Although one phrase that I did hear on the news about the launch was that Salmond had come to a launch without any clear policy. Yes that is how the BBC reported it nationally. Of course wanting a referendum is one thing, but what you are going do once you have it is another think.
When the SNP started talking about it in the 1970s they wanted a republic, a new Scottish currency, but most of all they wanted their hands on North Sea oil which had been recently discovered. Now they seem to want to keep Elizabeth as Queen of Scots, keep the pound as it is far cheaper for them than having to set up a Scottish Central Bank. They also seem to not be too sure what they are wanting to happen to Scottish troops, or air bases, they appear to want to keep them all as they are, with one exception the nuclear base at Faslane.
The G8 of course are also meeting at the discuss the small matter of some of the small nations that Alex Salmond talked about holding their own in this world. We know that Spain a somewhat bigger nation that Scotland more or less equivalent to the size of the whole UK, is in difficulties. But he seems to ignore the fact that Scotland's banks were themselves bailed out and will still be working to pay that back come 2014.
No doubt over the next 2 years we'll learn more about just how dependent this independence will be, but for now for Towel Day a little gratuitous chest nudity of what appears to be a white man seems to be in order, even if Alex has missed a trick for the ladies and gay Scotsmen there.
Wednesday, 7 March 2012
So Joan McAlpine on the issue of trust with finances
Whatever your views on the abusive husband comments in Joan McAlpine's comments in yesterday's Daily Record lets us bear in mind she also said using the analogy of Westminster as the husband and Scotland as the wife:
and
Let us not forget something.
In 1998 in the referendum for devolution there was a second question about varying tax raising powers, the people of Scotland said yes. So surely a sign of trust in dealing with their own finances.
The Calman Commission of the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrats you so despise wanted to trust Scotland further with tax raising powers.
And the Lib Dems even have a policy of fiscal autonomy for Scotland.
However, it was the SNP Government who failed to keep up payments to HRMC to enable the tax varying powers option to be maintained in 2010 and there is now a three year suspension on those powers.
So just how capable have the SNP been at running financial options for Scotland thus far?
But the husband complains she can't be trusted to manage her own money.
and
We could do much better with power over the economy, taxes and benefits. Scotland is as capable of running her own finances as England.
Let us not forget something.
In 1998 in the referendum for devolution there was a second question about varying tax raising powers, the people of Scotland said yes. So surely a sign of trust in dealing with their own finances.
The Calman Commission of the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrats you so despise wanted to trust Scotland further with tax raising powers.
And the Lib Dems even have a policy of fiscal autonomy for Scotland.
However, it was the SNP Government who failed to keep up payments to HRMC to enable the tax varying powers option to be maintained in 2010 and there is now a three year suspension on those powers.
So just how capable have the SNP been at running financial options for Scotland thus far?
Sunday, 4 March 2012
SNP need precision in what Act of Union entails
So the SNP don't want the words United Kingdom to be used in the referendum question.
They argue that:
The United Kingdom as a term came into being and usage in 1801, with the Acts of Union
The United Kingdom first became the name of the Country in 1800, when the Kingdom of Ireland joined the Kingdom of Great Britain.
The Kingdom of Great Britain itself only came into being in 1707 following the Act of Union, that is the political union. Before that from 1603 when James VI of Scotland inherited the crown of England through his grandmother being the sister of Henry VIII, it was a personal Union of the Crowns of England and Scotland. They were still known as the Kingdom of England and Kingdom of Scotland. This is why both King James are known by both their regnal numbers; James I of England and VI of Scots and James II of England and VII of Scots.
So as always the SNP a forgetting that there three crowns, or parts thereof that pledge fealty to their crowns, the term United Kingdom did come about as as aspect of the political union, not just the Parliament of (then) Great Britain. Those two are actually entwined in legislation. The Parliament of Scotland could in effect remove the protestant inheritance rights from the Princess Sophia Electress and Dowager Duchess of Hanover.
They actually are by wanting to tear up the Act of Union tearing up the United Kingdom. Her Majesty would therefore, if they were successful, become Queen Elizabeth II of England and Northern Ireland and I of Scots as she would return to being Queen of England and loyal parts of Ireland one one hand and Queen of Scots of the other.
They argue that:
"We have been preparing for independence fo 75 years and we have our backs covered on all issues. It is about breaking up the political union, not the Union of the Crowns."There is however a small issue to be considered; that of language.
The United Kingdom as a term came into being and usage in 1801, with the Acts of Union
The United Kingdom first became the name of the Country in 1800, when the Kingdom of Ireland joined the Kingdom of Great Britain.
"That it be the First Article of the Union of the kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland, that the said kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland shall, upon the first day of January which shall be in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and one, and for ever after, be united into one kingdom, by the name of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and that the royal stile and titles appertaining to the imperial crown of the said United Kingdom and its dependencies, and also the ensigns, armorial flags and banners thereof, shall be such as his Majesty, by his royal proclamation under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom, shall be pleased to appoint." from the Union with Ireland Act 1800
The Kingdom of Great Britain itself only came into being in 1707 following the Act of Union, that is the political union. Before that from 1603 when James VI of Scotland inherited the crown of England through his grandmother being the sister of Henry VIII, it was a personal Union of the Crowns of England and Scotland. They were still known as the Kingdom of England and Kingdom of Scotland. This is why both King James are known by both their regnal numbers; James I of England and VI of Scots and James II of England and VII of Scots.
"The Two Kingdoms of Scotland and England shall upon the first day of May next [1707] ensuing the date hereof and forever after be United into One Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain. And that the Ensigns Armorial of the said United Kingdom be such as Her Majesty shall appoint and the Crossed of St. Andrew and St. George be conjoined in such a manner as Her Majesty shall think fit and used in all Flags, Banners, Standards and Ensigns both at Sea and Land" from the Act of Union 1707
So as always the SNP a forgetting that there three crowns, or parts thereof that pledge fealty to their crowns, the term United Kingdom did come about as as aspect of the political union, not just the Parliament of (then) Great Britain. Those two are actually entwined in legislation. The Parliament of Scotland could in effect remove the protestant inheritance rights from the Princess Sophia Electress and Dowager Duchess of Hanover.
They actually are by wanting to tear up the Act of Union tearing up the United Kingdom. Her Majesty would therefore, if they were successful, become Queen Elizabeth II of England and Northern Ireland and I of Scots as she would return to being Queen of England and loyal parts of Ireland one one hand and Queen of Scots of the other.
Wednesday, 25 January 2012
What Alex Salmond said?
The best way to look at the emphasis of what Alex Salmond said as he launched his bid for a referendum on Scottish independence is through this Wordle.
In all that is 2312 words during which he said some of the keys ones this many times:
There can be no confusion as to the extent of that question. There would be no need for a follow up question is the question had been the convoluted, "Do you want the Scottish Parliament to open negotiations to lead towards an Independent Scotland" which at one point was muted.
If that is the question so be it. That question is clear. It is a straight yes/no. It is not confused by an option of devolution max, which though my preferred option is not one that is being offered at this time. Therefore I think the Secretary of State for Scotland should allow that question to be put to the people, the Electoral Commission will be running the practical side of the referendum. Let's get the Scottish and Westminster Parliaments around a table to discuss the niggling issues.
Game on.
In all that is 2312 words during which he said some of the keys ones this many times:
- Scotland 39
- referendum 32
- people 25
- Parliament 16
- government 15 (of which UK 5, Scottish 4)
- Scottish 13
- independence 12
- country 12
- question 10
- consultation 9
- UK 7
- Burns 6
- fair 5
- Electoral Commission
- Union 3 (One the 1707 Union, one European Union and one a new social union)
- legal challenge 1
- mandate 1
One of those words above I highlighted was question. In his speech he has outlined what he wants the question to be. It is a very simple non-ambiguous question:
"Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?"
If that is the question so be it. That question is clear. It is a straight yes/no. It is not confused by an option of devolution max, which though my preferred option is not one that is being offered at this time. Therefore I think the Secretary of State for Scotland should allow that question to be put to the people, the Electoral Commission will be running the practical side of the referendum. Let's get the Scottish and Westminster Parliaments around a table to discuss the niggling issues.
Game on.
Sunday, 22 January 2012
Not even Salmond expects the Spanish Inqusition
The latest obstacle to Alex Salmond's vision of an independent Scotland within Europe comes from a rather unexpected source: Spain.
They have indicated that they would veto accession of an independent Scotland into the EU. The separation of other European states is something that Spain in the past has taken a dim view on, they have refused to recognise Kosovo as an independent state.
The Spaniards have real fear that a peaceful split in the United Kingdoms 300+ year Parliamentary union could lead to increased calls from the Basque and Catalonia regions for independence. The Basque region in particular has only recently ceased to be an internal terrorism threat, with Eta calling its ceasefire on 20 October of last year. The fear is that even though Scotland might head into a peaceful settlement, if Spain refuse to allow the same for these two regions the violence could return.
They have indicated that they would veto accession of an independent Scotland into the EU. The separation of other European states is something that Spain in the past has taken a dim view on, they have refused to recognise Kosovo as an independent state.
The Spaniards have real fear that a peaceful split in the United Kingdoms 300+ year Parliamentary union could lead to increased calls from the Basque and Catalonia regions for independence. The Basque region in particular has only recently ceased to be an internal terrorism threat, with Eta calling its ceasefire on 20 October of last year. The fear is that even though Scotland might head into a peaceful settlement, if Spain refuse to allow the same for these two regions the violence could return.
Already they are facing demands for a stronger financial deal from the Catalan premier Artur Mas, based on the Scottish agreement with London and the threat of the splits.
Of course Alex Salmond has a number of things that he is relying on for his vision of independence, one is that he will retain the Monarchy, though there are rival claimants for the Scottish throne that may seen the Jacobites return for a claim. The other is that the Parliament in Scotland has, in his opinion, the right to call the referendum itslef, despite this power NOT being devolved from Westminster. central bank will still be the Bank of England and they will still use Sterling. And of course his determination that Scotland will remain in the EU.
The reaction of the Spanish however, puts another kibosh on Salmond's plans. But no doubt he will continue to bluster on through despite this.
For those of you, like Tom Elliott from earlier this week, bluster from Salmond is the default position for the SNP to attempt to get their way.There was bluster about centralising a Local Income Tax rate in Holyrood, that is until it was found that his Government had defaulted on the payments to Her Majesty's Revenues and Customs that allowed Scotland to alter Income Tax by up to 3% from the UK rate. There was bluster to get a Council Tax freeze in the Concordat with promises to provide for the shortfall centrally which while the first has been observed the second is certainly selective in its effectiveness and many councils are making cuts to keep key services going.
The reaction of the Spanish however, puts another kibosh on Salmond's plans. But no doubt he will continue to bluster on through despite this.
For those of you, like Tom Elliott from earlier this week, bluster from Salmond is the default position for the SNP to attempt to get their way.There was bluster about centralising a Local Income Tax rate in Holyrood, that is until it was found that his Government had defaulted on the payments to Her Majesty's Revenues and Customs that allowed Scotland to alter Income Tax by up to 3% from the UK rate. There was bluster to get a Council Tax freeze in the Concordat with promises to provide for the shortfall centrally which while the first has been observed the second is certainly selective in its effectiveness and many councils are making cuts to keep key services going.
Thursday, 19 January 2012
SNP MP claims to be an Unionist
Watson: How can MacNeill claim to be a unionist when he is of Nationalist stock?
Holmes: It's 1603, my dear Watson.
Angus MacNeill, the SNP MP for Na h-Eileanan an Iar, has just appeared on BBC Northern Ireland's Hearts and Minds [link to iPlayer from this point] claiming to be a Unionist!
The thing is that the tactic that he was using was which version of the Union was his opponent in debate, the UUP leader Tom Elliott, referring to. He kept going back to it as Elliott tried to mention that the United Kingdom was stronger under the European Union (throwing another union into the mix shows how poor a debater Elliott is). So my Scottish friends beware!
Having worked on the referendum for the yes to AV campaign one thing that the No team did was to try and confuse and complex the issues. Something that MacNeill was trying to do to a clearly unprepared and unaware Elliot and presenter Noel Thompson. Yes there are a number of Unions involved the Union of the Crowns (of England and Scotland) in 1603, the Act of Union 1707, which did away with the separate states and parliaments under the same crown, there are of course the Acts of Union of 1800 that united Ireland into that Kingdom. There is also the Statue of Rhuddlan from 1284 which effectively binds Wales to England.
MacNeill was using the confusion which anyone who hasn't spent time with the SNP could easily fall into distracting the debate away from the issues to Northern Ireland as a result of Scottish independence by trying to tie Northern Irish unionists up by their understanding of what the Union is. The thing is of course there are different views of what the union is for amongst unionists. There is the Northern Irish viewpoint. There is one largely shared by Conservatives and Labour, then there is a different one that Liberal Democrats hold. Other parties such as UKIP hold other opinions as well.
Was MacNeill trying a line of attack on a show in Belfast this evening that may eventually get used in Glasgow and Edinburgh? One that accentuates differences in what the union means to various people who support it to pull the union apart? Is claiming to be a 1603 unionist a cunning plot to assuage people that Scottish Nationalists are going to change things that much. Though look at their continuing vision to centralise with the police and fire services bill publication today.
I think we are well aware that the SNP are not going to play by the rules that currently exist, because each time they get knocked back it becomes one more trophy for them to parade about a repressive Westminster. Now it looks like they may also be trying to confuse people by just what union we're all talking about. They may have launched a divide and conquer approach tonight, to try and win through.
Monday, 30 November 2009
Stealth Unmasked from Within and Without
If you go down to the 'Rood# today, you'd better go not in disguise
If you go down to the 'Rood today, you'll not get a big surprise
For every Nat* that ever there was
Is gathered there this morning because
Today's the day the SNP launch their stealth bomb.
I say stealth bomb as this is basically what Independent Nationalist MSP Margo MacDonald called the SNP's tactics with the Referendum Bill, launched today on St. Andrew's Day. Indeed from someone who has supported independence for Scotland all her political career, she was quite scathing in Saturday's Times about the whole scenario, calling it 'half-baked' and saying she would only vote for it through gritted teeth.
She went further by saying:
"I will hate the Referendum Bill because the strategy and tactics which have gone along with it have been so wrong.
"The SNP have failed to make the case for independence; they thought we would get there by stealth. What we are asking the Scottish people to do is not a stealthy thing, it is a big bold brave thing."
Of course getting on the bus this morning, there is news breaking that another Nat blogger has been exposed, this time Universality of Cheese.It is not often that the Blogosphere dominates the front page of any newspaper and then has a two page spread inside. But as the blogger in question, was apparently working for Mike Russell, the veil of anonymity to launch potentially libellous slurs is similar to the Draper-Gate scenario that hit Labour earlier this year. However, I don't think there is going to be anyway to totally control all cyber contributors to the political debate.
As Jeff was quoted as saying across the MSM:
"My personal belief is, as mentioned in my previous post, blogs and new media are overall a good thing, potentially a great thing, and if you believe what you’re writing is true, fair and can be backed up then go for it but if you’re indulging in rants and venting untapped rage behind a pseudonym, then maybe you should think about another hobby."
There is a certain grain of truth and commonsense about that. Looking across the main Lib Dem blogs not only in Scotland but also the whole UK, there are less
pseudonym's in use. There is less hiding and the words are easily traceable to an individual. There are still rants on such blogs but they do tend to be more carefully structured. The anger that is expressed from being a known entity is still there on occasion but is grounded in fact, stating your case through argument of the case rather than creating fictitious attacks. The end result of course is that people who comment also realise they have to win the argument in such a way rather than creating a rant.
The question is are the SNP attempted to rule by stealth? A strange position for a ruling party to take. Surely stealth is more a position for the losing side, Guerrilla warfare etc. Labour were losing the argument so thought that Draper and McBride's stealth in the cyber-war would work. The SNP may have kept up their cyber stealth campaign since taking office, but also seem to be doing it in Government. Margo MacDonald doesn't like the tactics employed, indeed she is echoing the sentiments of Tavish Scott about this Bill being a backdoor stealthy approach to Independence.
Is Alex Salmond really running scared? Surely Bute House isn't some cave in Tora Bora?
# Truncation of Holyrood.
*Not Cyber.
Sunday, 1 November 2009
SNP Want's Scots to Waive Their Rights to Determine Their Future
The SNP released a press release last night. It quotes MSP Dr Alasdair Allan who said:
So here's a question why don't the SNP want the people of Scotland to have their say? They want to ask a question of the people which says:
Look at that carefully. They are going to let the UK Parliament have a say in what future Scotland has. They want to negotiate a settlement with the UK Parliament. They are not actually backing the people of Scotland having a say on the constitutional future of Scotland.
There is no blueprint for what that future holds, that decision is to be discussed between the Scottish and Westminster Parliaments. The people of Scotland are actually be asked do they agree to waive their rights over the constitutional future of their country into the hands of the politicians.
So why aren't the SNP even a party that is prepared to let the people of Scotland have their say on the constitutional future of Scotland?
I've already stated I'd welcome a referendum of substance, that is something the Lib Dems have not ruled out, but it is something the SNP are scared to give the people.
"All parties must endorse the right of the people of Scotland to have their say on Scotland’s constitutional future."
So here's a question why don't the SNP want the people of Scotland to have their say? They want to ask a question of the people which says:
"I agree that the Scottish Government should negotiate a settlement with the Government of the United Kingdom so that Scotland becomes an independent state."
Look at that carefully. They are going to let the UK Parliament have a say in what future Scotland has. They want to negotiate a settlement with the UK Parliament. They are not actually backing the people of Scotland having a say on the constitutional future of Scotland.
There is no blueprint for what that future holds, that decision is to be discussed between the Scottish and Westminster Parliaments. The people of Scotland are actually be asked do they agree to waive their rights over the constitutional future of their country into the hands of the politicians.
So why aren't the SNP even a party that is prepared to let the people of Scotland have their say on the constitutional future of Scotland?
I've already stated I'd welcome a referendum of substance, that is something the Lib Dems have not ruled out, but it is something the SNP are scared to give the people.
When No Doesn't Quite Mean No
Hardly surprising I see that SNP Tactical Voting is getting all Steamie about what has been reported about yesterday's end of day consultation session at the Lib Dem conference. I see the BBC, along with other media is giving only part of the story on the debate that went on earlier today.
I guess it is easy journalistic shorthand to simply write that the Lib Dems are opposed to a referendum on the subject of independence. Actually what came out of yesterday was that that the party was opposed to this particular referendum. Let's look at the specifics.
The SNP plans was to introduce the Referendum Bill to the Scottish Parliament on 25th January 2010, to provide for a on 30th November that year. For anyone not familiar with the Scottish calender this is Burn's Night and St. Andrew's Day respectively, so there was talk about using emotive dates to try and swing this a certain way, or indeed to hijack even more of Scotland for their means.
There was also the fact of the referendum themselves. Up until 2007 a referendum on independence didn't even feature as a means for the SNP to determine the will of the Scottish people. They aim to get to the goal of indepedence was to have the majority of Scottish MPs or MSPs. They have clearly failed in what has been the aim for 73 years of their existence.
Then there is the question itself:
Now the last time I took place in a referendum there was a document setting out what we were voting on, it was called The Agreement it had been signed on Good Friday. It wasn't a call to enter negotiations into something, it had come after a lot of wrangling, disputes and negotiation to come up with something. So Salmond's Bill isn't a referendum on Independence but a referendum to whether or not to enter negotiations with Westminster. Alex Salmond isn't prepared to enter those negotiations himself, because he knows he isn't ready, isn't in a position of enough power to do so. He wants to take a gradualist approach towards independence from his position of 33% of the vote and 25% in favour of Independence.
Which leads to one thing that was discussed and did come out yesterday. The Lib Dems would back a referendum. A referendum that was clear in its intent Alex Salmond keeps changing what Independence means, do we keep the Queen or not, the army or not, the Bank of England or not, and if we do keep the Old Lady of Threadneddle Street do they set our interest rate. It also shouldn't wrapped in the Saltire, wearing a kilt and printed on a shortbread tin. Well it may as well with the programme for introduction and implementation suggested. Multiple options is a no-go area it should be a yes know.
The press had also foretold it was going to be a spilt. Whilst in a party that is used to discussing hot topics in a grown up fashion, and indeed had seen some very strong debates, very many points of order and points of information to get it through the numerous votes yesterday. What came out was a listening to each others points of views, I'm know that many of the 30+ people who got called to speak were redrafting up to the point that they got called, as many referred back to previous contributions, some even the one who had just taken their seat.
Jeff also seems to suggest in his Steamie article that the Greens have given their backing to the SNPs Bill on Independence. Poor them for being misled, actually if you look at some of the example above it looks more like the SNP is actually a party of Gradualism or maybe even leaning towards Federalism than Nationalism. So maybe the Lib Dems should be encouraging the SNP to join us nationally across the UK to achieve a Federalist Scotland in a Federalist UK. It appears that Alex is prepared to go for strong Scottish Home Rule within some of the confines of the UK. You know something us Lib Dems and the Liberals before us have wanted that for over 100 years.
One thing that the SNP have to learn about Federalism though is that powers are devolved down to the appropriate level. Therefore they have to stop grabbing powers from council level and taking them hostage, like some poor unsuspecting ship anywhere near Somalian water, and hole those powers up in Holyrood. Yes I'm talking about the powers to set their own local taxation at a rate that is appropriate, even if that is a fairer system of local taxation like LIT. Yes that means giving them some leniency in how they should spend what they are given. The SNP are actually exercising more central control than Labour ever dared to take, even in the bad old days of the late 70s.
I guess it is easy journalistic shorthand to simply write that the Lib Dems are opposed to a referendum on the subject of independence. Actually what came out of yesterday was that that the party was opposed to this particular referendum. Let's look at the specifics.
The SNP plans was to introduce the Referendum Bill to the Scottish Parliament on 25th January 2010, to provide for a on 30th November that year. For anyone not familiar with the Scottish calender this is Burn's Night and St. Andrew's Day respectively, so there was talk about using emotive dates to try and swing this a certain way, or indeed to hijack even more of Scotland for their means.
There was also the fact of the referendum themselves. Up until 2007 a referendum on independence didn't even feature as a means for the SNP to determine the will of the Scottish people. They aim to get to the goal of indepedence was to have the majority of Scottish MPs or MSPs. They have clearly failed in what has been the aim for 73 years of their existence.
Then there is the question itself:
"I agree that the Scottish Government should negotiate a settlement with the Government of the UK so that Scotland become an independent state."
Now the last time I took place in a referendum there was a document setting out what we were voting on, it was called The Agreement it had been signed on Good Friday. It wasn't a call to enter negotiations into something, it had come after a lot of wrangling, disputes and negotiation to come up with something. So Salmond's Bill isn't a referendum on Independence but a referendum to whether or not to enter negotiations with Westminster. Alex Salmond isn't prepared to enter those negotiations himself, because he knows he isn't ready, isn't in a position of enough power to do so. He wants to take a gradualist approach towards independence from his position of 33% of the vote and 25% in favour of Independence.
Which leads to one thing that was discussed and did come out yesterday. The Lib Dems would back a referendum. A referendum that was clear in its intent Alex Salmond keeps changing what Independence means, do we keep the Queen or not, the army or not, the Bank of England or not, and if we do keep the Old Lady of Threadneddle Street do they set our interest rate. It also shouldn't wrapped in the Saltire, wearing a kilt and printed on a shortbread tin. Well it may as well with the programme for introduction and implementation suggested. Multiple options is a no-go area it should be a yes know.
The press had also foretold it was going to be a spilt. Whilst in a party that is used to discussing hot topics in a grown up fashion, and indeed had seen some very strong debates, very many points of order and points of information to get it through the numerous votes yesterday. What came out was a listening to each others points of views, I'm know that many of the 30+ people who got called to speak were redrafting up to the point that they got called, as many referred back to previous contributions, some even the one who had just taken their seat.
Jeff also seems to suggest in his Steamie article that the Greens have given their backing to the SNPs Bill on Independence. Poor them for being misled, actually if you look at some of the example above it looks more like the SNP is actually a party of Gradualism or maybe even leaning towards Federalism than Nationalism. So maybe the Lib Dems should be encouraging the SNP to join us nationally across the UK to achieve a Federalist Scotland in a Federalist UK. It appears that Alex is prepared to go for strong Scottish Home Rule within some of the confines of the UK. You know something us Lib Dems and the Liberals before us have wanted that for over 100 years.
One thing that the SNP have to learn about Federalism though is that powers are devolved down to the appropriate level. Therefore they have to stop grabbing powers from council level and taking them hostage, like some poor unsuspecting ship anywhere near Somalian water, and hole those powers up in Holyrood. Yes I'm talking about the powers to set their own local taxation at a rate that is appropriate, even if that is a fairer system of local taxation like LIT. Yes that means giving them some leniency in how they should spend what they are given. The SNP are actually exercising more central control than Labour ever dared to take, even in the bad old days of the late 70s.
Saturday, 31 October 2009
Heading Over the River for Failed Rebellion....Apparently
According to the Times some senior members of my own party view me as being in a minority of 'referendum rebels'. They are saying in the press that to change the party stance on a Referendum for Independence is a 'betrayal of those who voted for the party in the 2007 Scottish election'. Interesting choice of words ahead of events in Dunfermline later.
Strange that on the day that we are discussing the party's constitution and making line by line changes to parts of it one phrase from the preamble sticks out that the 2007 election pledge is actually a betrayal to our constitution.
Of course the next line goes on to say that:
As Alistair Carmichael says:
Of course and this is the point I argued back in 2006. If we had taken courage in our convictions that Scotland is better with a stronger parliament but within the UK we should have made sure that was asked of the people, either before 2007 or by getting involved with the SNP working on what we agree with and forming the words of their referendum White Paper so that it was not rigged. Giving the people the right to determine their own future is what we stand for.
In my opinion, and sadly many who may vote for us, what 2007 was a betrayal of was our party's constitution and the name Democrat that exists in our title. Calling those of this view a minority of rebels may prove dangerous, it often is a sign that the leadership is actually quite scared that they are losing the argument.
Strange that on the day that we are discussing the party's constitution and making line by line changes to parts of it one phrase from the preamble sticks out that the 2007 election pledge is actually a betrayal to our constitution.
"We [the Scottish Liberal Democrats] believe that sovereignty rests with the people and that authority in a democracy derives from them. We therefore acknowledge their right to determine the form of government best suited to their needs."
Of course the next line goes on to say that:
"We commit ourselves to the promotion of these aims and beliefs in the Scottish and UK Parliaments."
As Alistair Carmichael says:
"These discussions are not abstract or academic. They are a hard political choice for the party. Do we support Alex Salmond’s rigged referendum or do we keep faith with those voters to whom we gave a very clear commitment at the 2007 Scottish elections?"
Of course and this is the point I argued back in 2006. If we had taken courage in our convictions that Scotland is better with a stronger parliament but within the UK we should have made sure that was asked of the people, either before 2007 or by getting involved with the SNP working on what we agree with and forming the words of their referendum White Paper so that it was not rigged. Giving the people the right to determine their own future is what we stand for.
In my opinion, and sadly many who may vote for us, what 2007 was a betrayal of was our party's constitution and the name Democrat that exists in our title. Calling those of this view a minority of rebels may prove dangerous, it often is a sign that the leadership is actually quite scared that they are losing the argument.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)